Mr. Speaker, I did not overhear the comment. However, the only disparaging thing I have ever said about the member opposite is that he was a former NDP premier.
House of Commons photoWon his last election, in 2011, with 57% of the vote.
Points of Order November 30th, 2009
Mr. Speaker, I did not overhear the comment. However, the only disparaging thing I have ever said about the member opposite is that he was a former NDP premier.
National Defence November 30th, 2009
Mr. Speaker, the relocation with respect to quarters for some of the soldiers who were previously stationed at the Manège militaire in Quebec City is currently at the planning stage. The proposal is to build a new facility on the area that is currently owned by the Department of National Defence.
This project does not aim to replace the Manège militaire Voltigeurs. I can assure the House and the member opposite that we are currently working on developing a plan for the future with respect to the Manège militaire.
Afghanistan November 30th, 2009
Again, Mr. Speaker, as I have said many, many times, when we received credible allegations, we acted. When we received evidence that we could trust, we acted.
What we see consistently coming from the members opposite is an attempt to have it both ways: to cast aspersions on members of the armed forces, suggesting there was torture and war crimes; and then to hold press conferences trying to embrace their position. To suggest that the government should not have taken the advice from these same individuals is irreconcilable.
The members opposite, particularly the Leader of the Opposition, should be very wary about taking foreign policy advice from two former NDP premiers.
Afghanistan November 30th, 2009
The only way to the truth, Mr. Speaker, is to get some consistency from the members opposite. They cannot come in here and say that they accept the evidence given at the parliamentary committee by senior members of the military and senior members of the public service and then somehow suggest that the government should not take that same advice and act appropriately. This is the inconsistency, the cynicism and the hypocrisy on this matter coming from the members opposite.
Afghanistan November 30th, 2009
Mr. Speaker, as I have stated a number of times, we continue to co-operate with investigations that are arm's-length. We continue to support the efforts that are undertaken at the parliamentary committee with information. We have quarterly reports. We have press availabilities. We answer questions in the House. We respond to the Auditor General.
I will tell the House what we will not do to inform Canadians about the mission. We will not do ten percenters, trying to raise money on the backs of the Canadian Forces. We will not do that.
Afghanistan November 30th, 2009
Mr. Speaker, if the member opposite was paying attention, she would know that this government has quarterly reports on Afghanistan. We testify before parliamentary committees regularly with respect to requests from the Auditor General. We obviously answer questions daily in the House with respect to the Afghanistan mission.
This government has been more transparent, more forthcoming with information about Afghanistan than her party was during its time in office.
Afghanistan November 30th, 2009
Mr. Speaker, more evidence that the member opposite and his party continue to try to politicize this issue.
That is the same individual, the member for Vancouver South, who said on national television just yesterday that the general's testimony was morally weak and legally flimsy. That is the same individual who, in committee, made a veiled reference to the actions of the Canadian Forces as being tantamount to war crimes. That is morally reprehensible.
The member should stand in his place and apologize to the Canadian Forces for those allegations.
Afghanistan November 30th, 2009
Mr. Speaker, let me quote somebody a little closer to the source, and that would be the commander, General Gauthier, who was on the ground in Afghanistan during the time in question. He said, “I can very safely say there is nothing in any of these 2006 reports that caused any of the subject matter experts on my staff, nor, by extension, me, to be alerted to either the fact of torture or a very high risk of torture, nothing”.
Mr. David Mulroney, who testified as well, said, “I can say that we have no evidence that any Canadian-transferred detainee was mistreated”.
I will take their word over the individual opposite.
Afghanistan November 30th, 2009
Mr. Speaker, as usual with the member, nothing could be further from the truth.
We have and we will continue to disclose documents in keeping with the vetting process that has always been applied with respect to national security, the Canada Evidence Act. This is the job of the Department of Justice. We act upon that advice, as we act upon the advice of the senior military, the senior public service. We accept that professional non-partisan advice.
The members opposite, again, are demonstrating hypocrisy and cynicism saying that they accept that advice but not the government's actions.
Here is what the Globe and Mail had to say: “No one with a lick of sense would expect that Afghan prisoners would live in comfort or ease”. This is what the Globe and Mail—
Afghanistan November 30th, 2009
Mr. Speaker, let us be clear, again. The senior leadership of the military and our senior civil servants in charge of the mission in Afghanistan have rejected allegations of torture. That was what they said in their testimony before the committee. We acted, of course, on the advice of those same people.
The hypocrisy and the cynicism of the members opposite to say that they accept the advice of the military and the senior civil servants but reject the actions of the government points to the real failings of what they are doing.