David Price

[Supply, May 14th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Veterans Affairs. I hoped he would talk a little about the problems between veterans affairs and the Canadian forces. In our travels through the different bases we heard quite a bit from people who suffered injuries while in the forces. When they leave the forces and go to veterans affairs there seems to be a block in the interchange between the two. Information is not getting across.

There is a problem with different doctors. The Canadian forces have one doctor and when they go to veterans affairs they see another doctor. There seems to be a blockage. Every time somebody applies to veterans affairs they do not seem to get the two tied together. Medical documents seem to disappear. They melt going from one to the other.

Could the parliamentary secretary tell us whether the information handed down to the committee will go immediately to veterans affairs to be handled, or will we have to wait for it to go through report stage?

[Supply, May 14th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I find it rather interesting that the NDP member is talking from the heart about this issue. As we travelled to different bases I was very disappointed to see that members of the NDP were not that involved. They did not show up at a lot of the places except if it happened to be in one of their ridings.

They are self-professed as being very strong in the ASD file. We really did not hear a lot from them. Maybe the member could answer as to why they did not show up at those meetings.

[Supply, May 14th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for Oak Ridges for his comments. I am always quite interested in the reserves, being a reserve member for six years many years back.

I find the member's comments, where he is talking about what we have done for the reserves, going in the wrong direction. Yes, we have added numbers to the reserves but we have cut down their hours. We have cut them to less than half and also we have cut out all the exercises they do. So what we are doing is cutting out their training. We are not giving them a chance to train properly. So instead of getting higher quality reserves, we are lowering the quality of our reserves and they do not deserve that, particularly since we are using reserves an awful lot these days overseas. It is important that they get good basic training at the reserve level so they can continue on at the regular level.

He was also talking about preparation and equipment and I thought I would mention at this point our submarines. He mentioned the 1994 white paper. The white paper was quite clear that we needed those submarines and it was a good deal. That was four years ago. We finally ordered the submarines, but it will take a couple of years for them to get here.

In the meantime this month we have another submarine that is being decommissioned and another one will be in September. That will leave us with one submarine. That is our total fleet. We will go for a couple of years with one submarine. It is not very logical. That submarine will not be out too much.

Maybe the member would care to comment on that.

[Supply, May 14th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I will touch on one point that the hon. member mentioned. He started off by speaking about cadets. I will speak about air cadets in my riding.

I was a member of the air cadets several years back. In the last two years they have had to close down. Granted, the cadet system is a non-profit organization, but it does work usually under reservists who help out.

That brings up the other point of what has happened to the reserve over the last four years. They have cut the hours out of the reserve. They only have 32 days a year to train.

This government talks about making the reservists a good, solid force, yet it is cutting the feet out from under them. It is taking equipment away from them. It is cutting their hours.

How can they possibly work with 32 days a year? Besides that, now they say no more summer exercises. They are all being cut out. This is where we get our young people involved. They get out in the summertime, get jobs with the reserves and get to do summer exercises. Maybe the member could comment on that.

[Supply, May 14th, 1998]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague, the hon. member for Chicoutimi. The government complained today that we show only the bad side and do not make any practical suggestions.

I thought I had made one this morning, and I would like to hear the hon. member for Chicoutimi on this. The problem is that proper training is not provided. Individuals who leave the armed forces after a 20 year military career have no training. There should be an education system. Perhaps we could share the costs: we take a little off their pay and the government could chip in. This way the costs would be shared.

When their service engagement is over, they could go back to university, college or training school. I know this is an area my colleague knows well. Perhaps he could comment on this.

[Supply, May 14th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, the underlying problem here is the lack of money. A lot of time is invested in training people to go to Bosnia, for example, where one group is going in June. They get training and then they come back here afterwards.

There is not enough time between deployments. They do not have enough time to be properly trained and to set up a proper team. But the major problem in all of this is always money. They do not have enough equipment either. This sort of project requires the latest highly specialized equipment.

It is too bad, because we are always working with big forces, like those of the Americans and the English, who are well equipped. We do a very good job with what we have, but we cannot keep doing it. Things keep deteriorating.

[Supply, May 14th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for the question. Unfortunately at this point I have to get ahead of the minister. A lot of that problem has been solved. There have been some good moves made toward that. General Baril has opened a line in Bosnia where people can call back every day if they wish. I see the minister smiling; he is happy.

