House of Commons Hansard #170 of the 37th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was military.

Topics

Committees of the HouseRoutine Proceedings

3:30 p.m.

Some hon. members

Agreed.

(Motion agreed to)

Committees of the HouseRoutine Proceedings

3:30 p.m.

Halifax West Nova Scotia

Liberal

Geoff Regan LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons

Mr. Speaker, there have been consultations among the House leaders and I believe if you were to seek it, you would find unanimous consent for the following motion. I move:

That the Subcommittee on Veterans Affairs of the Standing Committee on National Defence and Veterans Affairs be authorized to travel to Ste-Anne-de-Bellevue on April 18, 2002 and Toronto on May 1 and 2, 2002 in relation to its study on long term care for veterans, and that the necessary staff accompany the committee.

Committees of the HouseRoutine Proceedings

3:30 p.m.

The Speaker

Is there unanimous consent?

Committees of the HouseRoutine Proceedings

3:30 p.m.

Some hon. members

Agreed.

(Motion agreed to)

Committees of the HouseRoutine Proceedings

3:30 p.m.

Halifax West Nova Scotia

Liberal

Geoff Regan LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons

Mr. Speaker, along the same lines, there have been discussions among the parties and I believe you would find unanimous consent for the following motion. I move:

That in relation to its study on aquaculture, the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans be authorized to travel in one group to Vancouver and Port McNeill, B.C. from April 20 to 26, 2002 and that the necessary staff do accompany the committee.

Committees of the HouseRoutine Proceedings

3:30 p.m.

The Speaker

Is there unanimous consent?

Committees of the HouseRoutine Proceedings

3:30 p.m.

Some hon. members

Agreed.

(Motion agreed to)

Committees of the HouseRoutine Proceedings

3:30 p.m.

Halifax West Nova Scotia

Liberal

Geoff Regan LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons

Mr. Speaker, again if you would seek it, I think you would find unanimous consent for the following motion. I move:

That, in relation to its study on the Canadian broadcasting system, the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage be authorized to travel to Iqaluit, Whitehorse and Yellowknife from May 26 to 31, 2002 and that the necessary staff do accompany the committee.

Committees of the HouseRoutine Proceedings

3:30 p.m.

The Speaker

Is there unanimous consent?

Committees of the HouseRoutine Proceedings

3:30 p.m.

Some hon. members

Agreed.

(Motion agreed to)

Committees of the HouseRoutine Proceedings

3:30 p.m.

West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast B.C.

Canadian Alliance

John Reynolds Canadian AllianceLeader of the Opposition

Mr. Speaker,I move that the third report of the Standing Committee on National Defence and Veterans Affairs, presented to the House on Wednesday, November 7, 2001, be concurred in.

It is a great day to have this motion concurred in because it would seem that the Americans have announced a continental defence plan without the knowledge of the Canadian government. Canada was not mentioned at all in any of their releases and yet mention was made in one of their release about how they were dealing with the Russians now and one of their generals.

The Liberals say that they know a little about it and that they have been talking about it but it is quite obvious they do not know what the Americans are planning and they do not know what is going on.

The defence report being tabled today is the November 2001 report of the Standing Committee on National Defence and Veterans Affairs. The report was produced by the committee in advance of the December federal budget with a view to influencing government policy in the budget. The majority report had the support of every Liberal member of the committee, every NDP member, every Tory member and every member of the Bloc Quebecois.

The Canadian Alliance issued a minority report in an effort to make the recommendations stronger. The reports states:

As we confront the war against terrorism, the Canadian Forces face a crisis in capability. Decades of neglect have created a situation in which resources are inadequate to meet commitments and defend the security of Canadians.

For nearly nine months, the House of Commons Standing Committee on National Defence has heard from witness after witness about glaring deficiencies in military capability. While the men and women of the Canadian Forces have been doing a fantastic job with scarce resources, they have had inadequate support from both Government and Parliament.

As the recent report of the Conference of Defence Associations stated: “All members of the Canadian Forces may at any time and at no notice, be placed in harm's way and as a result forfeit their lives or suffer incapacitating injury or illness...The unlimited liability of the soldier, sailor or airman must...be matched by an unlimited responsibility on the part of the government to ensure that members of the CF, if placed in harm's way, can achieve their mission at as low a risk possible. This demands the right tools in terms of modern equipment and high levels of training to carry out justifiable missions directed by the Canadian political authorities”.

