House of Commons photoWon his last election, in 2000, with 71% of the vote.
National Defence November 28th, 2001
Mr. Speaker, a base for our Hercules aircraft to operate from is still being sought. Kyrgyzstan is one of the options. That is being worked out with our coalition partners. We hope to have that matter settled soon. It would be used for the transport of humanitarian aid or goods with respect to the campaign in Afghanistan.
Public Safety Act November 28th, 2001
Mr. Speaker, again the hon. member is exaggerating what the military security zone is all about. It really intends to protect military equipment, the property that is off base. We already have the right to protect it on base. It would give us the right to protect it if it was in another location or on visiting ships from our ally countries, to be able to make sure that we can protect them. It is nothing more than what is absolutely necessary for the proper protection of this military property. All of this is subject to current laws and regulations. There is nothing new in this at all.
National Defence November 27th, 2001
Mr. Speaker, we are about to go into the request for proposal process, the pre-qualification stage. Having gone through numerous discussions with the industry because of the many questions that they have asked, we want to make sure they understand the request for proposals. Let me assure the hon. member that when those documents go out, as they will shortly, they will reflect what our fine, dedicated men and women in the Canadian forces feel is needed in terms of the helicopter.
We will be looking to get the replacement for the Sea Kings by the end of 2005. We will work as fast as we can to achieve that.
Public Safety Act November 27th, 2001
Mr. Speaker, this is really getting exaggerated and distorted.
Hon. members will have every opportunity in committee to discuss the detailed aspects of this. These are not new powers. These are reasonable security measures that are being proposed. It does not change the rights of anybody under the charter of rights and freedoms. They can be debated further at committee, and I invite the hon. members to do exactly that.
Public Safety Act November 27th, 2001
Mr. Speaker, these provisions already exist in law as was the case during the conference in Quebec City and on many other occasions where police needed to cordon off the areas for security reasons.
This just brings the military in when it involves military matters, such as equipment of our Canadian forces, or an allied country that may be on an airport tarmac in the country or on a ship that may be in harbour. It is to provide protection and security in the kind of environment that exists today.
Public Safety Act November 27th, 2001
Mr. Speaker, there will be every opportunity to talk about the different sections and how one compares to another in the deliberations on this bill, particularly in committee.
However, I can tell the hon. member that there is no suspension of the charter of rights and there are no powers other than the ones that already exist. This is a reasonable request for a reasonable application of protection of property at a time when there are concerns about the security environment in our country and in our world.
Public Safety Act November 27th, 2001
Mr. Speaker, the hon. member should read proposed subclause 260.1(10), which states:
Any person who suffers loss, damage or injury by reason of the exercise of any of the powers conferred by this section shall be compensated from the Consolidated Revenue Fund.
Public Safety November 27th, 2001
Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. member is mixing up two provisions.
In terms of the military security zone, as I have said before, it is intended to protect the assets of the Canadian forces and our allies. Look at what happened to the USS Cole . It did not have proper protection and was attacked by terrorists. We certainly do not want that kind of thing to happen here and, certainly post-September 11, that is an area of concern. There could only be a reasonable cordoning off of an area to protect these kinds of assets. That is all the provision of this particular portion of the legislation is about.
Public Safety Act November 27th, 2001
Absolutely not, Mr. Speaker. Again, as I pointed out, in this time where there are concerns about terrorist activities, if there is military equipment that is off a military base, such as a ship visiting in one of our harbours or aircraft that may be visiting, this provides, on the recommendation of the chief of defence staff to the minister of defence, for a cordoning off of an area, a minimal area necessary for security of that environment so that we can make sure there is the kind of protection Canadians would expect us to provide.
Public Safety Act November 27th, 2001
Mr. Speaker, I think there is a great amount of exaggeration going on in these kinds of questions. It says quite clearly in the draft legislation that “the Minister shall ensure that its dimensions are not greater than is reasonably necessary to ensure...safety and security”.
We are talking about military equipment, as they have said, by and large, and that kind of thing. The kinds of powers that exist here already exist in law. The police have these kinds of authorities but in a case of military equipment and property that may be off a base, it would give the minister of defence that same authority. There are no additional powers.