Rob Anders

[National Security, April 2nd, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, over the past 10 years the Liberals have drastically cut funding to defence and reduced the size of our military. Now they are scrambling to slap band-aids on the gaping holes in our national security at the last minute.

The past decade gave us the dissolution of the ports police, huge cuts in the defence budget and insufficient support to our intelligence agencies like the RCMP. Instead, the Liberals squandered taxpayer dollars on the gun registry, the HRDC boondoggle and bogus work for Liberal ad firms.

What government puts the needs of cronies ahead of the safety and security of its citizens? Imagine where all those hundreds of millions and billions could have gone instead of the Liberal government lining its own pockets.

It could have gone toward replacing the Sea King helicopters. It could have gone toward port security. It could have gone toward Aurora patrols over our costs. In short, it could have gone toward making Canada a safer and more secure place in which to live.

[Petitions, February 16th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, we heard some questions on that crazy gun registry today where one of my colleagues said that it was now costing $2 billion. Unfortunately, I have several hundred petitions from my constituents who think it only costs $1 billion. I feel a little remiss because it has actually cost double what they think. It also is not supported by the provinces. They also petition that the gun registry actually has not reduced gun crimes.

The petitioners call upon Parliament to repeal Bill C-68.

I cannot see any good logical cost effective argument for why they are wrong. I think they are right. Bill C-68, the gun registry--

[Member for LaSalle--Émard, February 13th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, the new Prime Minister would have us forget that he was the kingpin in Jean Chrétien's game. He wants us to forget that he was responsible for over $1 billion being wasted on the gun registry. He was responsible for over $1 billion disappearing in the HRDC boondoggle. He is now responsible for over $100 million in kickbacks involving his Liberal friends in Quebec.

Are we now to believe that he had no recollection in the tainted blood scandal, no idea that his companies avoided Canadian taxes with tailor-made tax haven laws and no knowledge that Canada Steamship Lines received $161 million in corporate welfare? At best a fool, at worst a fraud. Canadians deserve better.

[Petitions, February 11th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, I am presenting a petition signed by several hundred people in my riding in the city of Calgary.

They point out that the gun registry has cost $1 billion, that it is not supported by the provinces and that it has not reduced gun crimes. Therefore they call upon Parliament to repeal the gun registry.

I think it makes perfect sense. They have obviously well documented their case.

[National Defence, November 6th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, tell that to Iltis drivers.

When the new Liberal leader was finance minister, he oversaw 10 lean years for our military. The air force flies less for want of fuel, the navy sits idle for lack of crew and the army has thinned.

Will the new Liberal leader's appetite for review of current spending result in starvation or decimation of our armed forces?

[National Defence, November 6th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, our 40 year old Sea Kings were grounded for six days and one just caught fire yesterday. Yet the $101 million Challengers will serve fresh red snapper, scallops and shrimp. While on the Challenger, the new Liberal leader will enjoy crab, steak and shellfish.

Why is spending on Liberal luxury for Challengers better than safe Sea King replacements?

[National Defence, October 30th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, he should quit listening to Liberals.

Canada is joining with Iceland and Luxembourg as the only NATO countries without tanks. The scheme of the Minister of National Defence to scrap our tanks runs contrary to the plans of our allies. Terrorists, armed with rocket propelled grenades and landmines, will be able to threaten the lives of Canadian soldiers.

Will the minister admit that the Strykers are more vulnerable to attacks from rocket propelled grenades and landmines than are tanks?

[National Defence, October 30th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I am not a Liberal, but a British defence study on operations in Iraq states that the low level of U.K. casualties is a reflection of the outstanding protection afforded by its Challenger tanks.

In June 2003 the chief of the Australian army stated, “The risk of casualties...would be unacceptable” without tanks”.

A French army spokesperson said that the invasion of Iraq “confirmed the absolutely key role played by a land army with heavy armour...in winning a war.”

Why is Canada going in the opposite direction of our allies?

[National Defence, October 29th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, let him tell that to the Iltis drivers.

Canada already has the smallest tank force in NATO with only 114 tanks. Now the Liberals want to reduce this to merely 66 wheeled vehicles. Not only are we getting a vehicle that is less capable, we are only getting half as many. Under the minister's transformation plan, our army is losing quality and it is losing quantity. This will cost more Canadian lives.

Why is the minister reducing the number of vehicles?

[National Defence, October 29th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of National Defence just announced the downgrading of Leopard tanks with the purchase of 66 uncosted Strykers.

He is doing this to spite his own defence department's scientific report which found that using Strykers over tanks in a battlefield situation could result in over three times the casualties. The report concluded that replacing our tanks with a light vehicle like the Stryker is morally wrong.

Why has the minister chosen a vehicle which puts more Canadian lives at risk?