CANADA House of Commons Debates VOLUME 141 Ï NUMBER 128 Ï 1st SESSION Ï 39th PARLIAMENT OFFICIAL REPORT (HANSARD) Monday, March 26, 2007 Speaker: The Honourable Peter Milliken CONTENTS (Table of Contents appears at back of this issue.) Also available on the Parliament of Canada Web Site at the following address: http://www.parl.gc.ca 7865 HOUSE OF COMMONS Monday, March 26, 2007 The House met at 11 a.m. not the case at all. There are different missions now. I want to remind hon. members that a peacekeeping mission is probably the easiest mission, although there is a risk component. Prayers By definition, a peacekeeping mission is a rather simple mission. After both sides have signed a ceasefire agreement, the international community, Canada or other countries provide a buffer between the PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS two sides to ensure the observance of the ceasefire. That is not at all what is going on in Afghanistan, where the mission is more of a Ï (1105) pacification effort. Canada is there to support Afghanistan and the [Translation] Afghan government, and it wants to try and restore peace by fighting the Taliban. I should also mention that the Bloc Québécois has been CANADIAN FORCES stressing for the past several months the need for the mission to be The House resumed from December 11 consideration of the not only a combat mission but also one of reconstruction and motion. development as well as one to restore the authority of the national Mr. Claude Bachand (Saint-Jean, BQ): Mr. Speaker, on behalf government. Our comments on the matter have been very balanced, of the Bloc Québécois, it is my pleasure to speak today and lead off and we have raised these points repeatedly. I thought it was the debate during this session. We have read the motion put forward important to remind the House of that. by my colleague from Ontario and, of course, one could hardly oppose it. When soldiers are sent into theatres of operation, to me it That having been said, our colleague's motion also raises seems perfectly natural that they would be suitably equipped and questions. For example, is Canada's current foreign policy clear? It receive the necessary support. However, as far as the necessary has not been updated in quite a while. As far as I know, the new support is concerned, I would like to say loud and clear right off the Conservative government has not developed any new foreign policy. bat that the Bloc Québécois does not appreciate being attacked for The existing policy is the one put in place by the former Liberal speaking out against a mission, the government, the Minister of government, and the same is true for the defence policy. This means National Defence or any other minister. that we are talking about policy dating back to 2005. In my opinion, a clarification needs to be made. A parliamentary One of the problems that arise where equipment is concerned is debate needs to be held in this House. Just because we criticize the that, once a foreign or defence policy has been decided on, a military minister or the government about the mandate of the mission does capabilities plan should normally follow. Whenever an approach to not automatically mean we are against the troops. That is absolutely theatre operations or a new vision of international relations is not true. It is the George W. Bush style approach that the Bloc developed, equipment has to be provided accordingly. Unfortunately, Québécois takes issue with. that part has not been dealt with yet. Neither the Liberal government It is important for hon. members and Parliament's political parties nor the Conservative government before us today has delivered a to give their opinion. What is more, we do not appreciate being told military capabilities plan. that if we speak out against a government policy, the mandate of the mission or the Minister of National Defence, we are against the What does it entail? It entails a series of purchases for which troops in Afghanistan. That is not so. Again, we were against Canadian and Quebec taxpayers will have to pay, without even extending the mission, but Parliament has spoken. We are not like knowing if the equipment in question meets the defence and foreign the Conservative government, which does not listen to Parliament. policy requirements because the capabilities plan should normally We listen to Parliament. have preceded these purchases. It goes without saying that once the decision has been made and Ï (1110) soldiers are sent there, it is important to give them the necessary equipment. I also want to mention that as far as the theatres of This creates all kinds of problems, as we can see. Would the operation are concerned, things have changed dramatically in the contract with Boeing for strategic aircraft, C-17s and Chinook past few years and many Quebeckers and Canadians still think that helicopters, have been included in a military capabilities plan? Why the current mission in Afghanistan is a peacekeeping mission. That is are these purchases going ahead without a plan? 7866 COMMONS DEBATES March 26, 2007 Private Members' Business The C-17 strategic aircraft brings up a fundamental question: if all and only from that company. How could it possibly negotiate after the equipment and all the soldiers are already in Afghanistan, what the fact? good will four big strategic airlift aircraft be? This is one of the questions that could have been asked if a capabilities plan had been The same thing is happening in the area of strategic lift. We now submitted to Parliament and if it had discussed whether the aircraft see that we are purchasing aircraft and paying a higher price than our were really needed. We could have also looked at whether military allies paid a few years ago. The higher price represents more than planners, for example, could push for strategic sealift instead of just indexation. We are talking about some $20 million more for each strategic airlift, which probably costs four or five times as much. aircraft. The government seems happy to let the taxpayers pick up These are the kinds of things that should have been discussed. the tab. We more or less agree on the purchase of the Chinook helicopters. I believe that we, as members of Parliament, are here to defend Currently, troops and materials in Afghanistan are transported by the interests of taxpayers. If we fail to do so, we are showing land. We know the problems that can arise, given improvised disrespect for our constituents and neglecting our responsibilities to explosives, mines, etc. Soldiers are losing their lives. With a heavy Parliament and to Canadian taxpayers. lift helicopter, we could probably avoid these dangers. Ï (1115) We agree with some things, but not with others. What we find Of course, we cannot oppose the motion here before us, but we most troubling is that there was never an opportunity to discuss this. can speak out against some things, including much of the We have to proceed bit by bit, but when we do, the Conservative purchasing. government tries to tell us that we are not supporting the troops, that we are bad for their morale. Maybe they are the ones whose policies I would have liked to have a little more time to explain the are causing these events to happen. submarine disaster to the House. Nonetheless, everyone here understands that, when there is no plan in place, that is what There is also the issue of prisoners. They say that we are happens. Sometimes we purchase things, only to later regret it. undermining morale. Why has the minister not listened to us for months? For the past year, we have been hounding the minister [English] about the importance of copying the Dutch agreement almost Mr. Peter Stoffer (Sackville—Eastern Shore, NDP): Mr. entirely. According to that agreement, Dutch embassy staff and Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise on behalf of the federal NDP in soldiers can visit detainees anytime. The minister totally ignored us. regard to this important motion. I thank my hon. colleague from Not only did he ignore us, he misled us by saying that the Red Cross Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke for bringing it forward due to her was conducting inspections and that it would report any unusual continued support for our troops. occurrences that did not comply with the Geneva convention. As it turns out, that is not really how it happens. I know she has a vested interest, not only as one who cares about military personnel and their families, but also, the base at Petawawa For a year, we did not have a real policy concerning detainees, and is in her riding and she knows very well what emotions the people of now the minister has a problem. Now that the Bloc is criticizing the Petawawa have suffered over the past few years as they have lost fact that the minister misled it and all of the other parties in the many of their young people in the conflict and war in Afghanistan. House, the government is saying that we want to destroy troop My heart goes out to her riding, to the people and families in morale. That is George W. Bush-style logic, and we will not buy it. Petawawa and to the surrounding communities of the brave of the Nevertheless, the minister and the Prime Minister have made bravest in Canada. $20 billion in announcements with no defence capabilities plan, as I Today's motion asks us to support the troops.