Ujjal Dosanjh

[National Defence, December 12th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, the requirements identified by DND for the purchase of tactical aircraft were designed to eliminate all aircraft except the C-130J. This is very much like a contract directed to Lockheed Martin masquerading as a competition at the expense of the taxpayers.

Given that the competition in defence procurement always favours better equipment at a better price, why was this process manipulated to limit the competition to one particular aircraft?

[Canadian Forces, December 11th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, the member's Motion No. 244 would reaffirm the House's commitment to Canada's military personnel.

All members of the House and all Canadians support our personnel, whether they are in Canada or deployed elsewhere. However, one of the requirements we have as citizens is that when we send our troops in harm's way, whether we agree or disagree with the policy, we all support the troops. There is absolutely no question about that.

The Canadian Forces have some of the finest soldiers in the world. We are always supportive and committed to their fine work, whether it is in Afghanistan or elsewhere, for the country and the sacrifices they continue to make. In that context, I commend the hon. member for reading that moving poem. It is indicative of the loss and the feelings that families suffer and the pride they feel for the work the soldiers do in theatre.

As is the case generally with the government, it makes lots of noise about supporting the troops but when it comes to concrete measures for the current and former military personnel, it prefers to make noises of support rather than take the opportunity to take concrete measures.

A case in point is the motion by the member for Sackville—Eastern Shore to assist members and veterans of the Canadian Forces and their families. The whole of the government caucus, without exception, like trained seals, stood and opposed the motion. I do not know what happened to their concept of free votes at that time nor do I know what happened to their concept of support for the troops or for veterans at that point.

We are now faced with a new motion to essentially to whitewash the actual sin of opposing that other motion. We do support this motion. All of the opposition parties actually voted for the earlier motion that I talked about.

I have another example with respect to the government. Back in October the government promised to fix the glitch that has resulted in injured soldiers losing their danger pay. The minister said that it would take but a few weeks and here we are two months later and there is still no resolution. The fact is that the troops are continuing to be denied their danger pay, as they ought not to be. The minister has not been able to explain the position with respect to danger pay. Why is it taking such a long time to deal with this very important issue?

I will now go to the issue around Afghanistan in general. That is the same government that tricked this whole House into passing a motion to extend that mission with only a six hour debate. Right in the middle of the remarks by the Prime Minister, the Prime Minister issued a threat. He said, first, that whether or not the House passed that motion he would have extended the mission in any event by one more year and, second, that he could actually take us into an election.

That is how the government works. It works by gimmicks, tricks and threats. As a result of the government's action in rushing that ill-conceived, ill-planned, ill-prepared motion to extend the mission, we now have a situation where the NATO countries are not there to share the burden in Kandahar. The government did not ask the NATO partners for up front guarantees before we extended the mission for two more years for additional troops and for the removal of the caveats. The fact is that the government rushed into that extension without any thought or preparation whatsoever.

The fact is that the Prime Minister went to Afghanistan, wore a flak jacket and started talking in Bushian and Rumsfeldian terms. He pushed us into this two-year extension for which the NATO partners are not coughing up additional resources and there has been a minor or superficial change in the caveats that should have been changed.

In terms of the equipment, the government has talked a good line. The Conservatives have talked the line of transparency, openness and accountability. The fact is that we are not now spending billions of dollars on equipment that is needed but spending on sole sourcing and fake competitions. There was a fake competition regarding the C-17, the strategic lift. With respect to the tactical lift, all of the requirements were essentially going to go toward one logical conclusion. Whether it is the Chinooks or the Hercules, all of those billions of dollars are being spent without any competition whatsoever.

We know that inside or outside of government, when there is no competition to obtain equipment or whatever else is needed, we do not get the best deals. The government obviously has forgotten that it had promised to deal with the procurement process, make it more open, make it more accountable, and make it more competitive. It has actually made it less so.

In terms of the Conservatives' ability to get the equipment quickly, the Martin government actually made announcements to proceed on some of these purchases. The present government actually abandoned and delayed that process by several months. Therefore, our troops, in theatre or not, are not going to get that equipment as early as they ought to have received it. The government has essentially reannounced the joint support announcement and many other announcements with respect to this.

The overall issue is that the government is rushing into buying equipment without competition, without a full defence capabilities plan. The defence capabilities plan is what actually defines or assesses the needs of the Canadian Forces and then puts the assessment of those needs in full view of the public for discourse and dialogue. The government has not had the courage, the conviction or the tendency to be open to allow the defence capabilities plan to be out in the open. I understand it is languishing somewhere on the cabinet table and it is not being made public at this point.

The overall issue with the government is that in an unplanned fashion it has been dealing with the procurement process for the Afghanistan mission and the foreign policy questions. Whenever the government has no plans, it resorts to simply picking up policy from the shelves of the United States of America and sometimes goes further ahead of even the U.S. in pursuing U.S.-like policies.

We have not been able to see any evidence of the government going to the table to NATO and saying the mission in Afghanistan is not working. There is rampant corruption in that government and there is a porous border with Pakistan. In Pakistan there is a Talibanization of northern Pakistan. Suicide bombers are coming into Afghanistan killing our soldiers and killing innocent civilians.

This government has not dealt with that issue or with the infiltration at the border with Iran into Afghanistan. It has not engaged in tough diplomatic efforts to deal with this. It has not engaged in tough dialogue with NATO to ensure that NATO reviews this mission and determines how we can succeed.

