They do not want to do it.
Lost his last election, in 2008, with 36% of the vote.
Supply May 14th, 1998
They do not want to do it.
Supply May 14th, 1998
Mr. Speaker, since my name was mentioned by the last member I feel compelled to stand once again. You are damned if you do and damned if you don't as far as the NDP is concerned.
If the minister had said they were to talk to a few generals to straighten out the problem with morale, quality of life and living conditions in the forces, the NDP would have been the first party to say that was another top down solution and that the government was ignoring the rank and file. However, when the minister takes the initiative to have the defence committee go out to various bases in a true bottom-up solution, to solicit the views and concerns of members of the forces, the NDP goes on the attack once again.
It is unfortunate because it is a very historic effort on the part of the defence committee. It has never happened before in Canadian history. It has never gone to members of the Canadian forces, who are trained in terms of their discipline not to speak up, not to be political, to receive their comments. The minister is to be congratulated.
I have another comment to make before I sit down. The NDP does not seem to understand either the white paper and what the white paper is all about. The white paper provides for a multipurpose combat ready force serving Canada. That is exactly what we have. There is no confusion there. If the member read the white paper I am sure he would appreciate the details of what are the responsibilities of the Canadian forces.
Supply May 14th, 1998
Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the member if he feels that the initiative that was undertaken by the minister was a worthwhile one, in terms of having the national defence committee go from base to base asking members of the forces about the problems regarding salary, living conditions and working conditions.
Would the hon. member not concede in his franker moments that was an act of political leadership relating to the forces, it was something that was absolutely necessary? It is a difficult process and one that certainly has not been easy for the government in terms of hearing the various stories that have come up. It is a difficult process and one which was absolutely necessary under the circumstances.
The second question I would ask concerns the Canadian public as a whole. The hon. member may or may not be aware that I have a motion on the order paper to declare June 15 as Canadian forces day and to celebrate the achievements of the Canadian forces.
Is that something the member and his party could support?
Supply May 14th, 1998
Mr. Speaker, as I mentioned earlier, I have had the opportunity to visit about 13 of the 15 bases where the committee has held hearings. I can say this quite honestly. I have talked to hundreds of members of the Canadian forces. I am giving my general observations. Certainly there are going to be people in an organization as large as the Canadian Armed Forces who are going to have different views on that.
The general observation I have had from people is that within their own unit when they are tasked to go to Bosnia, or participate with the army, or if they are on board one of our frigates, whether it is the HMCS Toronto , the Vancouver or the Ville de Québec , the ship's crew, the companies, the battalions, are very proud of what they do. They are very concerned about some issues obviously in terms of pay and benefits and those sorts of things. In terms of discharging their work, they are very professional. They are very proud people and very happy to wear the uniform of the Canadian forces.
Supply May 14th, 1998
There you go. Are there too many? We are working toward 60,000 regular members at this point in the Canadian forces. Are 60 some generals too many? I am not sure it is.
There is one comment that I did receive which I think the hon. member would be interested in. I was speaking to a non-commissioned officer in Halifax. He mentioned to me something which I thought was very interesting which was that only nine members of the Canadian forces earn over $100,000 per year. That is for an organization that, as I mentioned earlier, takes from the federal budget $9.3 billion and has a complement of 60,000.
Supply May 14th, 1998
I would be happy to, Mr. Speaker. Were there too many generals at one time in the Canadian forces? I think the answer is yes. The number has been brought down from approximately 130 to about 70.
Supply May 14th, 1998
Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to be participating in the debate today on the opposition day motion. Just to get the motion on the record, it states:
That this House condemn the government for its failure to provide strong political leadership to Her Majesty's Canadian forces.
It is sponsored by the hon. member for Compton—Stanstead. I have had the pleasure of working with the hon. member for Compton—Stanstead over the last number of months. The two of us are on the national defence and veterans affairs committee. I must say that he is a very diligent worker and that he brings a lot to the table in terms of discussion. He has done a good job that way. The hon. member would probably agree as well that in framing the motion as he did he very much overstated the case with respect to the current situation in the armed forces.
Let me take the opportunity to put this matter into some perspective. Certainly the world has changed greatly over the 1990s. The challenges we have faced in the 1990s and the rapidity of change we have experienced as a society and indeed right across the globe have been tremendous. Governments have tried to respond to that as best they could, and our government is no different.
When we faced the prospect of forming a government in 1993 clearly we were concerned about security issues. All Canadians are concerned about security issues. One of the foremost security issues we had to face in 1993 was our financial security. As a result some decisions had to be made. When we had a $42 billion deficit to deal with, some decisions had to be taken with respect to restoring financial security to Canadians.
As a result cutbacks had to be made in government. It was not just the Department of National Defence that experienced those cutbacks. There were many other departments. It is safe to say, and most members would agree, that there has been a significant cutback in government activity.
At the same time, in the post-deficit situation we face right now there is a realization and a recognition that some of the departments of government used to perform a lot more activities than they do now. There has to be some action taken to address the problems that have occurred in those departments, and the Department of National Defence is certainly one of them.
Its budget has been reduced, as has already been mentioned, from $12 billion in 1993-94 to its current situation of $9.38 billion in 1998-99. This process has not been easy. I have to salute the Minister of National Defence for his actions since he took the post. He has done what no other minister of national defence was prepared to do, which was to have the national defence committee go across the country to talk with individual soldiers, sailors, airmen and women to find out what concerned them, what was on their mind, what were the issues they had to deal with on a day to day basis.
