Gordon O'Connor

[National Defence, February 24th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister's use of the word “no” is like Bill Clinton's use of the word “it”.

Regardless of what the Prime Minister now claims, we are irrevocably part of missile defence.

Recently the minister said it was “extremely dangerous for Canada to turn its back on missile defence”. How can the minister remain in cabinet and accept the fact that he has been hung out to dry?

[National Defence, February 22nd, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, deals are being made by the government without involving the House. Yesterday in response to my question the minister told the House that a decision had not been taken on missile defence. This was contradicted today by the ambassador to the United States. Both seem to be talking for the government, yet they are saying diametrically opposed things. Canadians need clarity.

Would the minister confirm which one is providing the facts and which one is providing the fiction?

[National Defence, February 22nd, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, this is like the gang who could not shoot straight. Who is in charge of missile defence? The Minister of National Defence, the Minister of Foreign Affairs, Canada's ambassador to the United States or the Prime Minister.

We have been told in the House on a number of occasions that amending the Norad agreement would not commit us to ballistic missile defence. Today the ambassador to the United States said that Canada was now part of the ballistic missile system.

Have we been misled? Who are we to believe? Is Canada now effectively part of the ballistic missile defence system?

[National Defence, February 21st, 2005]

Again, Mr. Speaker, we have bafflegab.

Last month the Prime Minister mused that Canada would not pay anything for ballistic missile defence, although Canada wanted a say in decision making. This is simply incomprehensible. The Prime Minister expects Canadians to believe that the U.S. will allow Canada a seat at the table without investing in the program.

Would the minister tell us if Canada has been asked to pay a financial contribution and accept missiles or sensor systems on our soil?

[National Defence, February 21st, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, the government has been negotiating ballistic missile defence with the U.S. for five years.

Some months ago the minister said that a missile defence memorandum of understanding was forthcoming, yet here we are today and there is still no public document. The Liberals have truly brought dithering to a high art form. After five years the government must be aware of all the details.

Will the minister advise the House where his government stands on missile defence?

[Canadian Forces, February 18th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, that is classic muddling.

They talk about their commitment to the military but they never follow through. It is always talk, talk, talk, but Liberal talk is cheap. They make promises without commitment. Canadians expect our military to defend our interests but the government never provides adequate resources. They hope to muddle through from crisis to crisis.

Will the minister acknowledge that $750 million is inadequate and that the military needs a much larger baseline funding increase?

[Canadian Forces, February 18th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, the government has $6 billion to blow on a phantom Kyoto scheme but only spare change for our military, leaving them barefoot in the barracks.

The rumoured budget increase is approximately $750 million. This is woefully inadequate to meet the needs of the current military and the one described by the new Chief of the Defence Staff. It is less than one-quarter of what the military needs to overcome the decay of the air force, army and navy.

Does the minister plan to muddle on and watch the military decline, or does he plan to eliminate significant military capabilities?

[National Defence, February 8th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, it is time to show some pride in our fighting men and women.

The Canadian Forces had and have members serving with allies in Iraq. Some of these members are operating at the highest level of command. The Prime Minister, by trying to hide those facts, is ignoring and even dishonouring these troops.

Why can Canadians not take pride in their performance?

The Prime Minister claims to care about our military and yet he will not acknowledge and honour those who he puts in harm's way. Why not? It is outrageous.

[National Defence, February 8th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, recent leaks to the media reveal that the government is under pressure from the United States to send troops into Iraq to train the local military.

Yesterday, the Prime Minister said that his government refused to send Canadian troops to Iraq two years ago and that decision stands. This, of course, is not in concert with the facts. Canada had and has troops serving in Iraq.

Is the government embarrassed by their presence? Is that why it says one thing and does another?

Why does the Prime Minister refuse to acknowledge our highly respected service men and women serving in Iraq?

[National Defence, February 7th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, successive Liberal governments have failed to protect our sovereignty in the north. We cannot survey our territory on a continuous basis. We cannot transport troops rapidly in the north. Now we discover that our Sea King helicopters cannot fly in the north. Because of political interference, the replacement for the Sea King helicopter will not be delivered until 2008 or 2009.

Will the minister admit that Liberal politics have adversely affected Canada's ability to protect our sovereignty?