National Defence Main Estimates 2006-2007, Part 4
The New Democrats
As I mentioned previously, I was mildly impressed with NDP MP Dawn Black during this question and answer session with the MND. Perhaps that is a consequence of my low expectations of her party on defence issues, for I am afraid I find it very difficult to take the NDP seriously when it speaks of military matters. That's my own bias.
But Ms. Black came to the debate well-prepared with on-point questions. Sure, some of them seemed intended solely to get an answer she already knew into the parliamentary record, but that is not a strike against her in my book as long as she does it civilly. She more than met that expectation on this occasion.
She spun her party's points in the phrasing of her questions, but unlike the Liberals and BQ, she didn't allow rhetoric to overshadow substance, and as a result I believe she was the most effective questioner of the night. Look at her agenda, and judge for yourself.
Ms. Black had the MND clarify that the incremental cost of the Afghanistan mission to date is $2.1 billion, with a projected cost to the end of the current mandate of $3.9 billion cumulatively. She further elicited that DND is spending $3.4 million on reconstruction projects through the PRT, although she was unsuccessful in her attempt to have the minister compare that figure with the amount being spent by his counterpart in Foreign Affairs. She brought up a point I'd never considered: the ownership of the base at Kandahar - as it turns out, it's owned by the Americans, but will be turned over to NATO at some future point. She followed up on the strategic airlift contract (it's the C-17, period), and on the plans for Navy icebreakers (serious tapdancing from our former RCD general turned politician). She asked a clear question about U.S. operations in our north, and received a forthright answer: "Mr. Chair, to my knowledge there are no U.S. military stationed in our north and there are no U.S. military sensor systems operating under water in our north or in any other place." - by which I expect the MND meant "any other place in Canada." She tried to pin him down on teenagers enlisting in the Afghan national police. She asked about the progress of a specific road-building project being undertaken by the PRT. She asked what the Canadian government's position was on peacekeeping, since our participation in U.N. blue-beret missions around the globe has dwindled dramatically. She asked about the termination of danger pay for wounded soldiers. She asked about allied Close Air Support in Afghanistan. She asked if Canadians were actively using landmines or allowing landmines to be used to protect them indirectly.
In short, the NDP defence critic tackled a whole laundry-list of issues surrounding not only the mission in Afghanistan, but also defence spending on a broader scale. While she didn't ask the same questions I would have in her position, she was undoubtedly well-prepared for the session, which is more than I can say of her colleagues on the opposition benches.
But Ms. Black's strongest string of questions were about the CF experimentation with the precision-guided Excalibur artillery shell. She had the minister chasing his tail on this question. First he said the CF didn't have any:
When pressed further, he fudged with this nonsensical answer:
"If we have" and "when we had?" Which is it? I think Ms. Black caught the scent of blood in the water, because her next follow up elicited yet another completely different response from the MND.
I wonder what the answer would have been had she asked a fourth time?
As I mentioned previously, I was mildly impressed with NDP MP Dawn Black during this question and answer session with the MND. Perhaps that is a consequence of my low expectations of her party on defence issues, for I am afraid I find it very difficult to take the NDP seriously when it speaks of military matters. That's my own bias.
But Ms. Black came to the debate well-prepared with on-point questions. Sure, some of them seemed intended solely to get an answer she already knew into the parliamentary record, but that is not a strike against her in my book as long as she does it civilly. She more than met that expectation on this occasion.
She spun her party's points in the phrasing of her questions, but unlike the Liberals and BQ, she didn't allow rhetoric to overshadow substance, and as a result I believe she was the most effective questioner of the night. Look at her agenda, and judge for yourself.