That took a lot of political courage. When we start a process like that one we really have no idea where the whole process will end up. From that standpoint the minister is to be congratulated. Having had the opportunity to discuss this issue with the hon. member for Compton—Stanstead, he would generally agree with the observation that it took some political courage to do what the Minister of National Defence has done.
As I mentioned earlier, we have had the opportunity to go to many bases. Just to give an example, the committee touched down and held hearings in Yellowknife, Esquimalt, Comox, Edmonton, Cold Lake, Moose Jaw, Val Cartier, Bagotville, Kingston, Petawawa, North Bay, Trenton, Gagetown, Goose Bay and Halifax. For anyone who was counting that was 15 different locations to date. I have had the pleasure of speaking to Canadian forces members in all but two of those locations.
We have heard a great deal from members of the Canadian forces. We have heard about the issue of salary. There is no doubt that the issue of salary is one that is very important to members of the Canadian forces, especially younger members of the forces that occupy the junior ranks, the privates and corporals of the Canadian forces.
I frankly do not know how some of them are able to do it on the salary they are making right now. Their starting salary is $17,000 and $18,000. The salary rises as the spend more time and are eligible for pay increments, but members of the national defence committee would agree that base salary has to rise.
The government has already taken steps to improve the salaries of members of the Canadian forces. I hope that in the not too distant future we will be able to see further improvements in that way.
The issue of housing has been mentioned. That is certainly one of the more important issues for members of the forces who have families and are living in the PMQs. We have seen some very poor accommodation for members of the forces in many locations across the country.
It is very old stock and it needs to be replaced. How we do that in today's financial environment will take a lot of innovation and creativity on behalf of employees of the Department of National Defence in the Canadian forces housing agency who are charged with that responsibility. I hope they are up to the task because our soldiers, sailors and airmen and women certainly deserve better than what they have right now.
We have heard about other issues including the care of the wounded and the injured. There should be better ways of dealing with the problem of unemployed spouses on Canadian bases. It continues to be a problem.
Many families take two incomes for granted, but that is not often the case at a Canadian forces base. A spouse has difficulty getting employment with private businesses outside the base. Many employers refuse to hire them when they know they will be posted somewhere else in a few years. They are not prepared to make investments in terms of training and skills. We have also heard about the problem of post traumatic stress syndrome.
Those are just a few of the problems we have heard about in the course of our hearings across the country. The hon. member for Compton—Stanstead would agree that at the same time there is a tremendous esprit de corps in the forces. Some people say that the overall morale in the Canadian forces could probably be improved quite significantly but that the unit morale is very strong. There is a strong esprit de corps or a strong connection between people working in a platoon, a company or as part of a ship's crew or air crew. They feel proud to wear Canada's uniform. They feel proud of the record of our Canadian forces men and women abroad.
The issue of equipment is important. The forces are in the process of enhancing or improving the equipment available to them. As I mentioned in earlier comments today, our navy is among the most modern in the world in terms of the technology it has available. The same can be said of our air forces with the CF-18s and their precision guided weapons which are among the most modern in the world. The army definitely needs more equipment. The government is in the process of equipping it with new armoured personnel carriers and other equipment it needs in terms of clothe the soldier program and others.
Rather than condemning the government, the opposition should be congratulating it for having the political courage to go out there to speak to the men and women of the Canadian forces to learn what is on their minds. I congratulate the Minister of National Defence and the government for their courage in that regard.
Ultimately the matter rests with the government. As far as the men and women of the Canadian forces are concerned I am confident the government will do the right thing.
Supply May 14th, 1998
Madam Speaker, the other question I have is in connection with personnel support programs. It relates to some innovative thinking that is occurring within the Canadian forces right now.
What is wrong with companies providing support to members of the Canadian forces. What is wrong with that? What difficulty does the hon. member have with that? It shows some real leadership and innovation.
Supply May 14th, 1998
Madam Speaker, I did not hear the last comment by the hon. member for Saint John.
Supply May 14th, 1998
Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest to the remarks of the hon. leader of the Progressive Conservative Party this morning in connection with the motion before us.
I cannot help but think that the hon. member is painting an extraordinarily bleak picture of the Canadian Armed Forces at this point in time. None of us on this side of the House would suggest for a moment that there are not some problems within the military, but the picture painted by the hon. member goes a little too far with respect to reflecting the reality of the situation.
I have two questions for the hon. member. One of them relates to the whole issue of the white paper. As a member of the national defence committee I just returned from the committee hearings in Halifax and the maritimes. We talked to quite a number of people. I had the opportunity to speak to Rear Admiral Dusty Miller who is in charge of the maritime Atlantic command. I asked him about the whole equipment issue, whether or not we could do the job that has been mandated to us in the white paper and in connection with the Department of National Defence mission statement.
Rear Admiral Miller was very clear in terms of his comments. He said that when Canada gets the Upholder submarines we will have one of the most modern navies in the world, some of the best equipment available in the world and some of the most highly trained people in the world.
If we look at the reality of the situation, I think it is reflected in the commitment the government has made to the navy over the last number of years: 12 brand new frigates in the Canadian navy, absolute state of the art in terms of weapons systems, radar, communications systems and computer systems. It is the very best technology we could possibly offer our men and women in uniform on those frigates.
The maritime coastal defence vessels is another example: 12 brand new maritime coastal defence vessels, and we have the Upholder submarines as well.
I ask the hon. member to respond to that aspect of the equipment and whether or not she is prepared to admit that perhaps she painted a little too bleak a picture.
The other issue she raised was on the personnel support programs. We are seeing commanders in the case of the maritime Atlantic command who are taking the initiative. I spoke to one service person who showed me a card produced by maritime—