René Laurin

[The Budget, February 29th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I would like the hon. member for Etobicoke North to explain what he means by a courageous movement to pay off the country's debt.

As we are speaking, the debt is $579 billion. For the last three years of the plan, it will remain at $576 billion. At a rate of $3 billion per year, supposing we apply the government's provisional reserve for the debt, it will take Canadians 192 years to eliminate the debt. The debt does not bother the federal government too much.

What really bothers the federal government is the assistance it could provide to the provinces to help them overcome the daily problems that confront them. All the provinces agreed that the priority was health care. All Canadians, including Quebecers of course, need additional resources to pay for health care. Everyone agrees that it is the top priority.

The federal government does not recognize that because, in order to carry out this priority, it would have to go through the provinces and give them more money to provide the services for which they are responsible.

Instead of meeting the essential needs of Quebecers and Canadians, instead of meeting them via the provinces, the federal government has opted for impoverishing the provinces still further by keeping them in a position of dependency, so that they will be increasingly unable to act, even in areas that are set out as their jurisdiction.

What then are the heroic gestures the federal government has taken to meet the essential needs of the people? Why does the federal government not allocate any significant amount to solving the problem of Canadians' health? Is that what the budget's generosity is all about?

If there had been no budget last evening, Canadians and Quebecers would not have gone all year without noticing, because the significant effects will not kick in for two, three and four years.

Where does the heroism of the government lie? Where is the government's sensitivity to the needs of taxpayers clamouring for health services, educational services, and more money for poor children? Where is the federal money for this year?

[The Budget, February 29th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Considering the importance of the issue, could you check to see if we have a quorum?

And the count having been taken:

[Point Of Order, February 23rd, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday, the big guns of the Quebec civil society protested the federal legislation on referendum conditions while the Liberals again tried to limit the debate on this subject.

Here is an excerpt of an article that was published in the February 22 issue of La Presse under the title “A Motion to Limit Debate”. As this article may enlighten the House during the debate, I am asking for unanimous consent to table it.

[Division No. 692, February 22nd, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order. You called the yeas and the nays and indicated that the nays had it by indicating those who voted to your right. To your right were yeas, and not nays. I believe this has misled the House.

[Division No. 692, February 22nd, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order. I realize that the interpreters, who did not get the text of the amendment in French or English, have not translated.

If we are to know the content of these amendments before we vote on them, it would be important to have the text.

[Committees Of The House, February 22nd, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague is right. We too have been critical of this situation. We have even seen individual files with certain compromising information removed. Why? We have no idea.

Why was information removed? Was it because they were afraid that these soldiers would claim compensation? Was it because they were afraid that these soldiers would be entitled to settlements that would cost the government too much? Is this how they show respect for soldiers? Is this how they show respect for those who are going to defend the freedom in which we believe? Is this how we want those who represent us abroad treated?

Once again, Canada's credibility, its prestige as a peacekeeper, is predicated on our respect for the soldiers who represent us abroad.

It is predicated on respect for the individuals who remain in Canada, because these are the people who will pay for our peacekeeping missions abroad. When foreign countries see how much importance we attach to respecting people, to looking after their basic needs, when they see it is a priority for Canada they will respect us and we will have played a better role abroad than the one we play now by sending military equipment that is at times so heavy we lack the carriers needed to deliver them to a theatre of war abroad.

We have to turn to the American army for help in transporting certain heavy equipment. Counting on the help of another country to defend our ideas abroad is a very strange way of ensuring our sovereignty.

Once again, Canada would do well—even though the white paper is six years old, in international politics things change so quickly that six years can be a very long time—to re-examine its positions, especially when we are wondering if NATO should not alter its mission, when the new European Union is considering putting a structure called European security and defence identity in place and when everything is upside down and people think the world should act differently with respect to theatres of war across regions or nations.

We have to consider whether it is effective to retain the same objectives or whether we should not look at a new way for Canada to be part of these missions abroad and how it could ensure its military personnel enjoy a decent standard of living both at home and on missions abroad.

[Committees Of The House, February 22nd, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I admire the work done in committee by the hon. member. He shows that he is very interested. Even though he is also an opposition member, he always shows a great deal of interest in these issues.

We are in agreement. The Bloc Quebecois has always said it: if we are sure that the moneys already allocated to the army are well spent, that they are spent for the purposes for which they were allocated, that they are strictly and meticulously monitored, and if we are sure that Canada is financially capable of participating in missions—it is true that we have a role to play abroad, but that role must be one that we are able to play—if we have the assurance that these objectives have been met, then we will agree to let the government invest more money, if necessary. But the government must first invest in the quality of life of military personnel.