It is clear that over the past several decades we have badly let down our serving soldiers. It is good that the Majority Report generally acknowledges this failure. nevertheless, there are at least three aspects of the Report and its drafting with which we must take issue.

The first issue is the treatment of parliament:

The report was drafted in secret by a committee of officials working under the direction of the Chairman. The first opposition members learned of the report’s existence was when a Committee meeting was called for November 5 to discuss a report none of them had even heard was being drafted. Committee members were not permitted to see the report until 7 pm on the evening of November 5. They were then given less than an hour to read the report and agree or disagree with specific clauses and recommendations. No consultations were permitted with respective caucuses and members of the committee were told that whether they supported the recommendations or not, the report would be immediately adopted and referred to the House of Commons finance committee. It was simply impossible for the official opposition to unreservedly endorse the majority report in the time that we were given.

This whole process of being given a few hours notice, being called in the evening to read the report and endorse it is so unparliamentary but not unusual of this government that has become extremely arrogant. Its arrogance is beyond anything I have witnessed in my 30 years in politics.

The defence policy of Canada exists to protect the security of all Canadians.

The greatest possible effort must be made to ensure that defence policy reflects the consensus of parties in the House of Commons. This must include adequate consultation between all political parties, as well as an opportunity for real discussion and debate. Only in this way can we ensure that consistent and credible policies will be adopted which reflect and real and long term national consensus.

Using parliament simply to rubber stamp decisions that have already been made should not be acceptable in this time of crisis that we have had over the last few months.

We can certainly tell by the rubber stamping ideals of the government why the auditor general has issued two reports in a row that are extremely critical not only in areas of defence but in other areas of this government. Too many things are done without proper investigation.

I forget the exact amount but I think about $174 million was invested in a satellite system that never came out of the box. For the average Canadian it is unbelievable to think about $174 million. When one says it quickly it does not sound like much money but it is a tremendous amount of money. The minister had the nerve to stand in the House yesterday and say that the government brought in another system temporarily which worked out to be better so it never had to use the $174 million system.

Imagine how the soldier in Afghanistan feels when he eventually reads a copy of Hansard or is lucky enough to be sitting next to a satellite dish in the evening watching question period and sees the minister who is in charge of our forces stand up and make an excuse like that when soldiers cannot even get a porta-potty delivered to their army base. It will be even worse when that soldier hears that the defence department bought the government new jets costing $101 million when the military could not even get new helicopters. These new jets have nice toilets with gold faucets and soldiers cannot even get a porta-potty. This government is arrogant.

What we need is a clear and specific commitment to increased defence spending. It is not only my party that has been asking for that but the auditor general, someone every Canadian and every member respects as an officer of the House and who reports to parliament, said yesterday that it could take 30 years for the military to recover. That is just too long. It is too long for our children, our grandchildren and for the security of Canada.

This is why we are being ignored by our American friends to the south. It is shameful to me to see ministers stand up and talk about Canadian sovereignty and say that they will do their thing. They forget that 80% of the trade in this country is done with our American friends across the border. They should be our friends not just in trade but in defence and how we secure our borders in North America. However they are not calling on us because this government has chosen to ignore them. I am sure President Bush remembers the comments our Prime Minister made about his father when he was the leader of the opposition here in Canada, shameful comments about not wanting to deal with the Americans. Now we will have to live with those comments.

The majority report makes important references to the serious underfunding of the Canadian forces. This reflects what witnesses repeatedly told us about the steady erosion of capability due to consistently scarce resources. Even so, the majority report makes no specific recommendation with regard to increasing defence spending. Instead it alludes to the $750 million to $1.2 billion annual shortfall in the operations and maintenance budget described by several witnesses and an additional $5 billion to $6 billion deficit in the equipment budget noted by the auditor general, without actually recommending any specific increase in spending.

Committees of the HouseRoutine Proceedings

3:40 p.m.

The Speaker

I hesitate to interrupt the hon. Leader of the Opposition but I have to break some news to the Chamber, which is that because of the ministerial statement government orders will be extended by 24 minutes. I thought he would want to know that.

Committees of the HouseRoutine Proceedings

3:40 p.m.

