Bill Graham

[National Defence, June 20th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, at the moment as the position stands, a highly skilled person who had extensive experience in the government and was capable of representing our men and women with a great deal of integrity was put before the committee and was rejected by a vote of two of the opposition parties. I do not think the hon. member can lift that up into being a rejection by our armed forces.

What our armed forces want is somebody who is capable, competent and professional and who will act in their interests. I believe that Mr. Côté has those capacities and I am willing to continue discussing that with the committee, but let us not say that our armed forces have rejected it. This was a political decision that two parties--

[Canadian Forces, June 20th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, obviously, the members and I differ on this. I believe I have selected someone with great familiarity with the position, having been the one to define it, as well as with the workings of Canadian government. This is exactly the kind of person most suited to represent the Canadian Forces within the system.

Mr. Côté possesses the talent, integrity and professionalism required for this position. I will discuss this further with my committee colleagues, but rejecting this choice solely for political reasons is, in my opinion, really not acceptable.

[Canadian Forces, June 20th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, the ombudsman position was advertised and applications were submitted. The selection process was open, transparent, correct and standard. All candidates were considered according to the usual procedures in our system. There was nothing different in our process.

I am confident that Mr. Côté, whom we chose, is an upstanding individual who will work conscientiously for the good of the Canadian Forces. I am certain that the committee will, after reflection, be convinced that this is a good appointment.

[National Defence, June 17th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, as I said yesterday, and the day before, we have spent more than $30 million to support the people of Shannon by providing homes with safe drinking water.

What is more, we are sharing all raw data with the municipality, the province of Quebec and the owners of the land where tests have been carried out. There is no report. What there is, which we are sharing with the public, is the raw data on all the testing. We will continue to cooperate with the citizens, the municipality and the province.

[Nato, June 17th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for the hard work he does on the defence committee.

I think all members of the House would take pleasure in knowing of the appointment of our former chief of defence staff as the highest ranking military officer in NATO, our most important military alliance. This will give a chance for Canada's perspective to be brought forward at the highest councils of NATO as it goes forward with its transformation in the hands of a highly professional, dedicated officer who was a great chief of the defence staff here.

I know he will contribute greatly to this important alliance. It is most important to bring a Canadian perspective there at this time. We are grateful he is there. We wish him well in this important task.

[National Defence, June 17th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I do not have the liberty of the hon. member who is capable of saying no to something when she does not know what is being proposed.

I do not know what Raytheon is proposing. I do not know the technicalities of what it is suggesting. It is a free country and if it wants to go around talking about it, that is fine.

If it is participation in ballistic missile defence, the answer is a very clear no, but at least let us get an official request of some kind to which we can respond before we say no.

It is no to ballistic defence, no, no, no, but not no to something that is purely speculative that we do not know anything about.

[National Defence, June 17th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister, myself and everyone in this House have been very clear on this. Canada is not participating in ballistic missile defence and we have no intention whatsoever of participating in ballistic missile defence.

If a private company wishes to go around and scout out, as the hon. member said, or try to sell something, there is nothing we can do to stop that. It is a free country.

However we have not been approached by the United States government. There have been no discussions of any kind about this on an official level. This is a purely speculative matter by the hon. member. I can assure her that she should not worry about it because we are not entering into ballistic missile defence.

[National Defence, June 16th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I am always prepared to meet with people to discuss ways of having the best program for our cadets.

We believe camps provide cadets with optimum learning opportunities as well as the chance to meet Canadians from other backgrounds. That is the case in Quebec, where we have a program of which I am very proud.

Once more, I am always prepared to meet people if that is what the hon. member wants.

[National Defence, June 16th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, what I said, I said. Still, I come back to this. No request was made of the government, so we cannot say that anything has changed. A request has to be made at least, before we can contemplate any sort of a response.

[National Defence, June 16th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, as I responded to the press this morning, the government was not approached. It has not changed its policy. No request was made of our government.

An American company is in fact speculating about the possibility of setting up a radar base in various places. We will see what happens. We cannot, however, react to something that does not exist.