Pierre Paul-Hus

[National Defence, April 13th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday, in committee, we saw that the Liberals would rather write the defence policy behind closed doors without being disturbed.

That is dangerous because we are aware of the Liberals' intense hatred for the Canadian Armed Forces. The Liberals gave us submarines that take on water and helicopters that do not take off.

Can the minister confirm that Canada's defence policy is not cast in stone and that all interested parties will be heard by the Standing Committee on National Defence?

[National Defence, April 13th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister has already set a course that will weaken our armed forces.

He promised Canadians that he would replace our combat capabilities with peacekeeping operations. He promised to delay purchases of important equipment until after the next election. He promised that he would not purchase F-35s. Finally, he promised to implement the recommendations of the Report on Transformation 2011.

In light of all of this, how can the government claim that it wants to hold consultations on defence policy when the Prime Minister has already written that policy?

[National Defence, March 24th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday, the Prime Minister and Minister of Foreign Affairs refused to recognize that Canada is at war against the Islamic State. However, many of our allies are not afraid to call this conflict what it is: a war.

Is it because of that ideology that this government has indefinitely postponed the $3.7-billion investment in equipment that our armed forces need to go to war against the Islamic State?

[Public Safety, March 22nd, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, terrorism is a constant threat to the west.

After the attack on a Canadian Forces recruitment centre in Toronto, we realized that our military personnel were not adequately protected.

What concrete steps has this government taken to protect Canada's military bases and the people who work there?

[Public Safety, March 22nd, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, during the election campaign, the Prime Minister mocked the Conservative stance on terrorism.

After this morning's attacks, the Minister of Foreign Affairs stated, “Hearing the screams of children in the smoke of the Brussels metro only strengthens our resolve to combat terrorism in all its forms”.

Does the Prime Minister agree with his Minister of Foreign Affairs, and what will he do to combat this threat in Canada?

[Foreign Affairs, March 21st, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, I understand my colleague's explanations, but I am going to ask the question again.

The European Parliament, the Pope, and even the Prime Minister's good friend President Obama have characterized the terrorist acts that ISIS is committing against religious groups in Iraq and Syria as genocide. All that the Minister of Foreign Affairs has done is weakly condemn those crimes.

Does the minister agree with the Obama administration? Will he confirm that this is indeed a genocide?

[National Defence, March 11th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, the U.S. Deputy Secretary of Defense, Robert Work, is calling on the Canadian government to make up its mind and decide which aircraft will replace the CF-18. He says that the choice of aircraft must be made in the national interest of Canadians, but that the Americans are anxious to know what that choice is.

We took part in the development, and our withdrawal will have a major financial impact on the other partners.

Instead of dinners and photo ops in Washington, will this government finally make up its mind and tell us which aircraft will replace the CF-18?

[National Defence, March 9th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, I will ask in French and give my colleague opposite a chance.

CNN reported that American air strikes in Syria likely killed the person thought to be ISIS's minister of war, a Chechen fighter who joined rebel groups in Syria and then swore allegiance to ISIS in 2012. He participated in ISIS propaganda and recruitment videos, and the U.S. State Department offered a $5-million reward to have him removed.

I thank those U.S. pilots for what they did. How can the government continue to doubt the effectiveness of air strikes against ISIS?

[Business of Supply, March 8th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my esteemed colleague for his question. We obviously support economic development. The economy has always been the prime concern of the Conservative Party.

Expanding the runway at Billy Bishop airport would make it possible for the company currently operating there to purchase Bombardier planes. We support the development of the aerospace sector as well as business development. There are a number of other issues in Canada but here, in Toronto, we are talking specifically about Billy Bishop airport. If the runway were extended, Bombardier could sell its planes to Porter, just to name one company. Perhaps Air Canada could fly C Series aircraft into the Billy Bishop airport.

In what way are we opposed to development?

[Business of Supply, March 8th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his intervention.

The Conservative Party, the NDP, and the Liberal Party have a totally different way of seeing things. The Conservatives are all about supporting entrepreneurship. The Billy Bishop airport is a project that will support Bombardier's development as well as business development. The airport will create more opportunities for business and leisure travel.

We know there will probably be some financial assistance, but that is not even what our motion is about. We admit that Bombardier is a large corporation and that it has certain needs. However, we think that the Billy Bishop airport is a factor in economic development and, for the Conservatives, that is what counts. It is not just about handing out money, it is about helping businesses grow.