Leon Benoit

[National Defence, April 18th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, the truth is the government spends less on our military than it did when it took power. That is the truth.

The Prime Minister also said yesterday that the northern command is their business not ours. We are talking about an American defence perimeter that covers all of Canada and we are not even involved. Sovereignty means that Canada has some control over our own defence.

Why will this government not get serious about sovereignty by making investments in our military a priority so that the defence of Canada is not left solely to the Americans?

[National Defence, April 18th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Prime Minister said that the sovereignty and defence of Canada will be assured by the Canadian government, yet the chair of the government's own defence committee said that to preserve our sovereignty in light of the proposed northern command Canada must dramatically boost its military spending.

I would like to ask the Prime Minister this. How does his government propose to defend Canada and its sovereignty when it continues to underfund our military?

[National Defence, April 18th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, many of us woke up this morning to the shock that Canadian soldiers serving in Afghanistan had been killed and wounded while on a training exercise near Kandahar.

One can only imagine the grief and anguish felt by the families who were informed that their loved ones were involved. For many friends and family members of the Canadian forces the fear of a phone call in the middle of the night is something they think about daily.

The Canadian Alliance joins with all Canadians in mourning the tragic death of our brave soldiers. These individuals answered their country's call in the aftermath of September 11. All Canadians owe them a great debt of gratitude: Sergeant Marc Leger, Corporal Ainsworth Dyer, Private Richard Green and Private Nathan Smith. To all their comrades in the Princess Patricia's Canadian Light Infantry, we recognize their loss.

On behalf of the official opposition, the Canadian Alliance, we offer them our thoughts and prayers. We will not forget.

[National Defence, April 17th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, if the government had cleaned up its act and made a serious investment in our military we would have been offered a role in the northern command instead of having the U.S. in our backyard doing it for us.

We have heard continuous warnings from the U.S. ambassador, the NATO secretary general and countless Canadians that our military is in crisis.

I ask the minister this. Does not the real threat to Canadian sovereignty come from the erosion of our military because of what the government has not provided them?

[National Defence, April 17th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, it is clear that Canada has been left out of this unprecedented military command structure that affects our country as well as the entire continent. I want to ask the minister this. Was Canada ever invited to participate in the northern command and, if not, why not?

[National Defence, April 16th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I agree with the minister on one thing. The Challengers did not have to be replaced. They are fine. It is all about government priorities, luxury jets for the cabinet instead of supplies and equipment for our soldiers.

The Minister of National Defence will go to the wall for the Prime Minister but he will not for our troops. Does the minister know what this does for morale? Why should our soldiers fight for him when he will not fight for our soldiers?

[National Defence, April 16th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Prime Minister said that he cannot take the media along on the Challengers because he would have no place to put them except the toilet. Well, with all the marble and gold, maybe the toilet would not be such a bad place to spend a little time. Meanwhile, our soldiers in Afghanistan have waited more than two months just to get porta-potties. That is unacceptable.

Where is the government's priorities when it comes to our soldiers?

[Species at Risk Act, April 16th, 2002]

Madam Speaker, I had referred to Group No. 4 and was making comparisons. There is no doubt that my remarks were relevant. As far as mentioning who is in the House, I did not refer to who was or was not in the House. I did not say government members were not in the House today. I said government members had not been speaking to the legislation. I am sorry if the way I expressed it was not clear.

Government members have not been speaking to the legislation. Why have they not been speaking to it? It is because the government has told them they are not allowed to. The whip has come down heavily and told them they are not allowed to speak to Bill C-5. That is not the way a democracy works. What we have had in Canada for some time is not a functioning democracy.

What we have seen with the Group No. 4 amendments is a clear example of this. The committee worked on the Group No. 4 amendments regarding stewardship action plans. The all party committee dominated by the government presented its work in a report. What did the government do with the report? It chose to throw it aside and put in place what the environment minister and members of the cabinet wanted. That is exactly what it did. That is the way the government operates now. It simply threw it aside.

We know the abuse is extreme when the Liberal vice-chair of the committee goes on the radio to say she is disgusted with what her own government has done with the committee's work. She went on CBC radio two weeks ago. She said the committee had done good work on the issue, work which included the Group No. 4 amendments. She said the committee put forth its work and the government said to heck with it, the work means nothing so we will put in place what we want. The government's arrogance has reached a point where the Liberal vice-chair of the committee has made an issue of it. It is a clear problem but it did not develop recently. It is not new but it is expanding and has become worse. It is leading to bad legislation.

The Group No. 4 amendments we are talking about today demonstrate the point. The legislation and amendments now before the House and the country at report stage are not those brought forward by the committee. They were brought forward by the government to override the amendments of the committee. That is completely unacceptable.

As a result Bill C-5 has no clause for fair compensation for landowners or land users who have endangered species on their land. Because the legislation does not have a clause for fair compensation it will completely fail. Rather than protect endangered species, something we all support, Bill C-5 would further jeopardize them. Because it would adopt a mandatory rather than a voluntary approach it will fail. I look forward to commenting on further amendments as well.

[Species at Risk Act, April 16th, 2002]

Madam Speaker, the heckling is getting a little heavy over there. I guess some ministers have come to the realization that this is bad legislation and they do not want to hear about it. That is pretty clear. The fact that government members are not allowed to speak to the bill demonstrates that the government does not want to hear opposition to the legislation which has been shot down twice before.

In my opening comments I connected this group of amendments to the Challenger jet purchase. I will continue to do so because it has to do with arrogance. It is arrogance that prompts the Prime Minister and other ministers in the cabinet to buy executive jets when our military is short of equipment of all types and does not have enough people to do the job it has taken on and will continue to take on.

The same arrogance allows the government to prevent its own members from speaking to Bill C-5. Lots of them want to speak to the legislation. Many Liberal members in the House do not support it. They recognize that it is bad legislation. Arrogance is so ingrained in the government that it has become a huge problem.

I heard the Liberal vice chair of the environment committee on CBC radio a couple of weeks ago on the show The House . She talked about what had gone on at committee. She talked about some of the amendments in Group No. 4 and how they had been changed. I did not entirely like the product the committee came up with but it did its work. It was good work by and large. What the committee came up with was much better than what the government has put forward. The vice chair of the committee said on national radio that she was upset and disgusted with her own government because it had ignored months of hard work by the committee. The government completely ignored the work of all members of the committee. It threw it aside and put in place what the minister and cabinet wanted.

That is a problem of arrogance. The government no longer cares what the public wants. It thinks it can go on indefinitely without having to worry about the public. That is the sad truth. It is the level the Liberal government has come to.

I can understand why the minister and hon. members opposite want to shut me down through heckling. They do not want to hear this stuff. However it is a fact. Not only opposition members are saying this. Government members are saying it.

People across the country who expect their MPs to speak on their behalf must be wondering where the speakers are from the governing party. They are not here today. They have not been here for the past few days. They will not be here over the next few days--

[Species at Risk Act, April 16th, 2002]

Madam Speaker it is unbelievable. It demonstrates the level of arrogance of the government.

I said when I started my presentation that I would--