Canadian Alliance

John Reynolds Canadian Alliance West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast, BC

Mr. Speaker, I could probably use that 24 minutes very well to inform the Canadian people of the weaknesses of the defence system in Canada. I hope some of the people who sit in your chair over the afternoon will be enlightened by some of the great work that has been done by the research people in my party and my staff.

Unless the necessary resources are provided, the Canadian military commitment to the war against terrorism will not be sustainable. It may not be any way beyond the next rotation since the shortfalls in both the O and M as well as the equipment budgets have been clearly spelled out. The need for a minimum and immediate $2 billion increase in the budget based on the Department of National Defence should have been made clear.

It has been made clear by the auditor general who said that we need another $2 billion in the military. It has been made clear by the official opposition in the House that we need another $2 billion.

Indeed even this modest increase may now be inadequate since representatives of the Conference of Defence Associations have informed the committee that at least $1 billion in additional money should be added to the defence budget based in each of the next five years. When we listened to the auditor general's report today, it talked about 30 years if we do not come up with the proper funding for our military.

The crisis confronting the Canadian forces is now so serious that we can no longer expect that half measures will suffice.

Let us address the issue of demilitarization. On May 8, 2001, one of Canada's foremost soldiers, General Lewis MacKenzie, told the standing committee:

--if I were an enemy force commander, I would much prefer to fight the Canadian army of today than the Canadian army of 10 years ago...I have no doubt that the individual soldiers are up to the task in spite of declining standards in physical fitness and discipline at the alter of individual rights and political correctness...If [the Gulf War] happened today we couldn’t send a brigade. It doesn’t exist...You can’t just throw a few bits and pieces of new high-tech equipment together and say ‘We’re more operationally capable’. Fighting, as outlined in your own direction for this Committee, at the combat level requires more than just a day’s worth of equipment. There has to be some sustainability

This is a scathing indictment of the consequences of political interference in the Canadian forces. General MacKenzie is well respected. He is a great Canadian. He does not make statements like this lightly and we should listen to him.

The committee heard from numerous witnesses who addressed the steady erosion of training standards and the resulting collapse in the esprit de corps and morale in the Canadian forces. Some have referred to this as a demilitarization of the Canadian forces from within, yet apart from one big reference to political correctness, this issue is not seriously addressed in the majority report.

In the crisis that we now face, we simply cannot tolerate unjustified political interference in the military which is gradually lowering our combat effectiveness. Indeed, one of the principal reasons that we now have an inadequate ability to respond rapidly and effectively to emerging threats is that crass politics resulted in the disbanding of the airborne regiment in 1995.

The committee has responded by recommending substantial enhancements in the capability of JTF2. The political conditions that led to the loss of this capability are ignored in the majority report. If they are not addressed, politicalization of the armed forces will remain a problem and our forces may well be unable to rebuild their cohesion and effectiveness.

The conclusion of part of that majority report was that the present crisis demands a resolute and united response from parliament. The majority report represents a step in the right direction but if we are to effectively rebuild our national defence we must be prepared to go still further. This requires both open and honest discussion as well forthrightly addressing all relevant issues, no matter how politically painful they may be.

The Canadian Alliance will be seeking to do just that as we work toward a full operational readiness report early in the new year. We know that the Canadian people will demand no less. This is the substance of what we said in the minority report.

What was the government's response to our minority report and to the unanimous recommendation of every other opposition and government member in the majority report? The reaction was to ignore what it had been told by the parliamentarians on both sides of the House.

The December budget was totally inadequate to address the crisis of the Canadian forces. Again, I keep on repeating, we only have to look at the report of the auditor general of yesterday, and the one previous. They make these points as well, if not stronger than the opposition because at least she has the chance to review the books and look into the details which opposition does not.

The commander of the army, General Mike Jeffery, told the Standing Committee on National Defence and Veterans Affairs a few months later that the December budget fell short of the expectation of the Canadian forces.

How would anyone like to be the person in charge of those forces, fighting in so many locations and peacekeeping in other locations and our soldiers, the brave Canadian men and women working for us, having to listen to their boss being told by the political heads that no, there is no money for them, but that they have money for $101 million for jets for cabinet ministers to fly around in? They can put a $174 million satellite dish in a warehouse because the replacement they bought worked so well they did not need the other one. This goes on and on. I will mention a few more of these later as I go along. It has to be pretty frustrating to be a soldier in this country with a government that so ignores the military.

