Mr. Speaker, I should emphasize that the work of the communications security establishment does not impinge on the rights of Canadians. It is a foreign intelligence gathering mechanism.
House of Commons photoWon his last election, in 2000, with 67% of the vote.
Telecommunications February 1st, 1994
Mr. Speaker, I should emphasize that the work of the communications security establishment does not impinge on the rights of Canadians. It is a foreign intelligence gathering mechanism.
Telecommunications February 1st, 1994
Mr. Speaker, the communications security establishment has been discussed in the House before. The particular contract in question, which came to light last week, is a normal contract. It is for about $1 million. There is nothing nefarious about it.
The Department of National Defence is responsible for a foreign intelligence function. It helps Canadians protect themselves against drug smugglers, terrorists and others who want to infringe on the rights of Canadians.
I can assure the hon. member that this relatively small contract would in no way be used to do anything against Canadians. The communications security establishment does operate within the full ambit of the law and is fully accountable to the House of Commons.
Government Expenditure January 31st, 1994
You should read the Red Book.
National Defence January 28th, 1994
Mr. Speaker, I have answered this question before in the House. The chief is satisfied.
There was a signal. We had a Hercules aircraft in the area. It radioed back to Trenton where it was known we had a search and rescue helicopter at Dorval. It was dispatched immediately to the area because of the electronic signal on DND frequency.
A search was made of the area. In the meantime the Hercules had to circle around the area which gave the natives cause for concern. Obviously it could not land but it had to help the helicopter pinpoint from where the electronic signal was coming.
The helicopter landed. The crew made a search and just before they were finished and had come to the conclusion there was no downed plane and there did not seem to be an emergency-they did not exactly know where the signal was coming from but if they had stayed longer they might have found out-the individual approached them as I have said before. He said shots were fired. The crew, feeling the mission was accomplished and there was no danger to anyone, decided to leave in the interests of not provoking a confrontation.
National Defence January 28th, 1994
Mr. Speaker, the chief has stated publicly that the matter is closed. I stated that yesterday. There is no damage to the helicopter or to the planes.
I would like to repeat the position of the Government of Canada in English. The natives believe that their reserves are sovereign. I realize, and the hon. member opposite knows that, the word sovereign is being kicked around on a day-to-day basis in Quebec. Frankly we do not like the way it is being kicked around. We do not like the way the natives are being dragged into the sovereignty debate.
We believe that the matter is closed. This was obviously something of great concern to the natives when the helicopter landed, and that there are great sensitivities.
The chief has said that even though they believe their land is sovereign, a position we do not accept, he does not expect the Canadian forces to ask permission to have any of its planes or personnel deployed in the area but simply to have notice as we would do for any local authority whether in the hon. member's riding or the city of Vanier down the street.
National Defence January 28th, 1994
Mr. Speaker, yesterday there was a meeting between the officials of the Canadian forces and Chief Peltier of Kanesatake, a normal meeting for information purposes. There is no secret and there is no crisis.
As I explained earlier in the House, the natives believe that reserves are sovereign, which is certainly not the position of the Canadian government. The armed forces have the right to travel anywhere in Canada.
What the natives want, especially in Kanesatake, is to be advised when there is a plane or helicopter in the area. Permission is not an issue, because it is the position of the Canadian government that although it is our duty to let people know, we do not need permission.
Auditor General's Report January 27th, 1994
Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister was referring to the same discrepancy between what we feel are accurate costing figures. I think he did a very good job at explaining in graphic terms the difference between our concept of how these costs should be arrived at and that of the Auditor General.
As members of the government we are quite entitled to have legitimate disputes with whomever about accounting methods.
Auditor General's Report January 27th, 1994
Mr. Speaker, the hon. member will realize that the way the supplementary question was asked by his colleague left some in doubt as to what he was actually trying to get at. No one disputes the fact that public servants report to their political masters as elected and members of the government.
With respect to the actual question on costing, which is serious, I know the hon. member would like to get to the bottom of the differences which we feel exist between DND accounting and the Auditor General. If the House will give leave early next week I will make our report public and table the document here in the House so all can see the Department of National Defence's reasoning. We have nothing to hide.
National Defence January 27th, 1994
Mr. Speaker, my first obligation is to answer legitimate questions posed in the House and to expose the truth. The chief of the band made the statement that I referred to a few moments ago.
I find it rather ironic that a couple of days ago the hon. member was posing as an advocate of natives at Oka. Now he is attacking them. Please be consistent.
National Defence January 27th, 1994
Mr. Speaker, perhaps the hon. member is unaware that the chief of the band involved at Oka, Chief Peltier, gave a press conference a short time ago. In that press conference he said, first, that he was completely satisfied with the explanations given by the Department of National Defence.
Second, as far as he is concerned the matter is closed. Third, bearing in mind what I said the other day about members on the other side inflaming the situation, he has accused the members of the Bloc Quebecois of deliberately inflaming the situation for their own political ends in Quebec. That is a shame. The member should be ashamed of that action.