That is only one point. Look at all the points we could have gained. There are still some problems to be looked. We had some problems with the ships in Halifax but they are working on addressing them right now. A lot of work is being done with Internet so they can work with e-mail. The problem we did hear about it is that in many cases these people do not have the funds to purchase a computer and therefore cannot get e-mail. The family resources centre has purchased some computers and they actually have a 24 hour service set up.

That problem is being addressed, but it has taken a long time to get to that point when the technology has been there for quite a while.

[Supply, May 14th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his question. I did not talk about salaries, which is also another problem. It was one of the main issues raised during our tour across the country. I am convinced that we will hear more about it.

As I did briefly, the hon. member also raised the issues of training and of how personnel are treated. I briefly mentioned that the problem has to do with the possibility of getting an education. People join the army and most of them stay for 20 years. Then they leave without a profession to fall back on.

Let me give you a specific example. Let us assume that a person is a licensed electrician in the armed forces. When that person leaves the forces and tries to find a job anywhere in the country, his licence from the military is not worth anything. That person has to start from scratch again and serve an apprenticeship of at least four years to become an electrician, when he is already one.

I could also talk about mechanics, whose situation is exactly the same.

I am confident that soldiers would be prepared to pay their share, as is the case in the United States. What they do down there is a good example, because they have a fund to which soldiers contribute so that, at the end of their stint, they can attend university or an apprentice school. They have that opportunity.

The member talked about maintaining a balance between equipment and personnel, and I definitely agree with him that our soldiers are getting the short end of the stick. General Baril said there would be no trade-off. I do not know how he is going to do it, but he will definitely need more money. It is not possible to achieve both, but we have no choice. There is clearly a shortage of personnel.

Our military personnel need proper equipment and clothing to do their job properly. A significant amount was budgeted for clothing, but the clothes have yet to arrive.

I hope this answers the hon. member's question.

[Supply, May 14th, 1998]

Everybody will have a chance. If that is the best leadership that the Prime Minister can provide, the House must condemn the government for its failure.

While the government expects Canada's forces to jump when the Prime Minister gives the word and while the dedicated people who make up the Canadian forces will always respond when the government calls, the government abuses the dedication of the forces to the country.

I cannot think of a more disgusting waste of talented and dedicated men and women than to abuse their dedication by not providing them with equipment, training and resources they need to do their job.

Because the government continues this trend of abusing the Canadian military there will come a time when the Prime Minister says “Okay, boys, it is time to go”, and the response will be “I am sorry, sir, we cannot do the job”.

The answer will come not because they will not want to perform that particular mission, not because they do not want to come to the aid of Canada, but because their government has let them down and they no longer have the resources to do the job.

That day will come sooner than we think because the government refuses to show the smallest ounce of leadership and do its fundamental job to protect Canadians. For that the government must be condemned.

Maybe it is best to close with the words of Marguerita Bargiel who came before the committee at CFB Petawawa. Her husband has been in the Canadian forces for over 20 years and she was a military brat before too. She is somebody with a long experience. She said:

This stinks. Let me tell you, I'm not too impressed with the whole system. I'm fed up. I guess I'm not the only one. You do your best and you get screwed. That's the way it is these days in the Canadian forces.

[Supply, May 14th, 1998]

moved:

That this House condemn the government for its failure to provide strong political leadership to Her Majesty's Canadian Forces.

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to have the opportunity to put forward the following motion that be it resolved:

That this House condemn the government for its failure to provide strong political leadership to Her Majesty's Canadian Forces.

I am pleased to have this opportunity to put forward the motion, but it gives me no pleasure that this government has created a situation where a motion such as this one needs to be put forward. It gives me no pleasure. It gives the Tory party no pleasure. It gives Canadians no pleasure that this government has failed to provide strong political leadership to the Canadian forces.

The truth can no longer be hidden. Everybody in this country knows that the Prime Minister abuses the forces. Nobody knows it more than the men and women who serve Canada in Canadian forces uniforms.

Today's debate will show how this government's failure has resulted in the terrible living conditions for members of the Canadian forces. We will demonstrate how this government's failure has resulted in inadequate health care for members of Canada's forces. Today's debate will show how this government has failed to provide proper equipment.

All these things have resulted in deplorable morale in the Canadian forces. That is not leadership. For these reasons this House must condemn the government for failing to provide strong leadership.