The money provided is barely enough to keep the forces on life-support. The auditor general reported in December that the forces still faces an annual deficit of $1.3 billion. There are further shortfalls in the equipment budget.

Canada is at war, yet the government is ignoring the needs of the Canadian forces. It prefers to rely on the Americans when it is convenient. As a result, Canada's international reputation continues to slip.

The government has no money to meet our military needs, but it has that $101 million which it looted from the defence budget to pay for two new Challenger aircraft to fly the Prime Minister and cabinet ministers all around this country and on vacations. This project, approved in only 10 days, is an absolute disgrace.

The military itself said there was no need to replace the existing Challenger aircraft. That is not the opposition which takes that position. That is the military personnel, the people who fly these airplanes.

However it took 10 short days. In this place we cannot get things through in 10 years, positive things that need to happen in this parliament do not get through that quickly. However, when it comes to the comfort of the people who sit on the government side, things can happen very quickly. I remember a few short years ago, when they were in opposition, all the hues and cries about the Taj Mahals and the Guccis in the closet.

Our military men and women know that they have to fly around in Hercules transport planes that are more than 35 years old. They have to fly in Sea King helicopters that are nearly 40 years old, so old they require 40 hours of maintenance for every hour they spend in the air.

By the way, do members know how long the project office for the Sea King replacement has been open? It opened in 1981. Yet the Challenger decision was made in 10 days. That is an absolute disgrace.

Committees of the HouseRoutine Proceedings

3:45 p.m.

An hon. member

Twenty years to ten days.

Committees of the HouseRoutine Proceedings

3:45 p.m.

Canadian Alliance

John Reynolds Canadian Alliance West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast, BC

One of my colleagues says 20 years and the military still has not got what it wants, but in 10 days the government got those jets. The management of defence policy is obviously a mess.

Where do we go from here? I want to outline what the Canadian Alliance wants to see included in the final operational readiness report that will be produced by the Standing Committee on National Defence and Veterans Affairs next month. I want to reference the submission made by our senior defence critic, the hon. member for Lakeland, to the defence committee. He made some great suggestions.

He has suggested that the following recommendations be made by the standing committee on national defence and they are.

First, the committee should condemn the government for its mismanagement and neglect of Canada's national defence. Why? The December budget and the government's responses about the committee's interim report in November and last year's report on procurement are a slap in the face to every committee and Canadian forces member.

The committee must recommend a minimum increase to the defence budget of $2.1 billion per year to address the critical shortfalls identified in the operations and equipment budgets and even more, to rebuild our military. Why is that necessary? It is necessary because the committee's majority report released earlier this year alluded to the $750 million to $1.2 billion annual shortfall in the operations and maintenance budget described by several witnesses but without actually recommending any specific increase in spending.

We must be clear in what we are recommending. Vague references to increases are not enough. The latest auditor general's report should be enough to let us know that. Promises are not good enough. We have to get behind our military.

Defence spending totalled $9.7 billion, which is $1.6 billion or 14% less than the $11.3 billion in the 1993 budget. This is not my figure. It comes right out of public accounts. Yet we have heard the minister I do not know how many times in the House talk about what the government puts into the military, how that is improving, how things are just great.

Let us just go back to 1993. Members of the House were probably making about $45,000 a year. We now make $135,000 a year. Yet in defence, one of the most important elements of our country, especially since the terrorism activity, we have a budget that is 14% less than it was in 1993 or $1.6 billion less.

Can we blame the soldiers in our military when they say that we look after ourselves first? Not at all. We do not ask ourselves to fly in 40 year old airplanes or 40 year old helicopters. We take our 16 year old Challengers and upgrade them with brand new ones with all the luxuries. That is shameful. Every member of the House has to be ashamed, even though we do not have a say in what the government has done. I have talked to many members in the military and they are not very happy about how the government is looking after them.

The defence budget would have to increase to $12.6 billion just to bring inflation adjusted defence spending up to the 1993 level. That is a major increase. We might say, where is the money going to come from. If we look at the reports of the auditor general, she has about $16 billion in the last two in waste. I am sure we can find that money and make sure that in the future our American friends will realize we are serious about what we are spending on defence and serious about working with them in a North American secure perimeter. However it is a shame that now they make announcements without even talking to us, without even being side by side to say that we are working together.

