Peter MacKay

[Questions on the Order Paper, March 12th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, Military supply chains are among the most complex in the world. In order to adapt to an environment of constant change, continuous improvement is an integral part of military supply chain management. Discussions are held between stakeholders on an ongoing basis to review the performance of the supply chain and its ability to respond to change in a timely manner. Risks and opportunities for improvement are identified and ongoing in areas such as inventory visibility, inventory velocity, and integration of both financial and materiel accountabilities.

[Questions on the Order Paper, March 12th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, in response to (a), the Kapyong Barracks site does not contain homes. The adjacent Winnipeg South Housing site has 110 vacant homes and is intended for transfer to Canada Lands Company.

In response to (b), 17 homes are vacant at the decommissioned military base in Jericho Beach, British Columbia, and 430 homes are vacant at the Rockcliffe site in Ottawa, Ontario.

There are also other sites that do not fit the Department of National Defence’s definition of decommissioned military bases; however, the sites are surplus to National Defence requirements and contain vacant homes. These sites include: Winnipeg South Housing site, Winnipeg, Manitoba, (110 homes); Oakville, Ontario, (61 homes); and Shannon Park, Nova Scotia, (32 apartment buildings containing 420 apartment units).

In response to (c), Tthe Kapyong Barracks site does not contain homes; however, the operating and maintenance cost for the Winnipeg South housing site was $673,000 in fiscal year 2007-2008.

In response to (d), Tthe costs for operation and maintenance of the vacant homes at the decommissioned military bases for fiscal year 2007-2008 are as follows: Jericho Beach, British Columbia,--$65,000; and Rockcliffe site, Ottawa, Ontario,--$1,800,000.

There are also other sites that do not fit the Department of National Defence’s definition of decommissioned military bases; however, the sites are surplus to National Defence requirements and contain vacant homes. The costs associated with these sites are as follows: Winnipeg South,--$673,000; Oakville,--$200,000; and Shannon Park, Nova Scotia, has 32 apartment buildings, which are not maintained due to severe disrepair and will be demolished.

In response to (e), tThe following decommissioned bases have been transferred to Canada Lands Company: Chilliwack, British Columbia; Calgary, Alberta; Greisbach, Alberta; --London, Ontario, no homes were on the site; and Moncton, New Brunswick, no homes were on this site.

In response to (f), Ddecommissioned military bases waiting for transfer to Canada Lands Company include Jericho, British Columbia, and the Rockcliffe site in Ottawa, Ontario.

There are also other sites that do not fit the Department of National Defence’s definition of decommissioned military bases; however, the sites are surplus to National Defence requirements and are intended for transfer to Canada Lands Company and are at various stages of the transfer process. These sites include: Kapyong Barracks, Winnipeg, Manitoba, no homes on this site; Winnipeg South Hhousing site, Winnipeg, Manitoba; Oakville, Ontario; Denison Armoury site, Toronto, Ontario, no homes on this site; Highbury, Ontario, no homes on this site; Terrebonne, Quebec, no homes on this site; and Shannon Park, Nova Scotia, contains apartment buildings.

In response to (g), there are no regulations specific to vacant housing on decommissioned military bases.

For active military bases, Treasury Board’s Isolated Posts and Government Housing Directive, the Defence Administrative Order and Directive 5024-0--Department of National Defence Living Accommodation and Queen’s Regulations and Orders--Appendix 4.1– Charges for Family Housing Regulations apply.

In response to (h), tThe Isolated Posts and Government Housing Directive became effective 1 August 1, 2007. Defence Administrative Order and Directive 5024-0 became effective April 1, 2007. Queen’s Regulations and Orders Appendix 4.1 became effective September 1, 2001.

(In response to (i), Tthe Canadian Forces Housing Agency applies the regulations in order to meet the needs of Canadian Forces’ members and their families with respect to Department of National Defence accommodation housing. The regulations also contain a provision that allows the Canadian Forces Housing Agency to provide Department of National Defence housing to members of the RCMP, indeterminate employees of the Department of National Defence and other government departments.

[Questions on the Order Paper, March 12th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, in response to (a), the use of a Defensive Command Detonated Weapon C19, sometimes referred to as a “Claymore”, is restricted by Canadian Forces doctrine, and further clarified by the rules of engagement for Operation ATHENA issued to Canadian Forces personnel in theatre.

