James Bezan

[Public Services and Procurement, April 4th, 2017]

First, Mr. Speaker, I have to address the member's comment that this is a disagreement between just him and me. I must say that there are 13 former commanders of the Royal Canadian Air Force who have written that this is a decision that will ultimately damage the nation's defence posture. Nobody is more passionate about the air force than these retired generals. This again reflects on how politically naive the Prime Minister was by making this very dangerous campaign promise of buying anything but the F-35.

The Liberals say they are going to move to an open competition, but it is five years down the road. We know that the current CF-18 fleet can only fly until 2025, and they are not going to replace those planes until 2030 to 2035. The first planes will probably not arrive until 2032 after we get this interim buy of Super Hornets. They also think that they are going to save taxpayers money, and they are not. They already have had to admit that.

In their campaign, the Liberals promised that the F-18 Super Hornets would only cost $65 million per jet. I would tell the member that Kuwait is the last country that bought Super Hornets, 40 of them, and Kuwait paid over $335 million per fighter jet. That is not a savings on anyone's books.

If we went to an open and transparent competition today, we would get the best plane at the best price in the best interest of Canadian defence.

[Public Services and Procurement, April 4th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, I am rising to address a question I originally asked on November 30, 2016, about the decision by the Liberals to unilaterally change the number of fighter jets that the military needs and the decision to sole source the Super Hornet. The question was who wrote those statements of requirement, the air force or the PMO.

As we know, through this whole discussion, the requests and desires of the Royal Canadian Air Force have been completely ignored by the government. The Liberals announced on March 14 that they finally wrote the letter to the U.S. government for the decision to go ahead to sole source 18 Super Hornets. It took them five months just to write one letter. What the Conservatives have been calling on the government to do is actually hold an open and transparent competition so that we can get the best equipment at the best price for the brave men and women who serve us in the Royal Canadian Air Force.

I just want to point out that other allied countries have done full competitions in very short periods of time. The Liberals have punted the decision down the road to make a decision on what plane we are going to buy in a competition five years from now. That is unacceptable. They took five months just to write a letter to the Trump administration on getting permission to buy the Super Hornets.

Denmark ran a fair and open competition in just 11 months, Norway ran a fair and open competition in one year and 11 months, and South Korea ran a fair and open competition in one year and four months. Why are the Liberals wasting five years to hold a competition on the replacement of our CF-18s when the previous government and the Liberal government have already done all the surveys and all the analysis on all the planes that are out there? The statements of requirement can be written today, and the plane could be selected in a relatively short period of time.

If one talks to defence experts like Alan Williams and former commanders of the Royal Canadian Air Force, they all say that this decision can be made in a year and that we can get the best value and the best plane for our troops and taxpayers, while making sure we protect Canadian jobs.

As people know, the joint strike fighter program, the F-35, already employs hundreds of Canadians across this country in more than 100 companies that are already making pieces for the F-35, which is in full production and operation around the world.

We have to remember that, when the minister and the government talk about a capability gap, it is a manufactured capability gap. It is one that they fabricated on their own, and it has no reality or basis in logic at all. The Royal Canadian Air Force has always said that we have enough planes to do the job it is called upon to do, whether it is NORAD or NATO.

We also know that research done by Defence Research and Development Canada back in 2014, a public document that the Liberals will have classified and taken off the website, showed that we have enough fighter jets currently to do the job. There is no capability gap. That report also showed that running a mixed fleet of two or three different types of fighter aircraft is too expensive and too cumbersome for infrastructure training and operations here in Canada through our rather smaller fighting aircraft in the Royal Canadian Air Force.

It is not in the best interests of Canada, the industry, or taxpayers if the Liberals proceed with the sole source and not move immediately to an open, fair, and transparent competition.

[Privilege, April 4th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today on a question of privilege to address comments made by the Minister of National Defence in the House, and information provided to the House through an Order Paper question.

