Mr. Speaker, while the parliamentary secretary is on his feet, I wonder if he would take this opportunity also to table the defence strategy that the government says it has, but has not produced a shred of evidence to indicate what it is.
House of Commons photoLost his last election, in 2019, with 34% of the vote.
Nuclear Energy May 16th, 2008
Mr. Speaker, while the parliamentary secretary is on his feet, I wonder if he would take this opportunity also to table the defence strategy that the government says it has, but has not produced a shred of evidence to indicate what it is.
National Defence May 16th, 2008
Mr. Speaker, the parliamentary secretary just totally contradicted himself from yesterday. One shows respect for Canada's armed forces first and foremost by telling the truth. According to the government's own projections, there is absolutely no fiscal room to pay for this new defence plan.
Even calling it a plan is a stretch. According to the defence department, this $30 billion or $50 billion or $80 billion or $90 billion plan exists only in two speeches. At 755 words, the Prime Minister's speech was totally vacuous and, strangely, the defence minister's speech, the one that was supposed to have the details, has disappeared. How does the government explain such a farce?
National Defence May 16th, 2008
Mr. Speaker, on Monday the Prime Minister's spinners were saying that their new defence strategy, all 755 words of it, would cost $30 billion, but yesterday the Prime Minister also said there would be another $50 billion for new equipment.
Whether it is $50 billion or $30 billion or $30 billion plus $50 billion, there is still one glaring fact: none of those numbers are mentioned in the Conservative budget that was published just two and a half months ago. Where is the provision in the budget for $30 billion in new defence operations plus $50 billion in new equipment?
Business of the House May 15th, 2008
Mr. Speaker, on another point of order, further to the normal Thursday question about the upcoming agenda of the House of Commons, I thank the government House leader for the information he provided at an earlier stage today. However, I would like to raise with him one further item of business, about which there has been some discussion among House leaders, and that is the possibility that the House of Commons may be favoured with a visit by a very distinguished foreign dignitary in the week that the House resumes after the May break. That would, potentially at least, be the president of Ukraine.
If that visit comes about, of course the official opposition would be delighted to consent to the president making a speech in the House of Commons, if that fits with his agenda. I want to make that point abundantly clear on behalf of the official opposition.
I also would like to ask the government House leader if he could provide any further information at this stage about the plans for the visit by the president of Ukraine. If that visit comes about, it will be necessary to rearrange the business day that we normally have in the House of Commons and make provision for things to happen at different times in the day than they usually do. That would include the rescheduling of question period in the ordinary course.
I wonder if the government House leader could provide any further detail at this stage about the government's plans with respect to this important visit.
Business of the House May 15th, 2008
Mr. Speaker, in dealing with House business, I would like to raise three things with the government House leader.
First, the House would be interested to know the schedule that he intends to follow for the rest of today and tomorrow and also for the first week that the House returns after the May break.
Second, in the course of that time span, the government House leader will need to dedicate two evenings to meetings of the committee of the whole so that we can consider the estimates of the Department of Foreign Affairs and the Department of Finance. I wonder if the government House leader could tell us which of those evenings he intends to designate.
Finally, I would note that during question period both the Prime Minister and the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs read in detail specific numbers from specific documents which purported to be the government's new defence policy.
That being the case, both the Prime Minister and the parliamentary secretary are obliged to table the documents from which they were quoting.
National Defence May 15th, 2008
Mr. Speaker, it was the Liberal Party that made the biggest investment in national defence in 20 years.
At his news conference on Monday, the Prime Minister made a $10 billion mistake. The reason is now obvious. No one in the government has a clue what its defence policy actually is or how much it will cost. A speech is not a strategy.
The Prime Minister offered no detailed description of what the forces would do or how. Then the second speech that followed his, by the Minister of National Defence, has somehow mysteriously disappeared. It is unavailable now.
If the government's defence policy actually exists, let it table it now.
National Defence May 15th, 2008
Mr. Speaker, the independent condemnation of the government's so-called defence policy is virtually universal. It took over two years to produce it. It ended up being nothing more than a letter to the editor of 755 words. It was written, obviously, at the rate of one word per day. It cannot give any details and it cannot say whether the cost of the plan is $30 billion, or $50 billion or $96 billion.
How could it take two years to produce a plan with no details and a price tag no one over there can explain?
National Defence May 15th, 2008
Mr. Speaker, when the Government of Canada has a policy on something, it actually writes it down. That was certainly the case with Canada's defence policy in 2005, a detailed 35 page document. It defined how the Canadian Forces would align with overall foreign policy. It was funded with the biggest investment in national defence in 20 years.
On Monday, the Prime Minister swept all of that away in one vacuous speech: no context, no analysis, no details, nothing. Do the Canadian Forces not deserve more respect than such an obvious political stunt?
Points of Order May 8th, 2008
Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is not in a position to respond at this moment. I am sure she will take the opportunity to do so as soon as she is able.
However, simply for the information of the parliamentary secretary who raised the point, I believe the remarks, or at least a significant portion of them to which he referred, were in fact quoted from the Hill Times of this past week, wherein the Hill Times attributed those remarks not to a Liberal, but to a senior Conservative.
Business of the House May 8th, 2008
Mr. Speaker, given the noble purpose for which the government House leader offered his motion just now, which I think is intended to facilitate members of the House who wish to attend the funeral of a former hon. member, which will be taking place tomorrow about noon, I wonder if the House could reconsider the request you just made to give unanimous consent to the government leader to make his proposition.