When Canada goes abroad, the number of bombs or aircraft that it sends does nothing to promote its credibility with belligerent countries. Canada's reputation abroad has always been one of a promoter peace, of a creator of conditions promoting peace. These conditions are not created by increasing the number of aircraft or by making bombs.

What Canada must do is strengthen its credibility, first by ensuring comfort, good quality of life and stability to Canadians and Quebecers. This is the best way to establish its credibility as a peacekeeper abroad.

[Committees Of The House, February 22nd, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his very pertinent question. I had not finished mentioning cases of mismanagement.

If the auditor general—the report does not mention it—had taken as sizeable a sampling as in the case of Human Resources Development Canada, he might have found an equivalent amount of mismanagement in the Defence files. We do not know this, because the auditor general settled for raising the most obvious cases of waste and mismanagement. I will give a few more.

For example, in answer to the question from my colleague, in the April 1998 Auditor General's Report, it was clearly indicated that the injection of additional funds would not solve the problems of the armed forces, as long as it is not clear where it is headed.

It is all very fine to say “There are complaints from the military, so we will add one or two billion dollars”. However, if it is not clear where we are headed, it will never be known whether this additional money will solve the problem. There has to be a proper understanding of the situation, we have to be sure of the administrative methods used, we have to be sure this money has been spent before any more is injected.

Perhaps the money already allocated to the armed forces would be enough, if it were handled better. Perhaps no more investment would be necessary. This would enable us to put more money into other priorities of Canadians and Quebecers, such as combatting poverty and unemployment or helping out the provinces in the areas of health, education or welfare. This funding is not merely useful; it is necessary.

[Committees Of The House, February 22nd, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, if my colleagues opposite will just bear with me, they will see where I am headed. Members of the Canadian forces have been patient; for five, and in some cases even ten, years they have been waiting in vain for reform from the government. The member has been listening to me for only two minutes. He can listen a bit longer if he is interested in the point we are trying to make.

I was reading the final “whereas” in the resolution tabled before the standing committee on November 25, 1999, which states the following:

And whereas, the Canadian Forces continue to experience problems with respect to housing, quality of life issues, troop fatigue based upon increased deployments, ageing equipment in need of replacement and the loss of key capabilities;

It ought to be of interest to government members to hear about the shortcomings of the armed forces and what they are lacking.

Be it resolved that the Standing Committee on National Defence and Veterans Affairs (SCONDVA) request the Government of Canada embark upon a five-year plan, commencing immediately, to substantially increase the budget of the Department of National Defence as a percentage of the GDP to revitalize, modernize and ensure an effective, combat capable Canadian Forces.

We have some comments on this. Moreover, we presented a dissenting report for the following reasons.

In committee we indicated that the resolution might have been acceptable to us if certain points were modified. We suggested that the government's objectives be reassessed. We called for the control over military spending to also be reassessed, and more attention focussed on it.

Why did we move this amendment and vote against the main proposal? In its first report, the committee asked that additional moneys be immediately provided to the Department of National Defence. The Bloc Quebecois' position on the issue of supplementary estimates for national defence has always been the same and still is.

We are not opposed, in principle, to increasing the army's budget if we come to the conclusion that there is no other way to meet the needs of the army, and if the objectives of the government and of Canada regarding peacekeeping operations, including peacemaking and promotion of peace and democracy in foreign countries, are still within our means. We must have the means to fulfil our ambitions. Canada has ambitions; it wants to look good abroad, but can we still afford our ambitious objectives?

It might be advisable to ask ourselves that question once again. The white paper on defence was written in 1994, but the world situation has evolved enormously since. It has totally changed over the past six years. There are now 22 theatres of threatened peace or of war where countries are tearing each other or themselves to pieces, where democracy is in jeopardy. Canada is involved in most missions to these regions.

Now, in the year 2000, does Canada—even though it continues to be a promoter of peace—still have the means to participate in these missions? Do we have to take part in every mission, or should we be selective? Should Canada be involved in these missions if we decide to be present everywhere? Should we participate in the same way that all the other countries do, or should we specialize in a certain role?

For example, we could play a role relating to communications, diplomacy or health care. We must ask ourselves these questions once again. Does Canada still have the means to send aircraft, including F-18s, and heavy equipment abroad to fulfil these obligations?

We cannot let our allies think we will provide thousands, millions and billions of dollars to help maintain peace, when at home one child in five is starving. Peace starts at home.

If Canadians cannot live in peace at home because they do not feel secure and do not have bread to feed their children, if Canadians and Quebecers lack this assurance at home, how can they properly support a peacekeeping presence abroad? Charity begins at home.