On January 30, the minister signed and tabled a response to Order Paper Question No. 600, which states:

All Canadian Armed Forces personnel serving at all Operation IMPACT Kuwait locations received Tax Relief effective 5 Oct 2014 (date at which the original risk scores became effective) to 1 Sep 2016.

Operation IMPACT (Iraq) has had Tax Relief since 22 Aug 2014, date at which the original risk score for this location became effective.

Operation IMPACT (Baghdad) has had Tax Relief since 17 Apr 2015, date at which the original risk score for this location became effective.

The answers to this question means that the troops that were deployed by the Conservative government had all their danger pay and tax relief benefits.

In response to questions during question period, on March 8, and most recently March 21, the minister contradicted himself.

Specifically, on March 8, the minister said, “I would also like to correct the member in terms of the previous government's actions on this. It actually sent troops into Kuwait without the tax-free allowance, something we had taken up.”

On March 21, the defence minister said, “I just wish he had the same passion when he sent the troops to Iraq without the tax-free benefits” and “the previous government was the one that actually sent our troops to Iraq without the tax-free benefit.”

I have engaged the minister several times in the House attempting to get him to correct the record. Time and time again the minister ignores the fact that he submitted information through the Order Paper question to the House has said one thing, and continues to leave on the Hansard record something entirely different.

On February 1, 2002, Speaker Milliken ruled on a matter with respect to the former minister of national defence. The hon. member for Portage—Lisgar at the time alleged that the former minister of national defence deliberately misled the House as to when he knew that prisoners taken by Canadian JTF2 troops in Afghanistan had been handed over to the Americans. In support of that allegation, he cited the minister's responses in question period on two successive days.

The Speaker considered the matter and found that there was a prima facia question of privilege. He stated, “The authorities are consistent about the need for clarity in our proceedings and about the need to ensure the integrity of the information provided by the government to the House.”

The authorities to which Speaker Milliken was referring include the following from page 115 of O'Brien and Bosc, which states, “Misleading a Minister or a Member has also been considered a form of obstruction and thus a prima facie breach of privilege.”

While Speaker Milliken in 2002 accepted the minister's assertion that he had no intention to mislead the House, he stated, “Nevertheless this remains a very difficult situation.”

The Speaker then referred to the first edition of House of Commons Procedure and Practice, at page 67, which states:

There are...affronts against the dignity and authority of Parliament which may not fall within one of the specifically defined privileges...the House also claims the right to punish, as a contempt, any action which, though not a breach of a specific privilege, tends to obstruct or impede the House in the performance of its functions; [or that] obstructs or impedes any Member or Officer of the House in the discharge of their duties...

Speaker Milliken went on to state:

On the basis of the arguments presented by hon. members and in view of the gravity of the matter, I have concluded that the situation before us where the House is left with two versions of events is one that merits further consideration by an appropriate committee, if only to clear the air. I therefore invite the hon. member for Portage—Lisgar to move his motion.

I would argue that the issue we have before us today is identical. The Minister of National Defence has informed the House that the previous government provided tax relief to our soldiers through an Order Paper question, signed by the minister himself, and has provided oral information in our debates that say the complete opposite.

Page 63, 22nd edition of Erskine May, refers to a resolution passed by the U.K. House. It reads:

...ministers have a duty to Parliament to account, and to be held to account, for the policies, decisions and actions of their departments...it is of paramount importance that ministers give accurate and truthful information to Parliament...

How can the minister explain signing off on information that is tabled in the House that completely contradicts what he is saying in the House almost on a daily basis? Only one of these statements can be true.

I have given the minister many chances to correct the record, and as recently as March 21, he has refused.

On February 17, 2011, the member for Scarborough—Guildwood and other members argued that a minister had made statements in committee that were different from those made in the House or provided to the House in written form. These members argued that the material available showed that contradictory information had been provided. As a result, they argued that this demonstrated that the minister deliberately misled the House, and that as such, a prima facie case of privilege existed.

