Leon Benoit

[An Act to amend the Criminal Code (cruelty to animals and firearms) and the Firearms Act, April 7th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I find it interesting that the member is calling for the Senate to be given more power although the Senate is a non-democratic body, with members appointed by the Prime Minister. It is completely non-democratic.

Does the member not think that a more appropriate way of reforming the Senate would be along the lines of what has been proposed by the Canadian Alliance, where, once the senators are elected, then we talk about making sure they have the appropriate powers to provide a check and balance based on regional differences and minority rights? Does he not think that is the way to go rather than the way he is suggesting, which is to give them more power as non-elected senators, then at some time in the future make it votable?

I would also like him to comment on why fully half of his caucus, back when this bill was put through, did not come out against this bill. Fully half his caucus did not come out against this bill when it was passed.

[An Act to amend the Criminal Code (cruelty to animals and firearms) and the Firearms Act, April 7th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I found it interesting that the member started off his speech by chastising those members who were supporting the amendment that would throw out Bill C-10, which has been split by the Senate.

In his comments, he chastised members who said we should try to have it thrown out based on the fact that it was inappropriate for the Senate to split the bill. At the same time, he just admitted in his debate that if we just opposed the bill based on its content because it is a bad bill, we in the opposition would never win, that it would be supported by the government and passed anyway. I find his argument on that a little hard to understand.

I think it is important, in fact, that the Speaker's ruling on this bill was based on a precedent set in the 1940s. I would like to ask the member whether he does not think that what Canadians would accept now in terms of democratic process is quite different from what Canadians would have accepted back in the 1940s in terms of democratic process. I believe that in a modern democracy people expect a lot more democratic process and do not believe the Senate should be interfering in this way. Even though the precedent is there, I think the times have changed, so maybe the precedent is not in tune with modern times. I would like to ask the member that.

The member also said that we should oppose this based on content and yet I did not hear him comment much on the content. As a final question, I would ask the member how he squares his current position on this with the fact that a former Conservative government passed Bill C-17, which was a bill that started this whole process in the wrong way in terms of the registry and so on, and--

[An Act to amend the Criminal Code (cruelty to animals and firearms) and the Firearms Act, April 7th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, the last two members who have spoken have said this is the fault of the Senate, and that may be true to some extent. However, is it not really the government that is the problem because it allowed this to happen? If the government were to respect the democratic process, it would never have allowed this to happen. It would not have allowed this kind of anti-democratic thing to happen.

Pointing the finger of blame in this case at the Senate is perhaps not the wisest thing to do. We should be putting the blame where it fairly belongs which is on the government for not respecting this democratic place.

[Canadian Forces, April 7th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, the government says that Canadian military personnel serving with the United States and the United Kingdom in Iraq are only allowed to fire in self-defence. If Saddam's army fires on the U.S. or U.K. units to which the Canadians are attached, what are the Canadians to do?

Can the government assure us that our CF members will not face disciplinary action if they fire on the enemy to protect British or American troops in those units?

[Canadian Forces, April 7th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister said that Canadian military personnel serving on exchange with the U.S. and the U.K. in Iraq have become members of the exchange country's military. If that is true, then the Canadian troops in Iraq operate under the host country's rules of engagement.

The government cannot have it both ways. Do Canadian troops serving with the U.S. and the British in Iraq serve under special rules made up by the government, or do they serve under the same rules as the units they are attached to?

[Supply, April 3rd, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I know there are many others who want to ask questions. I will not let the member across the floor, hurling insults, to slow me down on this.

I want the member to answer for his party. Why has the government shown no leadership in removing Saddam Hussein and his weapons of mass destruction, which are a real threat to Canadians and to our country? He stands and supports the Americans, the Brits, the Aussies and the other 40-some countries doing this on our behalf, but his government will not make a commitment on behalf of Canadians.

To be fair, in his speech he did say that it was wrong for all those members of his caucus to make the anti-American comments, but I want him to explain, and hopefully not with a rant, the total lack of leadership on the part of the government.

The only leadership in this debate has been shown by the Canadian Alliance, quite frankly. We have taken a consistent position, have stuck with it all the way through and more and more Canadians are agreeing with that position as time goes on because it is the right thing to do.

[Supply, April 3rd, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I hope the member, through his rant, was able to vent some of his frustration. No doubt he has heard a lot of comments back home criticizing him and his government about their poor performance on this issue, in particular, their lack of leadership and anti-American rhetoric that has been widespread through that caucus.

I have sheets of anti-American comments that his colleagues have made in this House and he goes on a rant against us claiming that we are anti-Canadian because we point out the fact that the government has not provided the leadership this country deserves. He says that we are somehow anti-Canadian because we stand with our friends and allies. We do not think we should poke our finger in their eyes and hurt our important relationship--

[Supply, April 3rd, 2003]

Why deny the truth?

[Supply, April 3rd, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, the first thing we should do is support the motion before the House today. It should be supported unanimously and I am sure it will be. At least then we can let the Americans know that every member of the House has agreed to those issues, and that is important.

The member is so correct in pointing out how Americans have come to the aid of Canadians on so many occasions. I have heard members on the other side ask when the Americans ever helped us. I have heard them say that they have never helped us or that they do not care about us. I could remind them through a long list of things but let us start with the floods in Manitoba.

How did we get our military personnel and equipment there to deal with that terrible natural disaster? We had the ice storms in eastern Ontario and Quebec. How did we get our military personnel there to help with that terrible and dangerous situation? We never had the ability to do that on our own. We called our American neighbours. They probably offered their help voluntarily. They provided the heavy airlift that moved our troops and equipment so that we could deal with those natural disasters. Yet we have members across the way asking when did Americans ever help us.

Add that to the list my colleague mentioned. We would find a long list of times when the Americans have helped us. We also would find a long list of times where we fought together in common causes to rid the world of tyranny.

[Supply, April 3rd, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, those words were very well chosen and are completely appropriate. One minister's speech one time in the House quite frankly does not a trend present. We have seen the defence minister deny again and again that Canadians are involved in the war in Iraq. We have seen the Prime Minister deny that. In fact the foreign affairs minister did not acknowledge that today.

By not acknowledging they are there putting their lives on the lives on the line for our freedom and security and for the freedom and security of the Iraqi people and people in neighbouring countries who are directly threatened by Saddam Hussein and his regime, we are letting our military personnel down in the worst way imaginable. He did not show that support and the government has not shown that support.

It is shameful if they do not acknowledge that they are putting their lives on the line for a worthy cause. If anything, my language should have been much stronger, not weaker.