In response to (b), yes, the Canadian Forces publication entitled “Defensive Operations” provides information on the use of the C19. The publication “Ambush and Counter-Ambush” provides further information on the use of support weapons, such as the C19, for ambush tactics, techniques and procedures.

Soldiers and officers are instructed in the use of the C19 and the associated doctrine during their infantry training. Each task force is provided with C19 training in Canada before deploying to Afghanistan. This allows the Infantry battle group to practise testing, setting up and initiating the C19.

In its use of the C19, the Canadian Forces follow the International Law of Armed Conflict as set out in the Joint Doctrine manual, “Law of Armed Conflict at the Operational and Tactical Levels”. The manual, at paragraph 511(4), provides as follows:

4. The use of an anti-personnel mine that is manually detonated (for example, by land line or electronic signal from a remote or protected position) by a [Canadian Forces] member is not prohibited. Therefore, the use of an explosive device such as a “Claymore Mine” is not prohibited if it is manually detonated. Any anti-personnel mine that is designed to be exploded automatically by the “presence, proximity or contact of a person” cannot be lawfully used by the [Canadian Forces]. The “Claymore Area Defence System” is not prohibited if it is command detonated. If horizontal fragmentation weapons which propel fragments in a horizontal arc of less than 90 degrees, such as the Claymore, are placed on or above the ground, they may be used for a maximum period of 72 hours if they are located in the immediate proximity to the military unit that emplaced them, and the area is monitored by military personnel to ensure the effective exclusion of civilians.

In response to (c), (d) and (e), Canadian Forces leadership is not aware of any incident involving the placement or detonation of C19s in a manner inconsistent with Canadian Forces doctrine, rules of engagement, or the Ottawa convention.

[CFB Shannon, March 4th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, this government has announced an approach to compensate the people of Shannon and an initiative to improve the water system. That is in addition to the other announcements the government has made. At the same time, we need to work with the provincial government, the municipality of Shannon and the military base to make sure that the water is safe in future.

[Afghanistan, March 4th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, our soldiers obey all international laws. The success of our mission in Afghanistan cannot be guaranteed by military means alone, as the Prime Minister said, which is why we have adopted a whole of government approach there.

It is important to remember the efforts being deployed every day to protect our interests as well as the interests of the Afghan people.

[Afghanistan, March 4th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, the simplest answer is no. In the context of NATO actions, our soldiers, like other soldiers, must respect international codes and all rights on the ground in the Afghan theatre.

As Minister of National Defence, I have full confidence in our soldiers, particularly on such a sad day.

I hope all Canadians appreciate the sacrifices our soldiers are making in Afghanistan.

[Canadian Forces, March 3rd, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, indeed they do. Since 2006 the Canadian Forces have played an important role in Canadian counter-drug operations, as well as working off the southern approaches of North America to stop illegal drugs from hitting our streets.

Recently we supported a multinational operation that prevented some 272 million dollars' worth of cocaine from arriving here. As well, the Halifax based frigate, HMCS Montreal helped a French warship in the Caribbean recently intercept a drug smuggler carrying a boatload of cocaine. In another instance, a Canadian Forces Aurora plane spotted and tracked a semi-submersible operating in international waters.

This ongoing work of the Canadian Forces is something we can all be proud of.

[Canadian Forces, March 3rd, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for his kind words yesterday in support of the joint personnel support units that we are putting in place across the country.

Similarly on this point, we have taken on additional staff. Very dedicated public servants are working overtime to see that we deal with the backlog. Because of the demographics of the Canadian Forces there was a backlog that we are attempting to deal with in a very efficient way. That does take time. We have people working very hard on that.

What I would ask from the member is that on the budget, for the first time would he vote for the Canadian Forces rather than slink out of the House?

[NATO, March 3rd, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the question. It is a good question. I am confident about the coming NATO meeting. It is an opportunity to hold a clear and very important discussion in order to attract more support for this mission. That can perhaps include certain states in that region in order to support our mission and support the pan-governmental approach. Our government is learning, and this is a good question.

[Afghanistan, March 3rd, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, Canada is in Afghanistan in response to the request by the democratically elected government of Afghanistan, in order to help the Afghans to rebuild the country into a stable, democratic and self-sufficient society.

According to Rémi Landry of the Université de Montréal, the Canadian troops share this point of view. This is very clear in the very name of the NATO mission, which indicates that the troops are there to offer assistance and not to do the job of the Afghans.

This is the same position as our government's.