Right now we are losing soldiers. They are making great sacrifices, but ultimately I do not see a huge amount of success in Afghanistan. We are not in Afghanistan just to educate girls. That is a great thing. There are dozens of other countries where that needs to be done. We are there to deal with terrorism, so that terrorism does not take hold again. We need to win the hearts and minds of Afghanis and Canadians. On both those fronts, this government is losing the war.

[Canadian Forces, December 11th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, less than six weeks ago, the member for Sackville—Eastern Shore had a motion before the House which would have gone a long way to support some of the veterans and some of the members currently serving on some issues.

The member's motion is good and we will support it but I must ask why she did not support the previous motion. Why did the entire Conservative caucus oppose the motion by the member for Sackville—Eastern Shore and then, six weeks later, introduce this motion?

How does she reconcile the spirit of the opposition to that motion and support for this motion?

[Business of Supply, November 7th, 2006]

That is the wrong answer.

[Business of Supply, November 7th, 2006]

Mr. Chair, the government has taken great pains, in fact, to hide the cost of this war and to hide the truth about this war from Canadians.

The government has stopped lowering the flag on the Peace Tower, tried to ban media from the repatriation ceremonies and is now even refusing to disclose the number of Canadian soldiers who are wounded.

Despite $17 billion in defence purchases, much of which is needed, there is no defence capabilities plan. I am assuming that, one, it is not ready, and two, it will never be made public.

The CIA believes that the success of the international community is now in doubt in Afghanistan. The CIA believes that many Afghans think that, first, police and government are corrupt in Afghanistan, second, not enough reconstruction is being done, and third, not the government or the police or the army can protect the people from the Taliban.

In fact, American officials have given dire warnings about the state of matters in Afghanistan. NATO itself is concerned about its own strategy. One hears this if one is in the U.S. or in Europe. Our government continues to paint a rosy picture. We have lost the war, or almost lost the war, for hearts and minds. Is this not just another example of the government doing blithely as it wishes while keeping the truth from the Canadian people as to what the state of the issues is in Afghanistan itself?

[Business of Supply, November 7th, 2006]

Mr. Chair, I am going to be sharing my time with the member for Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca and the member for Wascana.

I am going back to the issue of re-roling. The hon. minister is on record as saying at one point that there would be no re-rolling at all. General Hillier is on record as saying that there would be some re-roling. Now the minister has said yes, there will be some re-roling.

I have two basic very brief questions. Would the minister agree that General Hillier and his remarks have changed the minister's mind? Second, has the fact that this rushed extension of the mission for two years was poorly planned placed the military in a situation where they now have to re-role and scramble otherwise to meet the needs of the mission?

[Business of Supply, November 7th, 2006]

Mr. Chair, we know that we are now talking about nine month tours instead of six month tours.

The minister has now said that we are going to have some re-roling of trucks, truckers and other people in the navy or air force. General Hillier has said that the trainees who are in navy training or air force training are also going to be diverted into infantry training. Is that going to be so or not? What is the real answer on that particular question?

[Business of Supply, November 7th, 2006]

Mr. Chair, it is quite appropriate that the minister is talking about re-roling because that is the question I have for him. We now know from General Hillier that there is going to be re-roling. The minister has said there is not going to be any re-roling. We are trying to finesse those answers.

The fact is that we are truly scrambling now because we do not have the adequate troops to meet the needs of an extension for two years that was granted here and was brought forward as a motion as a cynical political ploy by the government to play political games with our troops. I think it is absolutely abhorrent that this was done because now the fitness requirement is being watered down. We are truly scrambling.

General Hillier says that there is going to be re-rolling definitely. The minister had said there was going to be no re-roling. We know that the troops in training are going to be re-roled. In fact, I am told that those who join the navy might have to go for infantry training so they could actually be deployed to Afghanistan. We know there is going to be re-roling of more than just truck drivers or cooks from the navy or air force.

The question is, who is in charge here? Is the minister in charge or is General Hillier in charge? Is there going to be re-roling or is there going to be no re-roling? I want a very clear answer in the House once and for all.

[Business of Supply, November 7th, 2006]

Mr. Chair, six months ago the House voted to extend the mission. At that time the Prime Minister said that he would extend the mission anyway, regardless of the outcome of the vote, for at least one year.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister said that NATO was requiring a force commitment the following week after the extension if one was granted. The fact is that the Minister of National Defence, when he was asked about what the troop commitments were at NATO, said that he would table the troop commitments, that he did not know. Obviously that was one of the questions that one should have asked at the time of the extension of NATO since NATO was asking us for a force commitment.

At the time of extension it is clear that the government had no plan for the extension. The military is scrambling to accommodate the extension now. “Scrambling” is the minister's own word. Why did the government not ask for and have enough troop commitments and workable caveats before the extension was granted by the House? Why not, since the government says the sacrifices of our soldiers give us the influence, why not appropriate caveats and troop commitments?

[Navy Appreciation Day, October 30th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak in the House today in recognition of the Navy Appreciation Day being held on Parliament Hill.

Navy Appreciation Day is an all party event designed to recognize and thank members of Canada's Navy for their important work and their sacrifices for our country. All members are welcome to attend the reception this evening in the reading room, 237-C, at 5:30 p.m.

The Navy League of Canada has organized tonight's reception. The league is a volunteer organization and part of its mandate is providing programs for youth: the Navy League Cadets and the Canadian Sea Cadets.

I invite members to attend this event and to mark the invaluable contribution of the members of Canada's Navy and, indeed, of all our Canadian Forces.