Art Eggleton

[Public Safety, April 30th, 2002]

That is not true, Mr. Speaker. The bill narrows the scope of what can be declared a military zone from the previous bill. It takes out any possibilities of declaring things like Kananaskis as a military zone for example.

I am talking about equipment, about a ship, about a few planes at a civilian airport. It says it has to be on the recommendation of the chief of the defence staff. It says it has to be a reasonable area. If somebody thinks it is not a reasonable area, it can be tested in the courts.

[Public Safety, April 30th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, we are talking about federal equipment. We are talking about the military, its equipment or visiting military's equipment, a visiting ship in a civilian port for example. We could cordon off and send military police into that small area that is reasonably necessary for the ship to be properly protected.

Remember the USS Cole in Yemen. It was not properly protected and it was attacked by terrorists.

[National Defence, April 29th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I do not agree with the way the member has characterized it. First, it is a Canadian company. Yes, it is a foreign ownership but we have lots of foreign owned Canadian companies that do a lot of work for the public sector throughout the country.

It will in fact enhance the capabilities in terms of the supply chain operation. We estimate it will save the government about $70 million or more a year which could be put into core capabilities for other things that the military needs.

On top of that, the employees, 100% of them, will be offered new jobs at the same, or better, rates as they get now and will have job guarantees of up to seven years.

[National Defence, April 29th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I have made it quite clear that any of these discussions do not relate to the matter of sovereignty or to our foreign policy. We still have control over our foreign policy. We still have control over our troops. The hon. member should know that none of those are at stake.

[National Defence, April 29th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, as I have indicated previously, I think there is concern beyond reason in terms of what we are talking about. We are simply looking at the fact that the United States has created a new internal command, internal to its structure. We want to make sure that any relationship we have with the Americans is not prejudiced by it, for example, things such as NORAD. We have been assured of that. If there are any other ways we can work together in terms of practical co-operation, then we are also exploring those possibilities at the same time.

It is not something that deals with our sovereignty at all. It is not something that involves any deepening or integration of the relationship. It is just practical measures.

[Terrorism, April 26th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I cannot comment on specific intelligence that is received. We receive bundles of it on a regular basis. We are involved in a very high level network with a number of other countries.

We do in fact look very carefully at the possibility of cyber-attacks, both in this country and those relevant to the United States as well.

[Disaster Assistance, April 26th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, it is not. The initial responsibility is with the provincial government and the provincial government can provide whatever assistance it wants to.

In terms of the federal government, we reimburse the provincial government and we do that on the basis of a formula that applies evenly right across the country.

[Disaster Assistance, April 26th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, the disaster financial assistance arrangement is the same in all parts of the country. There will be no discrimination from one province to another. There is a formula. There is guideline that is in fact followed. If that guideline is applicable in this particular case, then of course the appropriate measures will be taken under the fund.

[Foreign Affairs, April 26th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, as both the Minister of Foreign Affairs and I have said already in response to questions, the hon. members are greatly distorting what this thing is all about.

Certainly we leave open the opportunity for any discussions and any input from the House. However, members should wait to see what these discussions bring out. We are talking about practical levels of co-operation. We may be able to broaden our security relationship with the United States. It does not mean deepening. It does not mean integration at all.

[Foreign Affairs, April 26th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, in fact we initiated the informal talks that are now going on. They are discussions to determine how Norad would be affected by this new northern command system. We have now established that it will maintain its high status as a binational command. We are happy about that. We are looking for other ways where we can co-operate with them, but we are not looking for the extent of the kind of integrated structures the hon. member is talking about. This is not a question of integration at all. It is only a question of practical co-operation.