When I have completed my opening remarks members from the government and maybe even the minister himself will give a list of great achievements by the government. They will tell this House that they have bought new search and rescue helicopters and new submarines for the navy. They will announce how they are in the process of overhauling the military justice system with Bill C-25 which at this very moment is in committee. They will talk and talk but that is what this government is very good at, talking.

However, I want to draw the attention of all members of this House to what the government is not saying. This government must recognize these shortcomings. It must recognize problems such as poor living conditions, inadequate health care and low morale, and it must take action.

In its 1994 defence white paper, the government wrote: “Defence policy must respond not only to an uncertain and unstable world abroad, but also to challenging circumstances at home”.

My party strongly believes that we must recognize the efforts made by our forces in times of peace, and particularly in times of war, to defend Canada, its honour, its interests and its way of life. We must recognize that contribution by leading the Canadian forces into the 21st century, because they are the ones who are carrying the torch.

Our forces have been criticized a lot over the last few years. While the Prime Minister, referring to the Somalia inquiry, said that everybody can make a mistake, he did not address the problem.

Instead the Prime Minister has looked for quick and easy solutions to the problems that need real attention. He disbanded the airborne regiment and the problems grew. He disbanded the Somalia inquiry before it had a chance to finish its job. That is not leadership. The problems continue to grow.

The 1994 defence white paper committed to combat capable forces. The government made that decision to have combat capable forces. However to make those forces effective and truly combat capable, the Prime Minister is ignoring the problems the Canadian forces are facing.

I want to share with the House my experiences and the experiences of the members of the Standing Committee on National Defence and Veterans Affairs as we travelled across this country from base to base. We covered a lot of bases.

I first want to talk about equipping our forces. I am sure my colleagues in the House have read recent reports on how our soldiers are trying to do their jobs when they do not have the most basic equipment. Recently there was a cover story in Maclean's magazine with the headline “Fighting Mad”. I am talking about uniforms and boots.

When the committee visited the base at Petawawa the commander of the Royal Canadian Dragoons was wearing a one-piece jumpsuit instead of his regular kit. He said it was because he could see right through his regular uniform and did not see a new uniform coming. When we talk about equipment we have to consider major purchases as well.

This Prime Minister spent $500 million to cancel a helicopter contract in 1993. One year later the 1994 defence white paper stated that the forces desperately need that helicopter. What I am speaking about right now is the replacement for the 30-year old Sea King helicopter which flies off the back of our brand new frigates. That was in 1994 and now it is 1998. This government spent $500 million cancelling a contract and there are still no helicopters.

No one should think that the government paid only $500 million. This government is still paying and paying dearly.

I visited Shearwater last week and was amazed to see the Sea King helicopters on the maintenance floor completely torn apart. I wondered what had happened that the helicopter needed such extensive repairs. I was told that the helicopter needed 70 hours of maintenance work for every one hour in the air. That does not sound very efficient to me. The helicopter through its regular life was supposed to have eleven and a half hours of maintenance for every one hour. Even that would seem high.

Not only that, the pilots are afraid to fly them. They are not coming out in public and saying this, but when one talks to them. And their hair is turning white. If one motor fails, it is a chance whether or not they get back. Why are new helicopters not being ordered? Our guys are doing a super job keeping these things in the air but the Prime Minister is not giving them any help. He does not give them any leadership.

That is not all I want to talk about this morning. I feel it is my responsibility to tell the House about the inadequate health care the government provides to men and women in the Canadian forces.

It is my understanding that doctors on military bases can treat soldiers but cannot treat soldiers' families. This creates problems that are simply not necessary. In fact the base doctors I have spoken to who are trained as family doctors want to practise family medicine. Instead, because they are not allowed to treat the families of soldiers, they end up dealing only with the soldiers themselves and their particular medical and psychological problems. If the House needs further evidence, I will read from the testimony of a Canadian forces member who came before the committee in Halifax:

My name is Michael Robert Innes. I was released from the military on a 3A medical category on December 23, 1997 stating that I was unfit for military service or any environment.

I have a decision from the Charlottetown medical review board that my illness is attributable to my service in a special duty area in Croatia, the former Yugoslavia. Subsection 21.1 of the pension act provides entitlement for a disability that is attributed to, was incurred during or aggravated by your military service. I receive 25% of this decision currently.