In his ruling on March 9, 2011, Speaker Milliken said:

The crux of the matter, it seems to me, is this: as the committee has reported, when asked who inserted the word “not” in the assessment of the KAIROS funding application, in testimony the minister twice replied that she did not know. In a February 14 statement to the House, while she did not indicate that she knew who inserted the word “not”, the minister addressed this matter by stating that the “not” was inserted at her direction. At the very least, it can be said that this has caused confusion. The minister has acknowledged this, and has characterized her own handling of the matter as “unfortunate”. Yet as is evident from hearing the various interventions that have been made since then, the confusion persists. As the member for Scarborough—Rouge River told the House, this “has confused me. It has confused Parliament. It has confused us in our exercise of holding the government to account, whether it is the Privy Council, whether it is the minister, whether it is public officials; we cannot do our job when there is that type of confusion”.

In a ruling on March 21, 1978, at page 3,975 of Debates, Speaker Jerome quoted a British procedure committee report of 1967, which states in part:

...the Speaker should ask himself, when he has to decide whether to grant precedence over other public business to a motion which a Member who has complained of some act or conduct as constituting a breach of privilege desires to move, should be not—do I consider that, assuming that the facts are as stated, the act or conduct constitutes a breach of privilege, but could it reasonably be held to be a breach of privilege, or to put it shortly, has the Member an arguable point? If the Speaker feels any doubt on the question, he should, in my view, leave it to the House.

There are two versions of events before this House by the same source, the Minister of National Defence, and no effort has been made to clarify this matter. I ask that a prima facie case of question of privilege be found, and I am prepared to move the appropriate motion.

[National Defence, April 4th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, the minister is not listening to our coalition partners. Nobody can believe him anymore.

Let me read a direct quote from the foreign minister of the Kurdish regional government. In November 2015, he said:

We would like to tell [Canada] that the air strikes have been effective.... They have saved lives. They have helped destroy the enemy.

...if it were for us [to decide], we request that to continue.

Only in the defence minister's fairytale land of alternative facts could this be interpreted as support.

Why is the defence minister blatantly misleading Canadians yet again?

[National Defence, April 4th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, when the defence minister was in Iraq in 2015, he said, “I haven't had one discussion about the CF-18s”. However, an email from Global Affairs states that at a December 2015 meeting, the Iraqi defence minister pleaded with the Liberal government to reconsider withdrawing Canada's fighter jets, on numerous occasions.

How can the defence minister blatantly ignore the requests of the Iraqi government and then turn around and knowingly mislead Canadians about it?

[National Defence, April 3rd, 2017]

Madam Speaker, I would like to remind the parliamentary secretary that this is about more than just words. This is about leadership, and that is what we have not seen from the minister or the government.

We have to remember that when this happened under a Conservative government, we pushed aside the civil servants who made these decisions and we did the right thing. We made sure that danger pay and tax benefits were there for our troops when they were deployed in Afghanistan. We need that type of leadership now from the minister. Again, the minister has allowed the Prime Minister and the finance minister to cut $12 billion from the defence budget over the last two years alone, being $8.5 billion this year. That is not leadership.

Finally, the parliamentary secretary wants to talk about methodology. This is not about methodology. This is about getting it right for our troops. They want some clear answers and some clear indication that the government is going to repay all of the danger pay that was taken away from those troops who are currently deployed in Kuwait and that this will not happen again in the future.

[National Defence, April 3rd, 2017]

Madam Speaker, it is indeed a pleasure to get up again to speak on defence issues. Hopefully, the parliamentary secretary will be able to address the issues that I raise.

I am coming back on a question that I raised on March 9. In that question, I talked about whether the Liberals are going to cook the books in the budget with National Defence. It is a bit of a shell game, moving Coast Guard expenses as part of the defence budget so that we might get closer to that 2% aspirational target set by NATO. As we know, the Coast Guard does not do any actual National Defence work. It is strictly there in search and rescue mode and to some degree does border security.

