Bill Graham

[Question No. 44, January 31st, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, the attached table includes data for the last 38 years.

The majority of the minor injuries were not related to malfunctions of the equipment; rather, most represent “slip and fall” incidents.

Note: The flight safety database does not include the requested information from 1963 to 1967. As a result, the department conducted an additional search of information for these years. This search revealed no record of any Sea King accidents, only injuries associated with accidents were recorded during this time period.

[Question No. 43, January 31st, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, the answer is as follows:

a) The Department of National Defence is presently reviewing and updating its master infrastructure development plan for the Dwyer Hill Training Center. The review should be completed by late winter 2005. Until the master infrastructure development plan is finalized, the Department of National Defence cannot indicate any intent towards a possible acquisition of Mr. Mayhew's property for the purpose of expanding the Dwyer Hill Training Center.

The Department of National Defence has been engaged in discussions with Mr. Mayhew in order to resolve his complaints. In the course of negotiations, the Department of National Defence offered to compensate him for his damages, including his loss of business, and to purchase his property. The government negotiations were conducted in good faith and Mr. Mayhew was offered fair market value for his land. Subsequent action will depend on the court proceedings and whether Mr. Mayhew indicates a desire to reopen discussions.

b) If Mr. Mayhew agreed to sell his land to the Department of National Defence, he would receive fair market value for the land. It would be left to Mr. Mayhew to use the proceeds to buy another property.

[Natural Disasters, January 31st, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member knows full well that whenever the Canadian Forces have had to move their troops or the DART or anything else, we have been able to do it by acquiring aircraft necessary for the job like most other countries do.

We will have a defence review. We will have an opportunity to discuss with the opposition what is the appropriate way to approach strategic lift. That is the way we should go into this very important discussion.

However, I can assure the hon. member that we have the capacity, we have always had it, to move our troops when we need to. We will continue to do that. We can do DART plus because we are capable of doing it and we are committed to doing it.

[Natural Disasters, January 31st, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, the first thing I would like to make clear to the House is that we are all very proud of the work that the DART is presently doing in Sri Lanka. It is making a great contribution.

The government did not dither about sending the DART. The government considered all the options that it had to take into account including the costs. I worked with my colleagues, the minister responsible for CIDA, the Minister of Foreign Affairs and the Prime Minister. We had a coordinated position. We determined that sending the DART was the right thing to do after a reconnaissance team met with the Government of Sri Lanka and decided that it was correct. It is there. It is doing a great job and we should thank it for doing so.

[National Defence, December 14th, 2004]

I will rely on you, Mr. Speaker, to determine whether it is correct parliamentary procedure for the hon. member to suggest that I was not telling the truth in my answer.

However, if I have to put up the word of the Prime Minister and what he has achieved for the country in terms of turning the country around, giving us a strong budget to enable us to deliver for our armed services, I will bet on the Prime Minister and this government any time of the day.

[National Defence, December 14th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, we heard the Prime Minister in the House just now speak to this very issue. He pointed out that he made this promise which will require substantial assets in the budget. The Prime Minister has said that they are coming. We are preparing for this.

The evidence given the other day before the committee made it clear that the armed forces are preparing to do this in a way in which they can absorb, train and put these new resources to the benefit of Canada, the benefit of Canadians, and the benefit of our foreign policy. We will have a stronger Canadian Forces. We are proud of what we are doing.

[Canada Border Services Agency Act, December 13th, 2004]

moved that Bill C-26, an act to establish the Canada Border Services Agency, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

[National Defence, December 13th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, first, I think the members of the House would join me in expressing condolences to Mrs. Selby and to the family of Captain Selby on his tragic death while serving his country, which he did with the Snowbirds. He was very proud of serving in that role.

We wish Captain Mallett a speedy recovery from his injuries.

I reject the allegation that is suggested in the question that the helicopters were not in the area because of financial reasons. We have helicopters on bases where they are necessary, for example, Bagotville, Cold Lake and others.

We do not have them there because there is a road matrix that the air force deems is correct and available to get us--

[National Defence, December 10th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, these are tragic accidents. I want to assure the House that all our services, the air force, the navy and the army, take these individual incidents extremely seriously. They conduct rigorous investigations to ascertain their causes and we take the steps to make sure they do not happen again.

It is a myth to say they do not have good equipment and it is certainly a myth to suggest that they are not professionally approaching the way in which we manage these very difficult situations.

[Main Estimates, 2004-05, December 9th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, that is a very reasonable approach. However, if we are going to take that approach I would ask that the hon. members opposite listen to what the President of the Treasury Board said and look at the effect of these cuts in the budget of the Governor General.

I would respectfully suggest to the hon. member that if he is going to look at increases in the Governor General's budget he should look at increases in what the Governor General does. We are getting value for money. It is not fair to compare $10 million in 1995 and activities today. If the hon. member wishes to discuss that then that is another thing.

Let us also not forget that some of the expenses of the household of the Governor General are made by decisions of the commission here in Ottawa and others for repairs to the house that she has nothing to do with.

If the members are going to go through this exercise, all I ask is that they at least make it an honest exercise and make honest comparisons.