Laurie Hawn

[Situation in Haiti, December 13th, 2010]

Madam Speaker, being quick off the mark is important because it is the right thing to do in the short term and it feels good. It is also important, once we are quick off the mark, to be right on the mark, and that is the longer-term challenge to make sure that things happen correctly over the next decade. I wonder if my hon. colleague can comment.

Canada has been quick off the mark and that has been acknowledged. I think we have done the right thing there. What are we doing to be right on the mark in the longer term to make sure that we develop Haiti to be an independent, self-sustaining, functioning country in the long term?

[Situation in Haiti, December 13th, 2010]

Madam Speaker, I did listen attentively to my colleague.

I just want clarification. Is the member suggesting that the Government of Canada artificially create jobs just to satisfy this need or that it just make sure that, for all the jobs that are out there, everybody has an equal opportunity to get those jobs? Is he talking about artificially creating equal results or making sure there is equal opportunity?

[Situation in Haiti, December 13th, 2010]

Madam Speaker, Canadians are very generous people. They give freely at times like these and Canadian governments regardless of their stripe are very generous and give freely at times like these.

I wonder if my hon. colleague could comment on the importance of making sure that the money Canadians and the Government of Canada give at times like these is actually spent in areas that will do the most good. I am speaking obviously of corruption. In places like Haiti and Afghanistan it is just a reality. There is a lot of corruption and money that we generously give sometimes goes in the wrong direction.

I wonder if the Secretary of State could comment on what Canada is doing and the importance of making sure that the money we do give is going to the right recipient.

[National Defence, December 10th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, that is absolutely false. The Minister of National Defence, the Chief of the Defence Staff and everyone in the chain of command, adheres to their obligations under international law. We brought in an improved arrangement when the previous arrangement was found to be insufficient. The opposition members are trying to make a news story of something that is merely routine. It is the JAG advising members of their responsibilities and that is his job, and it is their job to abide by those responsibilities and that is what they have done.

[National Defence, December 10th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his question.

The simple fact is all the Judge Advocate General was doing was giving prudent legal advice and guidance to senior leadership of the Canadian Forces. That is his job. There was a lot going on at the time. He was merely making sure that everyone understood their duties, which they have carried out. All members of the Canadian Forces at all levels have abided by their obligations nationally and internationally for the welfare of the Afghan people in keeping with their good reputation and the great work the Canadian Forces have done in the process.

[National Defence, December 8th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, in 10 countries, highly paid, highly qualified experts, civilian and military, have looked at this situation and have all come up with the same answer, and that is the F-35.

Let me tell the House what some people are afraid of. They are afraid of going to Lockheed Martin. They are afraid of going to Fort Worth to look at the airplanes and to find out the truth. They scuttled a trip by the defence committee that was supposed to go there last week.

The Minister of National Defence is there today with the Minister of Industry, with representatives from 11 companies that do know the truth and understand the truth.

This is the best deal for the Canadian air force. It is the best deal for Canadian industry. It is the best deal for Canadian taxpayers. Get with the program.

[National Defence, December 8th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, what would the member expect those companies to say?

The F-35 investment is a win-win for Canadian Forces and the Canadian economy. The Canadian Forces are replacing an aircraft that is at the end of its lifetime. The Canadian aerospace industry will benefit from opportunities with tens of thousands of highly skilled well-paying jobs for decades to come.

Why do the Liberals want to take the force out of the air force, and let the air out of the aerospace industry?

[Public Accounts, December 8th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, let me rewind the clock here. In 1993, the Prime Minister stood up and said, “Zero helicopters”.

Seventeen years later and about $1 billion later, we are still waiting for the first airplane. That program has been problematic because of what the Liberals did to the program. It has taken us this long to resurrect it.

We are finally going to equip the back end of our ships with a modern, updated helicopter that is going to meet the needs of the Canadian Forces, that is going to meet the needs of Canadian industry, and is going to correct the errors that those folks on that side made 17 years ago.

[Strengthening Military Justice in the Defence of Canada Act, December 6th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, I have a couple of quick comments for clarification.

My hon. colleague was searching for the number of people who chose summary trial. Actually 93% chose summary trial. This suggests that the majority of people in the military are comfortable with that process and understand that it is not an unfair process.

The other connection to Somalia, which obviously was in 1999, but the attention paid to issues of discipline and so on before they became major issues, as was the case in Somalia, there was a stronger awareness and a much greater appreciation of the fact that small things can become big things. That is the Somalia effect on the number of charges and so on in recent years.

[Strengthening Military Justice in the Defence of Canada Act, December 6th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague talked about the summary trial process being unfair. Having been involved with some, I would disagree.

Could my colleague comment on the fact that the accused actually gets the right to trial by court martial where summary trial has jurisdiction? The accused can in fact make the choice. I am not sure how that translates into basic unfairness with the system.