As well, I come back to this issue of danger pay that was taken away from our troops who were on the ground in Kuwait in the fight against ISIS. As members know, on March 9 we did have our opposition day in the House, and ultimately the government supported my motion to retroactively restore danger pay to all members of the Canadian Armed Forces who are involved in Operation Impact, whether they are in Kuwait, stationed in Iraq, or stationed in other locations throughout the Middle East supporting the efforts on the ground and in the air to defeat ISIS.

The questions have come back to the government. When will the troops who had their danger pay taken away at Camp Arifjan in Kuwait have their danger pay restored? When will they have all that back pay, which goes up to about $1,800 a month in increased salaries, in income tax treatment, and other benefits that accrue to them? When is that actually going to be paid back to them?

I want the government also to commit to make sure that those benefits are not taken away from other operations in Kuwait and Iraq. As we know, from the questions on the Order Paper that we raised, there has been an ongoing assessment of the danger and hardship risks that are associated with being deployed, but we also always have to remember that this is a bigger mission, taking on ISIS. It takes members of all the Canadian Armed Forces to be on the ground and in that space dealing with ISIS terrorists.

As we know, those terrorists are very mobile. Right now they are fleeing Mosul, and as those rats scurry away, they are going to places like Kuwait. They are getting out of Iraq. They are going to Syria and other surrounding regions, including back down to Baghdad, which really does put all of our troops at risk.

We have to remember that it is not just about those members of the Canadian Armed Forces who are in harm's way. This about supporting their families at home. I hope that the parliamentary secretary can assure those families that all of our troops, whether part of the Air Task Force at Kuwait, part of our Special Operations Forces, or part of a medical mission in Iraq, are going to have all of the dollars and cents that they deserve, that every penny will be paid back, and that those people who are going to be deployed and are currently deployed will not have those benefits clawed back.

Finally, I ask this of the government and parliamentary secretary. Will the Minister of National Defence correct the record of his misleading comments that he has said in this House more than a few times now? They are completely contrary to the questions on the Order Paper that he answered in Question No. 600, when he said that all of our troops, since they were deployed in Iraq and Kuwait, have all their benefits until September 1, 2016.

[National Defence, March 23rd, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, the Liberal budget was nothing but bad news for the Canadian Armed Forces. The Liberals have cut another $8.5 billion, which means they have cut a total of $12 billion in just two years. Major investments have been punted down the road for two decades, and there is not enough money to buy the equipment our forces need. This is worse than the Liberals' decade of darkness. Today they are dragging our troops back into the Dark Ages.

When will the minister start serving the brave men and women in uniform instead of being a patsy to the Prime Minister?

[National Defence, March 22nd, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of National Defence has been playing fast and loose with the truth. First, there was the Liberals' fabricated fighter jet capability gap, which is really a Liberal credibility gap. Then the minister put an unprecedented gag order on DND officials and stifled debate right here in Parliament. Now the defence minister says it was not him who cut danger pay from our troops fighting ISIS, but I have a document right here with his signature on it that proves that it was.

Will the minister come clean and apologize for misleading Canadians, or is he going to double down on his alternate facts?

[Systemic Racism and Religious Discrimination, March 21st, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, instead of addressing the issue, the Liberals are blaming the bureaucracy again. I know for a fact that when my party was government, Conservative ministers of defence overturned decisions by the panel that made those decisions.

This is about getting it corrected. Now that government supports the motion, I expect it to correct it. The question has really become this. When will it pay back the troops that were shortchanged this money since September 1? When will they get that danger pay back? When will it ensure that, going forward, the 300-plus members of the Canadian Armed Forces deployed in Kuwait will maintain their danger pay benefits and all the tax relief to which they are entitled?

Finally, this is about respecting the brave men and women in the Canadian Armed Forces, and the military families. It is one thing to put out all sorts of flowery language, but honestly, this is about leadership, stepping up, and getting the job done for them.