James Bezan

[Petitions, November 4th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure and honour to table petition e-394, an electronic petition with over 600 signatures representing almost every province in the country.

The petitioners are calling on the House to support and pass my private members bill, Bill C-267, justice for victims of corrupt foreign officials act (Sergei Magnitsky law), which would provide the government with the tool it needs to take restrictive measures against those who are committing corruption in other countries, like Russia, China, Saudi Arabia, and other places, where they are violating human rights, where they are using their positions of influence to garner their own wealth, and often, we see, as we saw with Sergei Magnitsky, where individuals are thrown in jail, tortured, and ultimately murdered because they tried to blow the whistle on corrupt foreign officials.

With this, I hope I get everyone's support for Bill C-267.

[Foreign Affairs, November 4th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, when asked about his defence minister's comments that Canada will find the root causes of the problems in Africa, the Prime Minister said, “Canada has an awful lot to offer other than just stopping people from shooting at each other”.

The Liberals will be sending our soldiers to some of the most dangerous parts of the world in Africa. When radicalized terrorists start shooting at civilians or at our troops, will they be able to defend themselves, or are they expected to just talk to the jihadists about their feelings or the root causes of the conflict?

[National Defence, November 3rd, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, it is interesting listening to the parliamentary secretary reference a breach of privilege that he had at committee, in releasing information from a draft report that he should never have been in possession of in the first place, which we dealt with at committee. Unfortunately, the committee did not proceed to deal with that as a prima facie case of privilege to report back to the House.

Regardless, the fact remains that the government is interested in a sole source, which is the worst possible option to move forward, both from the standpoint of putting the right fighter jet into the operations of the Royal Canadian Air Force and for our aerospace industry.

The second part of this is as Elinor Sloan said, in that we need to move expeditiously on an open and fair competition. We are not hearing from the government in one way, shape, or form. So it is important that the government actually starts acting in a transparent manner to provide a competition to get the right equipment for our Royal Canadian Air Force so that we can have interoperability with our allies in NORAD and NATO.

[National Defence, November 3rd, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, I want to revisit a question I originally asked back in June. I want to go back to the whole conversation that was taking place at that time about our CF-18s, the imaginary capability gap the minister was talking about at the time, the life-extension project our previous government initiated, with $400 million to make sure that our CF-18 Hornets could continue to serve the security needs of Canada, and ultimately, the replacement of our Hornets and the interim stopgap measure the government is considering with the sole-source purchase of the F/A-18 Super Hornet from Boeing.

There is no question that the comments made by the minister do not reflect the reality coming from the Royal Canadian Air Force. When we had General Hood at committee speaking about the capability gap, he actually stressed that there was no capability gap. He said that the CF-18s we have can meet all operational requirements well up to 2025.

Since that point, the minister has initiated an entire review, which is a duplication of the process undertaken by the previous government to ensure that all aircraft manufacturers' capabilities were put on the table so that we could look at all the different options available to the Royal Canadian Air Force.

It is important to note that when we talk to a number of specialists and experts in this field, they have grave concerns about the direction the government is taking. Retired General Paul Manson, who was the former chief of the defence staff back in 1977 to 1980, led the new fighter aircraft program that led to the selection of our current fleet of CF-18s. He said that purchasing the Super Hornet is a solution that, however attractive politically, would have serious consequences for the air force and Canada's future security posture.

One of the retired senior air force officers said that purchasing the F/A-18 “gives Canada the wrong aircraft forever, or certainly for the next generation. The fact is that there is no urgent need to bolster the fighter force now”. That was in the press.

We had Elinor Sloan at committee. She said:

Canada needs a next generation fighter to defend the country and fulfill our NORAD and NATO obligations. The answer is not an unnecessary stopgap measure but to expeditiously proceed with the open and transparent competition the government signed on to.

It is important that we get to an open, fair, and transparent competition to find the correct jet to meet our NORAD and NATO obligations, one that is interoperable with our allies.

I wonder where the government is at. It has gone dark on this particular issue. We have not heard anything. Maybe it has to do with gag orders that have been issued throughout national headquarters at National Defence. However, we do want to know where we are at in finding a replacement for the CF-18s and whether the $400 million has been invested to extend the life of our current fleet of CF-18s.

[Foreign Affairs, November 2nd, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, I think the minister is too ashamed to admit how he voted at the UN.

Yesterday, we learned the defence minister is making another trip to Africa. It seems the Liberals are hell-bent on sending 600 Canadian troops into harm's way. Before the minister sends our troops anywhere, he should explain to Canadians what interest we have in sending troops to Mali where 100 peacekeepers have already been killed.

Will the Prime Minister admit that sending troops to Mali serves no Canadian interests, other than his own vain campaign to win himself a seat at the UN Security Council?

[National Defence, October 28th, 2016]

Madam Speaker, when are the Liberals going to take the muzzles off the generals?

Recently, everyone has seen social media images of Canadian troops at the front line in the fight against ISIS. We asked the Liberals about Canada's role, and they responded by saying that there has been no change in the mission. That directly contradicts General Dawe, who said earlier this month, “The mission has changed.... It's gone from a more defensive posture to a more offensive one”. Defensive to offensive; that is a big change.

Why are the Liberals misleading Canadians about the role of our troops in the battle for Mosul? When will they lift this cone of silence?

[National Defence, October 28th, 2016]

Madam Speaker, the defence minister completed a fact-finding mission to Africa, and ministers have been attending peacekeeping conferences. The Prime Minister has already blindly committed 600 Canadian soldiers to the United Nations, yet still no details for Canadians. As defence critic, the member for Vancouver Quadra said, “It is essential that Canadians [know] the specific nature of the mission...specific activities our forces will be engaged in, and the expected duration of the deployment”.

Will the defence minister finally tell Canadians these essential details, or will the Liberals keep hiding behind their curtain of secrecy?

[Foreign Affairs, October 27th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, the question is about transparency and being open with Canadians.

The Prime Minister is currently campaigning on the backs of 600 Canadian troops to earn a UN Security Council seat, even though he shamefully said yesterday that he blamed soldiers for his lack of transparency.

This comes from a Prime Minister who said last year that the Liberal Party could not support any military mission when the arguments to support it had not been presented in an open and transparent manner.

Despite the Prime Minister's outrageous contradictions, will he tell Canadians exactly where, when and why he has blindly committed our troops to an undefined UN mission in Africa?

[National Defence, October 27th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, the Liberals have put an end to providing technical briefings on all military deployment. They have put more troops in danger on the front lines against ISIS, removed their air combat support and failed to provide adequate medical care. In addition, the Prime Minister has not ruled out sending our troops into Syria.

In opposition, he said, “if the Prime Minister wants Canada to join a war in Iraq, he first needs to make that case to Canadians. He can start by being open and transparent”. Does the Prime Minister see his hypocrisy? When will he be transparent with Canadians?

[National Defence, October 26th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, that is a ridiculous answer.

Despite the deafening silence by the government, commanders of the Canadian Armed Forces have confirmed that the mission against ISIS has evolved. Yesterday, the defence minister would not rule out putting our troops on the ground in Syria, this despite the fact the Prime Minister once said his position was clear, that expanding the mission into Syria, committing our Armed Forces to the dangers of an ill-defined combat mission, would not serve our national interests.

Is the minister aware that he has contradicted the Prime Minister? Why are the Liberals saying one thing in opposition and quite a different thing in government?