Unless the necessary resources are provided, the Canadian military commitment to the war against terrorism will not be sustainable. It may not be anyway beyond the next rotation.

This is entirely justified on the basis of what the auditor general has told parliament. These are not my figures. They are the auditor general's figures. The auditor general said in her 2001 report that the Canadian forces needed a minimum of $1.3 billion added to the budget yearly just to make up for the current shortfalls and that to meet equipment replacement requirements over the next five years, the capital budget alone would actually have to be doubled in that period, from $6.5 billion to $11 billion or $11.9 billion per year.

We must replace this shortfall immediately to maintain the military at its current levels and replace the additional equipment.

Additionally, $1 billion per year must be added to the budget base of the Department of National Defence to improve and strengthen the military. In fact the Liberal dominated Senate defence committee has actually called for a $4 billion increase in defence spending. We agree that this is the direction in which we must go, and we do not often agree with the Senate about too many things. Those independent senators are as frustrated as the opposition is in Canada about what the government is doing with defence spending.

The Liberals claim that they have already increased the defence budget. We hear this continually from the Minister of National Defence. What is the real truth? The truth is that the Liberal budget is at least $1 billion per year short of what is needed. In the December budget the Liberals announced $1.2 billion for the DND budget, but only $500 million of that is allocated to our military spending over the next five years. Even if it were a genuine increase, it is well short of the $1.3 billion minimum that the auditor general's 2001 report stated was required just to maintain the Canadian forces.

In reality the majority of December's budget has nothing to do with actual military spending. In fact more and more non-military spending is being applied to the defence budget. For context, keep in mind that the government has not significantly increased defence spending by adding $1.2 billion over five years, but in fact is spending most of it in the first two years on Afghanistan's Operation Apollo, for example. By spending nothing at all in the following years, the government will do nothing to stem the long term decline of the Canadian Armed Forces.

Let us compare what Canada is doing in national defence to what our allies are doing. The consequence of drastic Liberal military cutbacks is that Canada now spends half the NATO average of 2.1% of GDP. This points to the need to add at least $2 billion immediately to the budget base of DND, or $10 billion over five years, and to provide additional temporary funding to support deployments necessary to help fight the war on terrorism.

It is embarrassing to think that with all the benefits we have in Canada, the great resources, the great spirit of Canadians, the support that we gave this world in the first and second world wars, that our military is dwindling like this. To see that we are spending less than half of what our NATO partners spend on defence, is shameful. The government should be embarrassed, but it is not doing anything about it so I can only assume that it is not.

The Canadian Alliance has long called on the Liberals to add at least $2 billion per year immediately to the budget base of national defence or $10 billion over five years. Additional money is also required to support our deployments to fight the war on terror. Such increases however, would just be enough to stop the erosion in military capability. Canada must increase funding from the current level of 1.2% of GDP to the NATO average, which is currently 2.1% of GDP, as suggested by the Senate defence report.

The crisis confronting the Canadian forces is now so serious that we can no longer expect that half measures will suffice. Yet I do not see any action on the other side to start solving this problem. We see the waste and the arrogance, but no assistance for our military.

What else will the Canadian Alliance be recommending? We have said that the joint task force or JTF2 commandos who are doing a superb job should be retained as an elite, relatively small force. JTF2 should not be expanded past 400 members, and even this should be considered in the context of a comprehensive defence review that addresses other serious problems in the Canadian forces. Canada requires a real and rapid reaction capability similar to the airborne which the Liberals disbanded in 1995. Such a rapid response capability should be added to the Canadian forces.

Prior to the defence committee's interim report being tabled only one witness recommended Joint Task Force Two be increased in size. He did so with a caveat. He said it was important that in a larger mandate there must be doctrinal changes for the use of troops as well as greater oversight over special operations and their activities.

The witness made it clear that there are generally two classes of special forces: those tasked primarily with VIP protection, hostage rescue and other duties that would fall primarily to a reactive force; and those tasked with conducting deep penetrations into enemy territory for scouting, apprehension and potentially combat operations. As Canada has only one group of personnel trained for special operations, the witness recommended rewriting JTF2's mandate to perform more long range penetration style missions. In this context he said more manpower would be needed and he recommended an increase in troop numbers.