Canada will enjoy influence and credibility abroad when the people there know that Canada treats its own people and their children well first, before attempting to look after the children of others.

This is a concern of the Bloc Quebecois. We must be sure all the savings possible in the army have been made before new funds are injected. The auditor general has repeatedly pointed to mismanagement of funds in the army.

In November, 1999, in chapter 26, the auditor noted the following “The audit found that in some areas, controls over financial and material resources have weakened”. Therefore, before additional funds are injected, we must look into the present management, which is the source of the waste.

In this same chapter 26, the auditor general noted—in 1999, not ages ago, but quite recently—as follows “Allegations of such abuses of resources as unauthorized upgrading of official residences and misappropriation of government property have not always been dealt with adequately”. Let the government start by looking into this before considering whether there is a need to increase the budget.

That was not all the auditor general had to say. In chapter 27 of the same report, he commented that the Department of National Defence had not always put out calls for tender, “thus forgoing the benefits of price competition”. A total of $3 billion, or 30%, of the national defence budget of $10 billion is spent annually on untendered contracts. This is not negligible. It is an extremely large amount and they do not see anything wrong with operating this way.

DND authorities are authorized to make purchases using expenditure cards with which they are issued. Are those purchases always made at the best price? We do not know because there are no calls for tender. In the worst case scenario, some people may be using the system to indulge in patronage, to buy from friends, from people who are helping the government stay in power.

It is important that we be sure that this money is being properly spent before approving increases.

The other point that I wished to make is that we must review our international objectives. If Canada cannot afford to take part in international peacekeeping missions, it should re-examine its policies now, inform its allies accordingly, and tell them what role we intend to play in future and how much we are prepared to invest.

[Committees Of The House, February 22nd, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I move that the first report of the Standing Committee on National Defence and Veterans Affairs, tabled on Wednesday December 1, 1999, be concurred in.

Thank you for giving me the time this morning to debate this motion which is, in my opinion, an extremely important one.

It is important, first of all, because the budget, on which we will be required to vote in about two weeks, will no doubt include billions of dollars for National Defence.

The last budgets of that department were in the order of $10 million or $11 million. That is a very large portion of the budget. It accounts for a large part of the revenue of the Government of Canada.

It is important to address this matter because the Standing Committee on National Defence and Veterans Affairs has been looking at a number of aspects of military life over the past two years. The auditor general himself was interested in the way the army was spending the money allocated to it.

The committee has been looking at military life over the past two or three years. What sort of life do our military personnel have day to day? How do they feel when they are sent on missions abroad? How are they treated and with what sort of satisfaction do they enjoy daily on the bases, be they land, naval or air bases, where they are assigned, at home or abroad?

The committee was interested in this question because, for a number of years, especially since the government started its fight against the deficit, the army has been in large measure hit with budget restrictions. Our military personnel and our generals complained of it, and even NATO complained.

NATO, of which Canada is a member, criticized the fact that Canada was not investing enough in its share of the peacekeeping missions abroad, such as the ones in Kosovo, East Timor and Bosnia Herzegovina. According to NATO, Canada is one of the countries investing less, in terms of its gross domestic product, in the missions.

After doing studies and research, hearing dozens of witnesses, including experts—some from abroad, some from Canada—a number of members of the military, including soldiers, those most affected by the policies of the Government of Canada, on November 25, 1999, the committee tabled a motion on the revitalization and modernization of Canada's armed forces.

The 1994 white paper, mentioned in this resolution, was introduced six years ago.

The resolution read as follows:

Whereas the Government's White Paper on Defence from 1994 calls on the Canadian Forces to play a vital role in protecting Canadian sovereignty, maintaining collective defence through NATO and NORAD, providing support to United Nations peacekeeping operations, search and rescue, disaster relief and humanitarian assistance;

This resolution read further:

And whereas, the Department of National Defence budget has been reduced by 23 per cent against original projections since Budget '94;

And 23% is a sizeable proportion of a budget.

And whereas, in comparison to our principal allies, Canadian defence expenditures have fallen sharply from 1.7 per cent of GDP

I referred to it earlier.

in 1993-94 to 1.15 per cent of GDP in 1999-2000 with the NATO average being 2.1 per cent of GDP;

The difference between what Canada and other NATO countries invest in national defence and peacekeeping operations is almost 1%.

And whereas, our international commitments—in places like Bosnia, Kosovo and East Timor—in support of peace and human security have increased to the point where we have one of the largest contingents of troops deployed abroad since the Korean War;

And whereas, the Canadian Forces continue to experience problems with respect to housing—