Committee
Consult the user guide
For assistance, please contact us
Consult the user guide
For assistance, please contact us
Add search criteria
Results: 1 - 15 of 195
View Jean-Yves Roy Profile
BQ (QC)
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
General, your message is not clear, and I want to tell you why.
View Jean-Yves Roy Profile
BQ (QC)
Your message is not clear and I am going to tell why. In your speech, you have always said and confirmed that it was the end of the mission in Kandahar and the withdrawal of Canadian Forces from Kandahar. On the other hand, Lieutenant-General Lessard is telling us that it is the end of the mission in Afghanistan and that all troops will be repatriated.
On page 15, it states and I quote, “The Canadian Forces will continue to contribute to the whole-of-government mission that relies on a stable security environment. We will continue to support capacity building within the Afghan National Security Forces.” So we are not talking about pulling all of the Canadian Forces out of Afghanistan in July 2011. It is the end of the military mission. There is a nuance between the two.
Have I understood correctly? In your speech, you keep talking about the end of the mission in Kandahar. I understand that the military mission is concentrated in Kandahar, but not all of the troops in Afghanistan will be pulled out in July 2011.
View Jean-Yves Roy Profile
BQ (QC)
Correct. However, this means that, after July 2011, Canadian soldiers will remain in Afghanistan and will continue to work in education, reconstruction or to ensure the protection of Canadians in mission there, but also in the Kandahar area.
View Jean-Yves Roy Profile
BQ (QC)
That is not what you said in your speech. You said that the Canadian Forces will continue, after July 2011, to contribute to the whole-of-government mission that relies on a stable security environment. You said in your speech that the Canadian Forces will continue to make a contribution in Afghanistan. This means that soldiers will remain in Afghanistan.
View Jean-Yves Roy Profile
BQ (QC)
Lieutenant-General Lessard, I understand, but that is not what the general is telling us. The general is saying that the Canadian Forces will continue to contribute on the ground after July 2011. That is what is written on page 15.
View Jean-Yves Roy Profile
BQ (QC)
Are you sure they will have all left and there will not be a single soldier left in Afghanistan? That is what I want to know.
View Jean-Yves Roy Profile
BQ (QC)
Therefore, soldiers will remain on the ground to carry out security missions.
View Jean-Yves Roy Profile
BQ (QC)
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I must say that I am very concerned about the Auditor General's report. You have said that you agree with the recommendations, but I find that things have not progressed all that much. Basically, if you want to protect Canadians, you first have to identify the risks they might be facing. In today's world, there is a constant and significant change in the nature of those risks. For instance, I am thinking about the climate change we are experiencing, particularly in my region, where there are some 130 public sites, including roads and villages, that might be hit by flooding, etc.
What exactly have you done in terms of risk assessment? And I am not talking solely about physical risks, because I believe that prevention work also has to be done.
In terms of agriculture, you have spoken about food safety. Consider the issue of wheat farming. At some future date, climate change might disrupt a significant part of our country's grain production, and we might be seeing that happen very quickly, because our climate is now changing extremely quickly and we cannot foresee the impact of that over a 10- to 15-year period. We will have to deal with increasingly dangerous natural disasters. And I am not talking about breakdowns in information technology or one-off things like terrorism and cybercrime. I am talking about changes in our natural environment.
Allow me to give you a very concrete example. In a city like Toronto, let us suppose that temperatures remain extremely high for three or four days, a week even, as was recently the case. Have safe places been identified to accommodate people with respiratory problems? At one point, when temperatures were very high and smog alerts were in effect, shopping malls were used in the Montreal area. Can we assure Canadians that they will be effectively protected against the hazards arising from climate change? That is something of great concern to me.
I find the report unsettling. Indeed, it has been difficult for you to exercise leadership, and not only because of the problems you faced in recruiting staff. Is there cooperation among the departments concerned? And are you cooperating with the appropriate departments in all provinces as well as major cities such as Toronto, Montreal and Vancouver?
View Jean-Yves Roy Profile
BQ (QC)
That is what I find concerning. At present, departments do not have their own committee to inform them of potential risks. Unfortunately, in the majority of disasters, Public Safety only intervenes after the fact. There is no prevention, and that is what I am concerned about. The best example of that is what occurred at Rivière-au-Renard, in Quebec. Everyone knew that it was a flood area, but people were allowed to build their homes there.
View Jean-Yves Roy Profile
BQ (QC)
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
My question is for you, Mr. Baker, because I am very concerned about the federal department's ability to respond to emergencies.
I will give you two examples I am aware of. In June 2004, the Coast Guard had two hydroplanes for dealing with air disasters at the Vancouver Airport. The first hydroplane broke down and then the second one did. Because the propeller was manufactured in Germany, it took three weeks before one of the hydroplanes was up and running. However, had there been a disaster at the Vancouver Airport, we would have been unable to respond during this three-week period. Let us be clear about that.
I will give you another example. After September 2001, we learned that, on the west coast, in British Columbia, the radar system was totally ineffective because there were many holes. I know that there are people from British Columbia here. Had there been a terrorist attack, we would not even have seen it coming, as was the case with this boat that carried a multitude of illegal immigrants to the coast.
To what extent do you check the validity of the information provided to you by the departments?
I have another example for you, this time dealing with the east coast. At one point, the Canadian Coast Guard had not even planned to purchase enough oil, and as a result, the ships had to remain at the dock. Indeed, the ships did not have enough oil to be able to be sent out to sea.
These are very tangible examples of incidents that we have experienced and discovered over the years. Personally, I am far from feeling safe. I am sorry.
View Jean-Yves Roy Profile
BQ (QC)
To what extent do you make certain that the departments are providing you with serious information, namely, that they are capable of responding seriously?
Are they not kidding you when they say that they are able to do these things although they do not necessarily have the required equipment?
View Jean-Yves Roy Profile
BQ (QC)
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Mr. Wallace, I agree with you that it would be nice to invite veterans to come and share their views on pensions with the Standing Committee on Finance.
My first comment is directed to Mr. Fraser.You stated that no particular priority was assigned to the 16 recommendations. As I'm listening to you speak, I sense that there are at least three major themes coming out of this morning's discussions.
First of all, there are the financial considerations which obviously are very important to you. Family and personal security are important.
Then there is the culture of the department, that is the way the department operates. I'm not comfortable talking about the culture of the department because the public service is merely enforcing laws and policies. I'm tempted to use employment insurance as an example. Changes have been made to the EI system and a client who comes into an EI office and who has made a mistake is almost automatically accused of fraud. The same holds true for taxes. It's more the way policies are devised that ensures that under these systems, the client is almost automatically considered guilty, even before he has the opportunity to state his case. It's true of the Income Tax Act and of employment insurance and I'm sure it must be the same for veterans.
However, you have to understand that public servants are only applying the law. The politicians are the ones who make the law. I have some personal views on this subject. The system needs to be changed so that clients are not automatically deemed guilty before they even have an opportunity to defend themselves.
The third point concerns follow-up measures, or the help veterans receive when they are discharged from the forces after being injured and when they want to return to civilian life. To my way of thinking, it is critically important that each person receive personalized help. You say that you become mere numbers and that follow-up measures are impersonal. As a result, you find yourself all alone dealing with the bureaucracy. Some people are unable to handle this.
Have I summed up the three priority areas you identified for us this morning? I'd like to get the opinion of the three witnesses.
Results: 1 - 15 of 195 | Page: 1 of 13

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
>
>|
Export As: XML CSV RSS

For more data options, please see Open Data