Mr. Chairman, it was $12 billion in 1993.
House of Commons photoWon his last election, in 2000, with 71% of the vote.
Supply May 7th, 2002
Mr. Chairman, it was $12 billion in 1993.
Supply May 7th, 2002
Mr. Chairman, we applied for $11.8 billion. At one time the estimates were much lower than that, but there has been about a 20% increase in the last few years in the budgets and that has brought it up to $11.8 billion. However with add ons that will take it over $12 billion.
National Defence May 7th, 2002
Mr. Speaker, in February during a routine inspection at the ammunition compound at Uplands, lead dust was found. That led to a program involving both Uplands and Rockcliffe properties. The city of Ottawa health department and our own department joined to check the matter out thoroughly.
Some of the individuals who worked near or at the compound and their families were tested. Thank goodness the tests came back negative. They were found to be okay. Nevertheless there have been consultations with the community. The department wants to be open with the community. It has offered free testing and continues to keep people well informed of what is going on. We are also checking out other facilities.
National Defence May 2nd, 2002
Mr. Speaker, unfortunately we also have to make do with the opposition critic who knows nothing about the military, who has the worst research of any opposition critic in the history of the House.
Facing extinction if we did absolutely nothing, one never knows, that is quite possible. However the government is investing in new equipment. It has increased the budget of the defence department 20% in the last four years. It is increasing it by $1 billion over the next five years.
The government is committed to ensuring that the Canadian forces get the tools, get the education, get the equipment and the people to be able to do their job.
National Defence May 2nd, 2002
Mr. Speaker, that is nonsense. It is absolutely not true at all. The Royal Navy, one of the finest navies and expert navies in the world, has certified them. The kind of items that were in disrepair when the Australians looked at them have long since been repaired.
The Australians took 15 years from start to finish to get their submarines into operation. We will be doing it in a lot less than half of that.
Public Safety Act May 2nd, 2002
Mr. Speaker, the hon. member has not read the legislation. It requires the military to make a recommendation to start with. The Minister of National Defence does not just go off and do this on his or her own. It also requires that the Minister of National Defence do what is reasonably necessary. If something is beyond the realm of the legislation to protect equipment in a reasonably necessary way, it can certainly be challenged in the courts.
Public Safety Act May 2nd, 2002
Mr. Speaker, if people were staring a jet fighter in the face, they would be politely asked to leave the area.
These authorities in the case of military zones are the same that exist in the civilian realm. They have existed for hundreds of years under the common law, except in that case it is for police. It provides the same kind of authority for the military in protecting military equipment and personnel as the police have in other crowd control instances.
Public Safety Act, 2002 May 2nd, 2002
We are doing it.
Public Safety Act, 2002 May 2nd, 2002
Madam Speaker, the hon. member is wrong in just about everything he has said, including his comments about Afghanistan.
There is a big difference. We have listened to people in the House and to Canadians. We took out the subsection which said that the government could declare virtually any area as a military security zone. We are back to the original purpose and intent which is to protect military equipment. If we have a ship visiting, we need to be able to give it police protection and military police are the appropriate means of protecting it.
Members will remember that when the USS Cole went into Yemen it was not properly protected. There was a terrorist attack and people lost their lives. We obviously do not want that to happen to either our troops or any visiting troops who might be here.
The military bases pretty well have that kind of protection but there are a lot of port visits that are done by ships or even by aircraft to civilian airports. We might need to put a little cordon around them and have military police patrol them. That is all we are talking about here.
Under the common law, civilian police already have all these authorities. We are just talking about the same authority in regard to the protection of military property. It has in fact been narrowed in scope substantially to what is reasonably necessary to serve the purpose and intent of the bill. The purpose and intent of the bill is to protect military equipment.
If a minister attempts to be unreasonable about it he can be taken to court. The government can be taken to court, just like in any other provision and just like in the common law relevant to the civilian police. They have been doing this for ages. What about the fact that they cordon off areas and have police patrol them? We can take them to court too if we think it is unreasonable. This provides for that as well.
The Bloc has made some issue about the question of claims here, because it does not provide for lawsuits on the basis of claims. It provides for claims however that can be made against the government and funds provided from the consolidated revenue account if anybody is injured or, for example, if the cordoned off area means that people cannot get into their businesses and they want to claim for loss of business revenue. That provision is the same as it is in civilian law. The bill just makes it consistent with civilian law.
Public Safety Act, 2002 May 2nd, 2002
Madam Speaker, four questions can be asked a lot faster than four answers can be given.
Let me go on to the next one about no sweeping powers in Kananaskis and what is going to protect it. It is the police. The police have the responsibility.
The RCMP can create the same kind of cordoned off areas that we are talking about here in military access zones. It does it on the basis of common law as it has been doing for hundreds of years in the common law context. It has been doing it since Canada has been around. It has that kind of obligation and framework to do that.
We are going to be in support but we certainly cannot designate Kananaskis as a military zone. It is not in the provisions of this bill. We are there in support of the RCMP. It has the responsibility on the matter.
I have not heard the argument on a split bill and cannot comment on that.
In regard to reservists, I do not know that it is directly related to what is in the bill. We are not talking about those who serve in a voluntary capacity. Those who serve overseas on peace support missions are still in a voluntary capacity, not on a compulsory call out.
We have not done a compulsory call out since Korea. I do not know when we might do one, but given the reality of security matters in the post-September 11 world, we want to provide for the possibility that we might do that.
With respect to exit interviews and things like that, we have a program going now. We have an office now for the land force reserve restructuring. A lot of them are land force members that we are talking about here in terms of peace support operations. We are beginning to make very substantial changes and improvements in the condition of services for reservists.