I have finished, Mr. Chair.
House of Commons photoLost his last election, in 2011, with 29% of the vote.
Business of Supply November 7th, 2006
I have finished, Mr. Chair.
Business of Supply November 7th, 2006
Mr. Chair, I have had the opportunity over the last two years to visit several Canadian military bases. During these visits, I received a number of complaints that the funds allocated to fixing military infrastructure were not being invested in any priority order. I was also given other information.
I want to be specific about this. On some military bases, hangars have holes in their roofs. In addition, the runways that have been re-surfaced are not used very much.
Can the minister assure us that the safety of our military personnel and their quality of life are more important than his election agenda?
Business of Supply November 7th, 2006
Mr. Chair, I want to point out to the minister that a military authority signed a special exemption in 2005 so that the F-18s could train at Valcartier. It is supposed to expire in the fall of 2007, if I remember correctly. My question for the minister concerns this exemption. Since he cannot answer this evening, I assume that he will send me his response.
About a year ago, the press reported on problems with fissures in the tail rotors of 15 Cormorant helicopters. Where are we with this? How much money has been and will be spent to correct the problem?
Business of Supply November 7th, 2006
Mr. Chair, I would like to go back to my first question, when I said that an official signed an exemption for Valcartier. The fact that an exemption was signed means that the Valcartier firing range no longer meets National Defence's security standards. The minister does not have to answer me tonight, but I would like some information about the exemption sooner or later.
Can the minister tell us what the exemption covers? When an exemption is signed, that means that the facility, the training ground, does not meet all the standards. So if an accident involving civilians ever happened, what would the consequences be?
Business of Supply November 7th, 2006
Mr. Chair, the army is patting itself on the back because recruitment is going well. They are filling and sometimes even exceeding their quotas. Yet their numbers are still not up. In May 2006, the Auditor General said that in the past four years, the department recruited 20,000 members, but that in reality, only 700 additional troops joined.
Can the minister tell us whether the reason he has not confirmed the Bagotville battalion is that he does not have enough personnel? What are your thoughts on reaching the 5,000-troop target announced by the Liberals? When do you think you will reach your own target of 13,000 additional soldiers? Also, since the minister will be answering these questions, how much will it cost to add the Liberals' 5,000 troops and the Conservative Party's 13,000 troops?
Business of Supply November 7th, 2006
Mr. Chair, in January of this year, the Prime Minister came to my region, Saguenay—Lac-Saint-Jean, and visited the riding of Jonquière—Alma. He committed to adding a 650-troop battalion to the Bagotville military base. We do not yet know when this is supposed to happen, because the Department of National Defence has not told us.
Can the minister tell the people in my riding and my region and the members of this House when they can expect this battalion to arrive? Can the Minister of National Defence confirm that this battalion will really bring in 650 additional troops? At the time, there was talk of a two-year timeline.
Business of Supply November 7th, 2006
Mr. Chair, we know that NDHQ was given a mandate to present an option to give eastern Canada a practice target area for CF-18 fighters. There was a choice of three areas: Petawawa, Ontario, Gagetown, New Brunswick, and Bagotville, Quebec. In June 2006, a military representative publicly confirmed that review of the potential sites was underway.
Can the minister tell us the status of the review and when it will be made public?
Business of Supply November 7th, 2006
Mr. Chair, I have a few questions for the Minister of National Defence. I will start with specific questions and then ask more general ones.
At CFB Bagotville, CF-18 pilots need to have regular training in order to achieve international standards. It is important for them to do the necessary training manoeuvres. And to do that they have to go to Valcartier for their training.
As far as the Valcartier firing range is concerned, according to an exemption signed by an official, this firing range does not meet National Defence safety standards.
Can the Minister of National Defence tell us about this exemption and its consequences to the government in the event of an accident involving civilians?
Business of Supply November 2nd, 2006
Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate my colleague, the member for Montcalm, on his remarks concerning this motion.
He made what I would consider a magnificent speech in terms of the welfare of our veterans, and their quality of life.
One point in particular drew my attention, concerning the ombudsman.
My colleague told us that the ombudsman should report directly to the House of Commons, in order to deal with complaints and to find equitable solutions for those who call on his services.
My question is as follows: why should the ombudsman report to the House of Commons? We know that there is an ombudsman in the Department of National Defence and that he reports to the minister. The member suggested that the ombudsman should report to the House of Commons. I ask him why.
Business of Supply November 2nd, 2006
Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin by congratulating the member on his speech and his effort to stand up for veterans.
My riding is home to many veterans. We are planning to hold an event with them on Saturday, November 11, Remembrance Day. As my colleague said, what he is asking on behalf of veterans would not cost a fortune. He is not trying to make veterans rich with this bill. He wants some respect and dignity for them. I understand that, and I think that is what veterans want. My colleague also mentioned that during the last election campaign, the Conservative government made a commitment to help veterans and treat them fairly.
My question is short and simple. In his speech, the member mentioned that he was hoping for support from the Conservative government. What would keep the government from supporting this motion?