David Christopherson

[National Defence, October 27th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday we learned that the government was embarking on an almost half a billion dollar offer on a new satellite system. The program is already delayed and wildly over budget in the U.S.

Could the minister confirm that he is going ahead with the Canadian version of this program anyway, and in terms of transparency and accountability, why is this the first that Canadians are hearing about it?

[Points of Order, October 26th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, during the course of question period and specifically during the questions I asked, there were calls from the government benches, and I believe also from the Minister of National Defence, for me to table the document I was referring to in my question.

Given the fact that we would like as many Canadians as possible to see this document and draw their own conclusions, I seek permission to table this document before the House.

[National Defence, October 26th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, I have a copy of the directive to which the minister refers. It says:

We will also reduce portfolio size, footprint and associated overhead costs by consolidating Defence operations and programs to fewer operational sites.

Again, does this mean base closures, yes or no?

[National Defence, October 26th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of National Defence has proven that he is good at misdirection, rhetoric and personal insults. What he is not so good at is giving straight answers. The minister hurls accusations of fearmongering, but the biggest source of fearmongering is the minister's refusal to clear the air on base closures.

The minister is the only who can put military families and their communities at ease. Will he please stand in his place and assure military base communities that they have nothing to fear?

[National Defence, October 25th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, we could not have been any clearer in trying to get the minister to be clear his position.

In the absence of a denial, we have to assume that there are plans to close bases, which will cause economic damage across all kinds of communities and hurt our troops.

Therefore, the questions are going to keep coming. There will be questions on how many bases will close and how many jobs will be lost. How will these decisions be made? Will communities get an opportunity to have a say in those decisions?

At a time of economic fear, these troops and communities are now facing the added fear of these base closures, and it is not acceptable.

[National Defence, October 25th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of National Defence needs to clear the air once and for all on his government's plan for the future of military bases.

Therefore, on behalf of military families and their communities, I have a very straightforward question: will the Minister of National Defence stand in his place today and either confirm or deny that he is considering closing any Canadian military bases?

[National Defence, October 24th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, that avoids the question. Is the minister prepared to stand up right now and say that there is absolutely no truth to any of the news articles out there, and that no bases are going to close and no jobs are going to be lost?

If the minister can stand in his place and give this country that assurance, then yes, the issue will go away. If not, it will do anything but going away.

[National Defence, October 24th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday we learned that the government plans a fire sale of military land, but it has not said what bases are on the line. This has left troops across the country, and the community jobs they support, wondering if they are on the chopping block. Soldiers, their families and communities deserve some transparency.

How many bases will close and how many jobs will be lost? How will these decisions be made, and will communities have a say? Canadians deserve answers, and they deserve them now.

[Senate Reform Act, September 30th, 2011]

Madam Speaker, my colleague from Louis-Saint-Laurent provided an excellent analysis and a great speech outlining the problems with the bill. She actively put forward what we as the official opposition believe should be happening.

One of the things that those members over there pride themselves on is the sober second thought. The member made reference to many of them toeing the line. There might be one person here who ran as an independent and was elected as an independent, but I do not think so.

Therefore, given that most of the new senators would likely be partisans elected under the new legislation, would the hon. member expect more partisan toeing of the line or less as a result of senators being elected on the party ticket?

[Senate Reform Act, September 30th, 2011]

Regions.