Yet the majority report of the defence committee in November recommended that JTF2 be increased to nearly 1,000 members. Why is that? We believe JTF2 should not grow to more than 400 members. As JTF2 is accountable only to the defence minister the unit is capable of carrying out foreign missions which must be subject to careful public and parliamentary scrutiny. That is one of the keys here, parliamentary public scrutiny.

A force which operates under a veil of secrecy under certain conditions is necessary. However the JTF2 should not be expanded beyond 400 members. Under its current mandate an increase in size would be dangerous. Without a comprehensive defence review in the context of a clear foreign affairs policy Canada should not commit to increasing the size of this highly secretive force beyond 400.

JTF2 is similar to the British special air service, so we would be competitive with Britain. Again, what Canada needs is a rapid reaction force similar to the British or Dutch marines or the Belgian paracommando brigade, able to perform many of the operations the airborne did.

The Minister of Foreign Affairs recently talked about the need for a defence and foreign policy review. This is clearly necessary. Our influence internationally has slipped so badly under the Liberal government that we can do little else. The defence portion of the review would have to address a great many issues, but we in our party believe it should especially examine what it would take in terms of resources, training and equipment procurement to establish a brigade size special force for Canada. Until 1995 Canada maintained a special service force which was equipped as a light brigade, about 5,000 troops, with mostly light equipment. We need to look at re-establishing such a force and providing it with the air and sea transport required to respond to emergencies in Canada and overseas.

The need for light mobile forces has been recognized in Canada since at least the 1964 defence white paper. Since that time the government has gone part of the way toward establishing and maintaining such a force. However the resources to acquire the transport that would be required have always been lacking, mainly because of the government's lack of interest when it comes to national defence.

The government's pending defence review should examine what it would take in terms of resources, training, equipment and procurement to establish a brigade size special force for Canada. The government should then come to parliament with its proposals and work to secure the endorsement of every political party represented in the House of Commons for the policy.

For a white paper to be meaningful we need the signatures of the finance minister and the Prime Minister on the document. Unified parliamentary support is the only way to ensure defence policy is approached in a non-partisan way with guaranteed funding. That is missing in the House. The opposition has been offering support to the government but there is no communication or working together. We would like there to be.

Parliamentarians on the defence committee have shown themselves willing to support a sound defence policy. The government should be prepared to seriously engage them in the policy process. We in the Canadian Alliance believe the defence committee's pending report must emphasize that every independent witness who has appeared before the committee since April, 2001 has lamented the state of readiness of the Canadian forces.

I will quote what a few of the experts have said. On May 10, 2001 Lieutenant General Roméo Dallaire said:

I would contend that right now we have limited abilities to sustain any war-footing capability without mobilizing. This does put a squeeze on the ability or desire of this nation's government and its people to be able to be a participant in a war, even as Strategy 2020 articulates a niche position in those wars....This in itself is a complex problem to face when we look at the responsibilities and the risks our nation faces in its own defence, and in its participation in alliances like NATO and NORAD, and/or under alliances of a single-led nation like the United States in the Gulf War.

General Dallaire went on to say:

It presents a problem too for us to actually be a player in the world security dimension of classic war or overt warfare.

If we wonder why the Americans are making announcements today without Canadians at their side it is because of what General Dallaire has pointed out. However we have not listened to him. Is it not a shame that we are not standing shoulder to shoulder with our American allies, our top trading partners, neighbours and friends, for a major announcement like this concerning the security of North America?

General Dallaire also stated:

I would contend that we would even have problems in meeting the upper scale of conflict resolution--some would call the Gulf War the upper scale of conflict resolution, not a real war where the nation is at risk or the nation is at war.

He went on to say:

We just spent ten years burning out the forces, particularly the army. We've sucked dry the reserves. We now have reservists going over twice or three times. My contention is that the troops have been committed, have gone through the risks—some have been casualties—and have gained skills in conflict resolution, but they're tired because there's not enough of them to sustain it.

Is that not a damning statement? Yet In the House yesterday the minister said the government was meeting its commitments. The auditor general said it was not. Today the minister is still trying to tell our critic the government is meeting its commitments. It is not true. It is a big sham.

When we get people of the quality of General Dallaire saying these things I sometimes wonder. I see what the media chases after. This is becoming a major issue for our country. I hope that what the Americans have done today in announcing this new security measure will shake up Canadians and the media.

