Leon Benoit

[National Defence, June 13th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, Canada could be the third. Why will this government not recognize that? The fact is, the cost for Canada to rent airlift for the Afghanistan mission will probably be much higher than if we had owned or leased our own planes to do the job. In the long run, owning or leasing would save money and ensure the planes are there when we need them.

Why would the government choose the high cost, high risk option rather than doing what is best for Canada and best for our military?

[National Defence, June 13th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, the large planes this government is planning to rent to move Canadian military equipment are both unreliable and dangerous. Seventy-five Spanish peacekeepers were recently killed when one of these rented Ukrainian planes crashed. Families of those killed were so upset they shouted “murderer” at the Spanish prime minister and defence minister as they attended the funeral mass.

Why would this government rent such unreliable and dangerous planes rather than purchasing our own reliable strategic airlift planes?

[Government Contracts, June 13th, 2003]

She does a great job. You do a lousy job.

[Injured Military Members Compensation Act, June 13th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise and speak to Bill C-44 this morning. This legislation will right a wrong that has been in place for many years, for 30 years many would argue. They would say 30 years because for colonels and above this lump sum payment coverage has been in place since 1972. It is indeed an embarrassment that it has taken this government this long to act on changing that.

I think one has to wonder where the government's priorities are. We get legislation coming forward in the House all the time that quite frankly does nothing positive at all, and in some cases just the opposite, and yet a change like this, which was desperately needed, has taken 30 years, or 10 years for those who served in the Balkans, where many were injured, including the person who was persistent enough on this issue such that the government could finally no longer resist, and that was Major Bruce Henwood.

In fact, this bill should be called the Bruce Henwood bill, because he has pursued this issue absolutely fruitlessly for 10 years until just recently when, with help from the opposition but mostly through his own efforts over the years, he finally forced the government to make this move. Why the government would resist for so long is almost impossible to understand, but finally he has been successful. Again I have to say that I think the bill should be called the Bruce Henwood bill, because it was through his courageous and persistent actions that it has come forward.

There are some problems with the bill. One is in the case of people feeling they are not receiving proper treatment. Under the bill, it is of course the minister who makes the decisions. If someone feels mistreated, there is an appeal, but who is the appeal to? To the minister. So we will have the minister appealing his own decision in cases where people feel they are being improperly treated. That simply has to be changed, and I hope it will be changed by the minister.

What we are proposing, in fact, is that there be an appeal to the military ombudsman. The military ombudsman would then make a recommendation to the minister. Should the minister support that recommendation, fine, it will go through, but should the minister refuse to support the military ombudsman's recommendation on an individual case, we are suggesting that the military ombudsman be given authority to make public both the minister's reasons for rejecting it and the ombudsman's reasons for supporting it. At least we would then have the court of public opinion to put pressure on the minister.

I am calling upon the government to do that. I would assume that the government can see it is improper to have the minister handling appeals for the minister. I hope clause 11 of the bill will be amended to deal with that.

As well, this legislation simply will not deal with cases of injuries like post-traumatic stress disorder. There is nothing in Bill C-44 to help deal with those types of cases. Also, there is probably nothing in the bill to deal with cases like that of Matt Stopford, who has been stonewalled by the government, and quite frankly by the military, for many years. He was severely injured, admittedly poisoned by his own troops when serving in the Balkans. This legislation does nothing to help him as far as I can tell, so there are some huge gaps in the legislation.

It is certainly going to be worthwhile legislation for the roughly 200 military personnel who will likely receive lump sum payments of up to $250,000, although many of the payments will be much less than that.

I commend the government for finally righting this wrong after 30 years, it could be argued, but certainly 10 years. It has taken 10 years, but I guess better late than never applies in this case. Let us move ahead with this and fix the things that have to be fixed, which I have pointed to. I would like to congratulate Major Bruce Henwood for the Bruce Henwood bill.

[Canada Elections Act, June 10th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to be recorded as voting against this motion.

(The House divided on Motion No. 4, which was agreed to on the following division:)

[National Defence, June 9th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, the minister says there is no problem with this mission, but the fact is that four German soldiers were killed and several were injured this weekend.

In past missions, Canadians troops have been endangered. In fact, last time we sent troops to Afghanistan they had not even been told the rules of engagement. Now senior military analysts are saying our peacekeepers will be sitting ducks in Kabul. Have Canadian troops bound for Kabul been given robust rules of engagement or is this mission going to be a repeat of past travesties?

[National Defence, June 9th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, the defence minister said it was a non-issue when Canadian troops were sent to Afghanistan last month with no weapons. Now Canadian troops are being deployed in Kabul and are desperately short of night vision goggles, laser rifle sights and unmanned aerial vehicles, and they may be going in green uniforms yet again.

The Liberal government should have made sure that the equipment was available before it committed to the mission. Why is it always a day late and a dollar short when it comes to giving our troops the equipment they need?

[National Defence, June 6th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, the Liberal government ripped the heart out of the Canadian army when it disbanded the Canadian airborne regiment, a proud, well-respected, elite, rapid response unit. In today's world many missions must be spearheaded by a fast moving, hard hitting, elite unit that trains together like the airborne regiment.

Will the government agree to right a terrible wrong and reinstate the Canadian airborne regiment?

[D-Day, June 6th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, as we sit in the House of Commons today, our D-Day veterans are once again on the beaches of Normandy. Today, they are the first guests to visit the new Juno Beach Centre, which honours Canada's sacrifices and successes on June 6, 1944.

Some have said this centre is long overdue and they are right. On D-Day, 59 years ago today, 14,000 Canadians were fighting, many dying, on the beaches of Normandy. These soldiers were mostly kids, many younger than my three sons.

D-Day has often been called the beginning of the end of World War II. By day's end, Canadian troops had progressed further inland than any of our Allies. If Canada became a nation at Vimy Ridge, we reinforced it on D-Day.

Our country has a long and proud military history. The Juno Beach Centre will help honour an important part of our past. On behalf of the Canadian Alliance, Canada's official opposition, I say that we owe them more than we can ever repay. May God bless them all.

[Agriculture, June 5th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, Canadian cattlemen and the cattle industry are facing the most devastating situation I have seen in my lifetime. Many are my friends and neighbours, and I know they ask for very little from the government. They ask only for the removal of unfair trade restrictions so they can have free and fair trade. They ask for lower taxes. They ask for unnecessary regulations to be removed so they can spend more time running their business.

The Canadian Cattlemen's Association has been an incredibly responsible organization when it comes to representing the views of cattlemen. Last year when cattlemen faced the most serious drought in history, they asked for no special help at all. Now, in their time of need when cattlemen need action on the part of government to do what is necessary to ensure the border is reopened, what do they get? Very little.

What is the government's plan to deal with the crisis in the cattle industry? It does not have one.

In this time of need our cattlemen, who ask for so little, deserve an awful lot more from the government.