The quality of my life has been affected to the point where I cannot work, ride a bike, play hockey, go camping, swimming, rough house with my kids, household chores. God bless washing dishes. These are things I used to take for granted. Showering, getting dressed is difficult for me. The physical activity is painful, debilitating and affects every area of my life. I limit my activities and try not to let the illness regress to the point of being bedridden because it happens very easily and it is harder to come back each time.

My family as well as myself had to make adjustments in our lifestyles dealing with limitations of this illness.

Michael Innes cannot get his full benefits because although he was released from the military because of his disability, he has been denied his claim because he does not meet the definition of disabled. This makes very little sense. The government closes its eyes. It provides no leadership.

In fact as the committee travelled from base to base I learned that soldiers suspect that when the government no longer wants them, after 20 years normally, it just lets them go. It usually finds a medical excuse to use to get rid of them. It gets rid of these soldiers because they are past their prime. Soldiers who expected to learn a trade in the military find that their skills are not recognized outside and life only becomes more difficult.

One Canadian forces mechanic I met explained that he works on heavy trucks that are all well over 20 years old. When he leaves the service he told me he will not be able to get a job as a mechanic because he does not have a clue how the newer vehicles are built today with modern components. He has no idea how they operate, so he is out.

The Prime Minister should be considering a program to better educate our soldiers and perhaps provide them with an option of civilian course work under a program that both the soldier and the government would pay into. Has the government proposed anything like that? No. Why not? Because it never shows any leadership.

I want to talk about living conditions on bases across Canada. In fact it is probably best again if I read from the testimony of a witness who came before the committee. They speak far more eloquently on how the government failed than I ever could. At Canadian Forces Base Petawawa, Angela Hulbert explained how she lived on the base with her corporal husband in their PMQs, private married quarters. She said:

Gale force winds blow through our window frames in the wintertime. We have to chip the ice off the inside of all our windows. Our furnaces run steady just to keep the house liveable. Actually, it is not liveable.

My kitchen cupboards are on the outside wall. I can actually freeze things in them, so we do not need a beer fridge because we have a beer cupboard.

We have such bad mould and mildew on our window sills, the water runs off it constantly and makes big patches of paint and gyprock come off the walls.

If we decorate the place ourselves just to make it liveable, we have to put it all back the way it was when we leave. I do not consider dirt-white liveable. We like to decorate a little bit and then we have to change it all back to dirt-white.

We have a river that runs through our basement every spring. They tell us that we do not pay for our basements, so it does not matter what condition they are in. We do not have a storage closet, so we have to use the basement.

When we showed up in Halifax, the whole thing had changed a bit. Then they were receiving letters saying that the Canadian Forces Housing Association is now charging $30 to $40 because now they consider that the basements are usable. Maybe they consider they have indoor swimming pools. She also said:

Our washers and driers are down there. I do not think it is good for my appliances when they are sitting in at least six inches of water for part of the day or two days.

We ask for something to be done and of course they are either coming or they say they will call us in a few days. We don't hear from them and they figure we'll just forget it, I guess. They never show up. They never call back. If you call them back, they just say they are coming. A couple of years go by and they are still coming. I do not think any other landlord would get away with this.

Is this acceptable to the House? Is this the way the men and women who protect Canada deserve to live? Is this right? I do not think so.

I could say more about the horrid living conditions but I hope the House gets the idea. Our soldiers and their families are living in terrible conditions.

Until now these have been secrets the Prime Minister has refused to share with the public. Canadians have to know and they are starting to know that men and women who serve in Canada are not properly respected and do not have the proper political leadership.

The government has cut the defence budget by 30% in the last five years. That is taking its toll. It is taking its toll on equipment. It is taking its toll on training. As the defence committee travelled from base to base this spring, we found it is taking its toll on the simple quality of life that my party believes soldiers all through our forces should enjoy.

Things have become so desperate, something called the Canadian forces personal support agency has been set up within the Department of National Defence, mandated to provide for the morale and welfare of the men and women of the Canadian forces.

How will they achieve this? They will sell space, just like a hockey rink. The Department of National Defence will sell space for corporate logos. We will be the only NATO country that instead of our flag painted on our trucks and helicopters—we do not have them yet—we will see a big logo that says “Drink Coca-Cola”.