House of Commons photoWon his last election, in 2011, with 57% of the vote.
Afghanistan October 5th, 2009
Mr. Speaker, I would hope that the hon. member would understand that this is an arm's-length commission taking place under the Military Police Complaints Commission's rules that apply under the Federal Court. There is case law and precedent that applies to these matters.
Surely the hon. member is not suggesting that the government would involve itself in the proceedings that are currently before the court. Surely she is not suggesting that.
Afghanistan October 1st, 2009
Mr. Speaker, I will say again that the member is wrong. The government and the members of the Canadian Force in particular cooperate fully with the commission.
It is clear that we are complying with the mandate of the commission itself. It is also clear that this is set out in federal legislation. It is set out in the National Defence Act. It is set out by the Federal Court. This is not politically motivated. There is no political interference. This is done by an arm's-length commission.
I know that the hon. member has never been part of a government. He may not understand that, but this is an arm's-length process and we are respecting that process.
Afghanistan October 1st, 2009
Mr. Speaker, as is so often the case, the leader of the New Democratic Party has his facts completely wrong.
The Government of Canada has been cooperating with the Military Police Complaints Commission. We have provided dozens of witnesses who have testified already. We will continue to cooperate. We have provided thousands of documents that have also been entered into testimony.
With respect to Mr. Colvin, he was on a witness list that was compiled before the Federal Court had ruled in favour of the federal government, limiting this complaint commission to the mandate that is set out in the National Defence Act. Those are the facts and he should read the facts.
Afghanistan September 30th, 2009
Mr. Speaker, that was a remarkable rhetorical flourish from the member for St. John's East. It is amazing how many falsehoods he was able to get into one question.
We have said repeatedly, and the Prime Minister has repeated it, as have I, that we will respect the motion that was passed by the House of Commons. We cannot fight for democracy in Afghanistan and not respect the democracy in the House of Commons.
I would ask the hon. member to go back and read the record and get his facts straight.
Afghanistan September 30th, 2009
Mr. Speaker, the reality is that is simply not true. The military has been co-operating with the MPCC. In fact, we have provided dozens of witnesses to provide testimony. We have provided hundreds of documents. That board will say so itself.
With respect to this evidence, there is sensitive information. There are national security considerations. There is information that has to be vetted.
We are co-operating with the commission. We will continue to do so, and the board itself has said so.
Afghanistan September 29th, 2009
Mr. Speaker, to suggest that sexual abuse against small boys, or anyone for that matter, is intolerable is something on which the member and I can agree. But to suggest somehow that the Canadian Forces or the independent bodies are complicit in covering something up is also intolerable. The member should know better, having practised law.
These arm's-length bodies are there to get to the bottom, to be transparent, to be open, to gather information. Rather than cast spurious allegations on the floor of the House of Commons, he should wait for that board of inquiry to report.
Afghanistan September 29th, 2009
Mr. Speaker, I am quite surprised by the tone and tenor of the hon. member's comments.
The Canadian Forces take these allegations very seriously. They have been given clear direction to report, stop, prevent any abuse they would see.
It is absolutely intolerable in this country as it would be in Afghanistan. To suggest that an independent arm's-length body like the National Investigation Service of the Canadian Forces would come up with a whitewash or is covering something up is absolutely disgusting as well.
Questions on the Order Paper September 14th, 2009
Mr. Speaker, in response (a), total Department of National Defence expenditures to date (29 June 09) on the joint strike fighter program are US $142.57 million. Spending is not tracked by year and project component but rather by phase as outlined below.
i) For concept development, which occurred between 1997 and 2001, the Department of National Defence spent US $10 million.
(ii) For the system design and development phase, which began in 2002 and will conclude in 2013, the Department of National Defence has spent US $94.35 million. No further payments are required for system design and development.
(iii) For production sustainment follow-on development, commencing in 2006 and continuing until 2051, the Department of National Defence has spent US $38.22 million.
In response to (b), to date, the total value of joint strike fighter program contracts awarded to Canadian companies is CND $325 million.
In response to (c), level II participation was only possible in the system design and development phase of the program. The program no longer distinguishes between levels of partners.
Questions on the Order Paper September 14th, 2009
Mr. Speaker, in response to (a), readily accessible departmental records indicate that the total number of media queries received by the Department of National Defence between June 23, 2008 and June 23, 2009 was 2,900, which includes all queries received at National Defence Headquarters and those reported through the regional and local offices.
In response to (b), the average response time was 12 hours.
In response to (c) approximately 17% of the total number of queries were not answered by the reporter’s stated deadline.
In response to (d) readily accessible departmental records do not provide information on the origins of the media requests; therefore, it was not possible within the time allotted to determine which requests came from international media.
Questions on the Order Paper September 14th, 2009
Mr. Speaker, in response to (a), total expenditures on the joint support ship project as of 17 June 2009 were $44 million.
In response to (b), the staffing level of the joint support ship project as of 17 June 2009 was 31 personnel.
In response to (c), as the only contracts currently in place are for engineering and management support on an as required tasking basis, there would be no costs associated with any project cancellation.