Lost his last election, in 2008, with 36% of the vote.
National Defence March 12th, 2004
Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 109 of the House of Commons and on behalf of the Government of Canada, I have the pleasure to table, in both official languages, two copies of the government's response to the recommendations contained in the standing committee's 23rd report based on chapter 7 of the April 2003 report of the Auditor General of Canada: “National Defence—Environmental Stewardship of Military Training and Test Areas”.
National Defence March 12th, 2004
Mr. Speaker, the hon. member may be prepared to jump to all sorts of conclusions here, but there is some fairly serious work being done with respect to this, his joking aside. I would urge the hon. member, and the opposition as a whole, to wait for the results. This thing will be settled.
From the standpoint of the government's position, we feel very confident that the eventual outcome will support our version of the facts.
National Defence March 12th, 2004
Mr. Speaker, as I have already indicated, a forensic audit is going on. The RCMP is looking into this matter. There are a lot of details that will be forthcoming, in terms of the actions that are taken subsequently. I fully expect that this matter will end up in the courts. At that point, a lot of information will come forward.
However, I go back to the point that we cannot jump to any sort of conclusions, with respect to the final outcome of this. Let us let the process work.
National Defence March 12th, 2004
Mr. Speaker, I think that what the hon. member does not understand is that this was not one single contract for $160 million but a series of small contracts being dealt with. The thing to keep in mind as well is that there is a forensic audit going on and that the RCMP is also looking into this. As well, there may be further disciplinary action forthcoming.
National Defence March 11th, 2004
Mr. Speaker, I go back to the point that this was a very deliberate and well-crafted scheme to ensure that the auditors did not get the facts.
I should say as well that from the standpoint of the fact that this is likely going to be in the courts very shortly, I would ask the hon. members opposite to wait for the results of the RCMP's work, wait for the results of the forensic audit and we will all have the details.
National Defence March 11th, 2004
Mr. Speaker, as soon as these irregularities became evident, we took immediate action in terms of firing an employee. We called in the RCMP. A forensic audit was conducted. There were payments in the amount of approximately $50 million withheld from the company.
I think we acted with swiftness and responsibility in this matter.
National Defence March 11th, 2004
Mr. Speaker, there is a very clear situation here where the facts are very much in dispute. I suspect that the forensic audit that is underway and the work that the RCMP is doing will uncover the truth in this matter.
We feel that we are in a very strong position. The obligation rests with Hewlett-Packard to provide us with information in terms of the value that it provided to the Government of Canada in connection with goods and services provided under the hardware and maintenance IT contracts.
National Defence March 11th, 2004
Mr. Speaker, the attempt by the opposition to link this to the Prime Minister, in my view, is patently ridiculous.
There was a very deliberate and well-crafted strategy to hide the irregularities from the audit teams at both the Department of National Defence and PWGSC.
I think it is important to keep in mind as well that it was not a whistleblower who brought this to the attention of the government; it was not Hewlett-Packard; it was not the Auditor General. It was the internal management and audit processes of the Government of Canada.
Haiti March 10th, 2004
Mr. Chair, I am happy to respond to those questions.
The member of Parliament should be aware of the fact that we have in each region of the country what are called IRUs, immediate reaction units, that are set aside for contingencies. They are there to respond if we have a natural disaster. If there is any sort of an incident that requires the use of Canadian Forces, they are there to respond. It is a company sized unit. We have four of them across the country: one in the west, one in Ontario, one in Quebec and one in Atlantic Canada.
It just so happened that, in connection with the 2nd battalion of the Royal Canadian Regiment, which is based in Gagetown, the troops were already trained up in terms of non-combatant evacuation and they were ready for this type of operation.
Interestingly enough as well, they had not been on deployment for some time. The stars aligned as far as having these troops ready, willing and able to go. I gather from the press reports that I have seen, I have not spoken to officers directly, but the press reports of those people, the comments of those people have been very enthusiastic. They are anxious to get to Haiti.
We put a cost on the mission of about $38 million at this point for the three month deployment. As I indicated during the press conference that we had when this was announced, there is some flexibility with respect to how long the troops will stay. We will be fully operationally capable and theatre operationally ready on March 21. It must be kept in mind as well that the clock started ticking on the interim force on February 29, but we still have troops to arrive in theatre. It is March 10 now and we still have troops to arrive in theatre over the course of the next seven to ten days or so and beyond then in terms of the national support and national command elements.
With respect to the CDS and his recommendation, and based on what happened in Haiti with the decision of President Aristide to leave the country, we knew that we were into some planning efforts and exercises over the next few days. The first planning meeting that occurred was a very brief planning meeting in Miami on a Wednesday, to be followed by a larger planning meeting, which took into account the French, the Americans, the Chileans and ourselves, and I think there may have been some other countries.
The bottom line was that we had all of the information we needed at the end of that four or five hour long planning meeting. We had identified a force in terms of the 2nd battalion of the RCR, plus the helicopter detachment from 430 squadron. We were then able to put that immediately on the table with the planning group and then make the announcement last Friday.
We moved very quickly on this. As I have indicated in my comments, I am absolutely confident that this will not put any stress on existing deployment, future deployments or army regeneration.
Haiti March 10th, 2004
Mr. Chair, I appreciate the comments of the hon. member in connection with my French pronunciation, but I am not at a point where I would want to venture any further than that in terms of responding to his question in French.
I would say that the role of the Canadian Forces in Haiti at this point is one of what is called presence patrolling. They are going to be on the streets of Haitian towns and cities. They are going to be involved in protecting key institutions and protecting designated people as well, such as humanitarian aid workers, UN workers, that sort of thing.
From a disarmament standpoint, this is clearly one of the objectives that has been set out by the United Nations because ultimately, unless we disarm the factions that are involved in Haiti, we will not get the lasting peace that we need in Haiti. I see the disarmament process perhaps as being a bit of a longer project. I think we have to focus on ensuring in the early stages of this deployment that there is some security and stability on the ground and then move on to the disarmament projects from there.
We may end up over the course of the next number of months with a full-blown disarmament, demobilization and reintegration program, the DDR program that the United Nations is famous for in various theatres of conflict.