Canada is not standing beside its biggest trading partner, neighbour, ally and friend. It is because the government has not put up the money necessary to maintain our forces. As Leader of the Opposition I should be saying this. Instead generals and people in the forces are saying it. The only ones who do not seem to understand it are members of the government. The government has millions of dollars to waste on big objects like jets, security systems hidden away in lockers, and other things. It has generated tens of billions of dollars in waste as the auditor general has pointed out.

The government should get its act straight. Some of that money should be going into our military. The rest should go into MRIs. The $101 million would probably have bought 50 MRIs across the country and shortened the list for a lot of people who have to wait months to get into hospital for medical treatment. I am sure they are thrilled to know the Prime Minister and his crowd have golden knobs on their toilets and can fly anywhere in the country.

On May 8, 2001 Major Gen. Lewis MacKenzie said if he were an enemy force commander he would much prefer to fight the Canadian army of today than the Canadian army of 10 years ago with all the bits and pieces, high tech equipment and small numbers that have been introduced into the Canadian forces, particularly the navy and air force, over the last 10 years. I mentioned this before but it was so shocking I had to cite it again.

Committees of the HouseRoutine Proceedings

4:10 p.m.

An hon. member

We have good people in the military.

Committees of the HouseRoutine Proceedings

4:10 p.m.

Canadian Alliance

John Reynolds Canadian Alliance West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast, BC

The people in the military are excellent. However we are reading about things like a meeting a few months ago in Cornwall where the general told reservists and personnel from across Canada that the truth had to start getting out to the Canadian people. We are getting apologetic letters from military people saying they do not like to get involved and make political comments but they have to because they are suffering. It is time to act. That is why we are moving the motion today.

The government wants to debate the species at risk act which would allow it to seize property without giving compensation. We would rather be talking about this because we think it is more important, especially in relation to what happened today with the United States and over the past few days with the government purchase of jets.

On April 26, 2001 the Conference of Defence Associations said:

--we have become concerned over the perception that the Canadian forces are able to meet all their commitments, and are more combat capable than they were ten years ago.

We are at about two-thirds of what the strength used to be. When I read what the association is saying I understand that the Liberal government is probably number one in the history of our country at spin doctoring. It spins out the message and Canadians believe it.

Committees of the HouseRoutine Proceedings

4:10 p.m.

An hon. member

They are the best at that.

Committees of the HouseRoutine Proceedings

4:10 p.m.

Canadian Alliance

John Reynolds Canadian Alliance West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast, BC

I have never seen anyone as good as the Liberal government at spinning messages. However the facts are coming home to roost in terms of the arrogant way the government spends money. It is not good for Canada but in the next election it might be very good for Canadians.

The Conference of Defence Associations appeared again at the committee on November 5. It said “We conclude that because of insufficient funds in the Department of National Defence budget, the Canadian forces cannot fulfill their commitments beyond a marginal level within the resource stipulations and the time limits specified in current plans.”

Another expert, Dr. Douglas Bland, told the committee on April 3, 2001 that:

I want to conclude by questioning the assertion made by some senior officers—and by the minister at times, I believe—that the Canadian Forces today is more combat-capable than it has been at any time in the last 10 or 20 years. This is a very important and critical assertion, and it may be true, but I have seen no evidence of it in reports, studies, or recommendations from the headquarters and staff on whom such an assertion is based. I'm sure, or at least I hope, that those kinds of documents are available someplace within the defence establishment. But I think it would be a dangerous idea to make those assertions without a detailed assessment of what our capabilities were ten years ago, how they've changed and improved, and what they are now...I know of no experienced military officers or experts who can stand by that remark.

I will repeat the last sentence: “I know of no experienced military officers or experts who could stand by that remark”.

Other experts are telling us the sad story of the government's underfunding and lack of support for the military. On April 5, 2001, the auditor general's office said that in the year 2000 it had found that the force structure had been cut significantly. We have been told by the minister it keeps on going up, but this is the auditor general telling us the facts.

At that point the department had gone to ministers to say it was out of manoeuvring room and that it was under severe pressure. Our belief is that force structure, modernization and current readiness are still not being balanced. There is a discrepancy across the various pillars and hard choices still need to be made. One has to make a reduction someplace or add more funds to balance out the current set of objectives. This was a year ago, yet those funds have not been made available and another report, which I will quote later in this discussion, condemns the government even more.