Ms. Black had the MND clarify that the incremental cost of the Afghanistan mission to date is $2.1 billion, with a projected cost to the end of the current mandate of $3.9 billion cumulatively. She further elicited that DND is spending $3.4 million on reconstruction projects through the PRT, although she was unsuccessful in her attempt to have the minister compare that figure with the amount being spent by his counterpart in Foreign Affairs. She brought up a point I'd never considered: the ownership of the base at Kandahar - as it turns out, it's owned by the Americans, but will be turned over to NATO at some future point. She followed up on the strategic airlift contract (it's the C-17, period), and on the plans for Navy icebreakers (serious tapdancing from our former RCD general turned politician). She asked a clear question about U.S. operations in our north, and received a forthright answer: "Mr. Chair, to my knowledge there are no U.S. military stationed in our north and there are no U.S. military sensor systems operating under water in our north or in any other place." - by which I expect the MND meant "any other place in Canada." She tried to pin him down on teenagers enlisting in the Afghan national police. She asked about the progress of a specific road-building project being undertaken by the PRT. She asked what the Canadian government's position was on peacekeeping, since our participation in U.N. blue-beret missions around the globe has dwindled dramatically. She asked about the termination of danger pay for wounded soldiers. She asked about allied Close Air Support in Afghanistan. She asked if Canadians were actively using landmines or allowing landmines to be used to protect them indirectly.
In short, the NDP defence critic tackled a whole laundry-list of issues surrounding not only the mission in Afghanistan, but also defence spending on a broader scale. While she didn't ask the same questions I would have in her position, she was undoubtedly well-prepared for the session, which is more than I can say of her colleagues on the opposition benches.
But Ms. Black's strongest string of questions were about the CF experimentation with the precision-guided Excalibur artillery shell. She had the minister chasing his tail on this question. First he said the CF didn't have any:
With respect to Excalibur, we do not own nor do we have any Excaliburs in the armed forces. I think someone is still trying to find out what the theoretical price is from a company but we do not have any rounds in the armed forces.
When pressed further, he fudged with this nonsensical answer:
Mr. Chair, I am advised that if we have the shells, and when we had the shells, they would cost about $150,000 each.
"If we have" and "when we had?" Which is it? I think Ms. Black caught the scent of blood in the water, because her next follow up elicited yet another completely different response from the MND.
Mr. Chair, before I answer that, I am going to answer the Excalibur question. Apparently we are going to receive three rounds for trial. We have no rounds. That is correct. We have none. We are going to receive three rounds for trial in the next few weeks, and the plan is, in February 2007, to acquire 27 more rounds if these three rounds work out. It is correct at the moment that we have no rounds.
I wonder what the answer would have been had she asked a fourth time?
posted by Babbling Brooks at 11:16 p.m.
4 Comments:
Actually, that was the fourth time she asked. (Or maybe fifth.) She first filed an Order Paper question. Then asked O'Connor and Hillier at a meeting of the Commons Defence Committee. Then she filed an Access to Information Request. Then she asked twice in the House of Commons. And, as I was sitting there for that Commons debate, I can tell you what you can't read in Hansard. Just before asking O'Connor the second time in that House of Commons debate, she actually gave him the documents with the answer on them. Where did she get those answers? O'Connor's own department. DND had finally answered the order paper question just before Tuesday's debate and she asked the question in that debate because she wanted the Minister to put it on the record in the House.
It's a long play-by-play and if you're interested I've got more details posted to a board at Army.ca
The additional detail in the Army.ca thread is quite interesting, David, especially your point about having contacted DND and Raytheon and having your requests rebuffed. Not the smartest PR strategy, that, especially when Staples and Black were willing to weigh in on a moment's notice. Good on you for trying, though.
Still, the $50K delta for a single standard 155mm round is inaccurate, and Lew Mackenzie isn't an artillery officer. I would expect that you could call the Conference of Defence Associations and ask for a retired officer with some knowledge of the subject, which would make for a more informed piece.
Oh, and I was counting the number of times she asked in the HofC that night, not the number of times she asked since the question popped into her head weeks ago. ;)
David: Even though I have my "issues" with you, excellent stuff here and at Army.ca. Please keep dropping by. I must say Mr O'Connor has never really impressed me, starting with when he was Opposition critic and acted simply in a partisan fashion.
Mark
Ottawa
Doesn't it suck when actually doing your job counts as note worthy for politicians?
Post a Comment
<< Home