Leon Benoit

[Canadian Forces, May 14th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, Afghanistan is becoming an increasingly dangerous place for international troops, including unarmed Canadian troops. In fact just a few weeks ago, two American soldiers were killed in the area around Kabul and yesterday two Norwegian troops, peacekeepers in fact, were shot.

I would like to ask the minister, with the safety of Canadian troops in mind, has he completed the paperwork which will allow Canadian troops in Afghanistan to carry weapons to protect themselves?

[National Defence, May 13th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, let us look at the list. Three former deputy ministers, two former Sea King squadron commanders, and a former director of the helicopter project have said it has been corrupted by political interference.

On the one hand the government is trying desperately to cover its tracks on the Sea King replacement program, and on the other hand a growing group of highly respected inside experts have said that the program has been corrupted.

Who does the government really expect Canadians to believe?

[National Defence, May 13th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, a long list of senior military and government officials have criticized Liberal bungling and interference in the Sea King replacement project. Yesterday they were joined by former deputy minister of public works, Raymond Hession, a man the justice minister has said is well respected.

Since the government has so much respect for Mr. Hession's ability to fix failed government programs, will it act on his observation that the government's process for replacing the Sea Kings is “plain stupid”?

[Points of Order, May 9th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order arising from question period.

During question period a question was asked by the opposition as to why the government is not taking action on national missile defence. The minister in his response said that in fact the government is having discussions in cabinet and in caucus. It would seem to me that it would be appropriate if the minister would table the documents that they are basing these discussions on so that we can all be involved in the discussions.

[Foreign Affairs, May 9th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, Canada faces a fall deadline to make a decision on missile defence. The government has had seven years to get involved and it has not. It was three years ago when Canada's top general at Norad said we should get involved or risk losing the protection of Norad. The government keeps playing brinksmanship with Canada's national security. Could it just put aside its leadership race long enough to make a decision on national missile defence?

[National Defence, May 7th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, the families are worried. This is a serious issue and the minister should treat it as a serious issue.

Afghanistan in case he does not know it is a very dangerous place. Just 11 days ago, two American soldiers were killed in Afghanistan in a surprise attack.

How can the minister fail so badly in his obligation to our Canadian serving men and women

[National Defence, May 7th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday the defence minister said it is no big deal that 25 Canadian soldiers in Afghanistan are not allowed to carry weapons, but I think it is a big deal and I want the government to explain why it has allowed that to happen. Was it a deliberate decision on the part of the government to deny our Canadian soldiers the weapons they need to protect themselves or was it an oversight?

[National Defence, May 6th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, the minister thinks it is unimportant that our troops do not have the ability to protect themselves by carrying firearms. This is right in line with what the government has done in committing Canadian troops to this mission without preparing them or giving them tools to do the job.

After committing to a command role that was supposed to start this summer, we now find out from the minister that Canadians will assume command only after six months. Is it not true that the government has asked Germany to bail Canada out of its commitment because the government committed our troops to a mission they simply cannot carry out at this time?

[National Defence, May 6th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, the last time this government sent troops to Afghanistan it sent them without proper uniforms. Now we hear that the Canadian contingent in Afghanistan preparing for this summer's mission does not have permission to carry firearms. Because the government failed to get permission from the stabilization force in Afghanistan before sending our troops into danger, German soldiers have been assigned to protect Canadian troops. This is shameful.

If this is true, why are Canadian troops being sent on this mission with no way of protecting themselves? Is it because of the government's incompetence or is it because of its complete disregard for the safety of Canadian troops?

[National Defence, May 1st, 2003]

In fact, Mr. Speaker, this report says that the minister's plan to share planes with small European countries simply will not work because too often there will be too few planes to deliver our troops and equipment to where they have to go. Even within Canada our military has had to rely on the United States to deliver the troops and their equipment to such natural disasters as the ice storm and the floods in Manitoba, for example, but the United States will not always be there to help when Canada needs the help.

Will the minister commit to lease or purchase large strategic airlift or will he leave it to chance to get our troops to disasters when they happen?