When asked on October 25, 2001, if Canada could handle replacing the U.S. in Afghanistan and continue its Balkan commitments John Thompson answered:

We're scrapping the bottom of the barrel right now. For example, if we were presented with an Oka-style crisis again, we couldn't respond to it.

Is that not a scary thought? If we were to have a serious problem, because of our commitments around the world, we could not handle that responsibility at home. Is it any wonder the Americans today announced a major program with no mention of Canada? They are moving forward with others because we do not have the money.

I cannot remember when an American ambassador has ever criticized the Canadian government. This one keeps telling us the U.S. wants the Canadian government to spend more on the military. It want us to bring up our average to the rest of the NATO countries and for us to get our act in gear. He has not had much success but we will keep cheering him on.

We will keep having discussions like this one in the House of Commons and doing everything we can to force the government's hand so our military men and women will know that at least the opposition parties in the House support what they are doing. We are trying to get them more money and better equipment.

Committees of the HouseRoutine Proceedings

4:15 p.m.

An hon. member

Got new Challengers.

Committees of the HouseRoutine Proceedings

4:15 p.m.

Canadian Alliance

John Reynolds Canadian Alliance West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast, BC

Madam Speaker, someone mentioned the Challengers. I have mentioned that a few times. I thought today that was why the government had ordered those two Challengers. With the North American defence system the Americans did not want us to support, the government members wanted a couple of faster planes so they could get into a few more places where they could hide. They can get into 55 new locations with the jets.

David Rudd said on November 20, 2001:

I'd like to suggest that the events of September 11 have actually not revealed shortcomings in the operational capabilities of the Canadian Forces, because these shortcomings existed prior to the attacks.

Professor Jack Granatstein said on November 22, 2001:

It's long past time for Canadians to act like a nation. That means having a real military, with good, well-trained people, modern, high-tech equipment, and the necessary funds allocated to defence to guarantee these things...You pay now in dollars for an efficient, professional military and a well-trained reserve, or you pay later in dollars and in your sons and your daughters.

Retired Colonel Brian MacDonald said on November 27, 2001, that between 2010-15:

--we have a very large number of major platforms in the Canadian Forces coming to the end of their service life during that period of time. The question that comes then is whether or not the capital budget will be adequate to replace the capabilities that will have ended their service life at that point. It is my view that the capital budget is inadequate to doing that task. Therefore, the Canadian Forces will be placed in the invidious position of having to somehow attempt to cope with the fact that the money is simply not there to maintain the capabilities stated to be government policy in the 1994 white paper.

Major-General Clive Addy said on February 5, 2002:

Having listened to our Minister of National Defence attempt to define exactly what we could produce, and watching people continue to hustle with great zeal throughout the CF to cobble together for Afghanistan what was in essence a White Paper commitment, is testimony enough as to our under-funded, undermanned, over-tasked, and ill-prepared force.

As to the number of Forces, we do not get as much per defence dollar as most NATO countries. The costs of our infrastructure over our vast and cold country as well as the competitive cost of labour for our volunteer force account for much of this, but we can do better.

In summary, as a member of the G-7 and a nation so dependent on trade, particularly with the US, as a nation that believes and relies on multilateralism for a better world, Canada must be seen to contribute to its own security by its citizens and to do “its share” by its allies and friends. 1.2 % of GDP for defence does not meet this challenge.

I wonder what he would say today reading about $101 million for Challenger jets and $174 million for security systems sitting in a warehouse and never used.

Committees of the HouseRoutine Proceedings

4:20 p.m.

An hon. member

Your government.

Committees of the HouseRoutine Proceedings

4:20 p.m.

Canadian Alliance

John Reynolds Canadian Alliance West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast, BC

A member from the other side said my government. I was never in the Tory government, thank God. I was in the Social Credit government in British Columbia. We balanced our books, had no debt and everything was wonderful.

Committees of the HouseRoutine Proceedings

4:20 p.m.

An hon. member

Let's talk about that.

Committees of the HouseRoutine Proceedings

4:20 p.m.

Canadian Alliance

John Reynolds Canadian Alliance West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast, BC

Someone wants me to talk about that. If the Tories of the day had run the country like the Tory governments--