House of Commons Hansard #83 of the 36th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was commission.

Topics

National Defence ActGovernment Orders

12:35 p.m.

Reform

Keith Martin Reform Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC

Madam Speaker, I thank my hon. friend for his question, which hits the heart of two issues.

What is the role of our military? There is no clear description of the military's role. If it has a role as a fighting force with ground forces and if we need tanks to fulfil our NATO obligations or for our peacekeeping roles, then this would make absolute sense.

My colleague illustrated the important issue of why we do not hear whether or not we are accepting those tanks. It is like the submarine situation. We do not know why the submarines were rejected. We do not even know if they were considered properly.

We do not know what the minister of defence is thinking, be it regarding submarines or tanks because a direction for the military has not been articulated. The government waffles all over the spectrum. It is as if it goes with the breeze. We do not know what the government's plan is for the military. If we knew what the plan was, then we would know whether or not we should buy the Abrams tanks or the submarines. First should be the role. The government has been sitting here for five years and has not articulated a strong clear position on what the role of the military should be.

A second issue is that of the U.S. military. The U.S. military, as much as some people in our country like to criticize it, has been an enormous friend to Canada. We cannot do our job without its help. In many cases the U.S. military relies on our help.

The co-operation that exists between both countries on a military level is astounding, be it in the use of military satellites, communications skills, or our frigates protecting their ships against submarines. There is an intimate relationship between the U.S. and Canadian militaries which serves us both well. Our ability to protect ourselves would not be nearly as good if the U.S. military did not have such a co-operative relationship with our men and women in the military.

It is important that we do not treat Bill C-25 or this discussion as a witch-hunt against the military. There have been criticisms against the leadership in the military. As in any organization there are good eggs and bad eggs. It is the minister's role to separate them. Get rid of the bad eggs and keep the good eggs. Enable the many good people in the military to percolate up to the top, to strengthen our military to be the best that it can become.

There is so much dissatisfaction with the military personnel in their ability to advance. As a result huge numbers of extraordinarily talented people in the prime of their lives, in their thirties, forties and fifties have been lost to early retirement. They do not have the faith in the military to contribute to the organization they originally went into because they believed in it with their hearts and souls. Many of them came from families who gave their lives to the military for our country. What a sad reflection of our country that we cannot support an institution which has served our country and the world so well for so long.

National Defence ActGovernment Orders

12:40 p.m.

NDP

Peter Stoffer NDP Sackville—Eastern Shore, NS

Madam Speaker, I have one question.

The hon. Reform member spoke about our friendly relations with the Americans. Would he agree that sometimes that relationship gets a little too friendly?

I am talking about the used MOX fuel we are importing from the United States along our rails and roads into our Chalk River facility. Most Canadians were unaware that this was happening. The member may be aware that a lot of environmentalists and groups are very concerned about a possible accident which may occur and what it could mean to the Canadian public.

Would he agree that we should stop these shipments of used plutonium and MOX fuels into Canada?

National Defence ActGovernment Orders

12:40 p.m.

Reform

Keith Martin Reform Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC

Madam Speaker, I am not as well versed as the hon. member on that issue.

With respect to our relationship with the American military, it is co-operative. It is not incestuous. We do retain our autonomy. Our friends in the United States military understand that our soldiers are Canadian soldiers and not American soldiers in Canadian uniforms. That has always been very clear. Perhaps the hon member would be very interested to know of the enormous respect Canadian soldiers have in the United States when they help our friends in that country with their military initiatives.

As I said before, I am not as well versed as the member but I would certainly appreciate the member's giving me some information on this so I would be able to read about it and give him my opinion on it.

National Defence ActGovernment Orders

12:45 p.m.

Reform

Art Hanger Reform Calgary Northeast, AB

Madam Speaker, I know the member speaks from experience. He has had very close liaison with the military bases in his riding. He has spent a number of days examining their situation and listening carefully. The defence committee has travelled to Esquimalt and we have seen firsthand the problems that have arisen. I say problems because those problems need not be there had the government been paying attention to the military, its needs and acting on those needs a long time ago. But it chose not to do it.

Morale plays a big role in the military. The government makes wonderful announcements about the pay raises it has given the military, 3.2% the most recent, 2.2% previously and 1.5% going back to 1996 and .6%. Yet I am going to ask the member what kind of pay is the military going to actually realize when it looks at all the clawbacks in Canada pension, in tax, employment insurance and will it be all that much better off with what it has now or does it need something better like tax relief.

National Defence ActGovernment Orders

12:45 p.m.

Reform

Keith Martin Reform Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC

Madam Speaker, tax relief, tax relief, tax relief is what the military needs, as all Canadians need. I thank my friend from Calgary Northeast, our defence critic. He has done an enormous job of trying to be the advocate for our military.

Treasury Board hacks away at our defence department personnel's accommodation. It has raised their rents repeatedly while freezing their pay. That is the kind of situation we have.

National Defence ActGovernment Orders

12:45 p.m.

Reform

John Duncan Reform Vancouver Island North, BC

Madam Speaker, it gives me pleasure to speak today to Bill C-25, an act to amend the National Defence Act and to make consequential amendments to other acts. The purpose of this act is to make substantial changes to the military justice system in the Canadian Armed Forces.

Probably the impetus or a lot of this dates back to October 1995 when the Liberal government issued an order in council to establish what became known as the Somalia commission of inquiry. Later that commission by order in council was prematurely shut down. This is the first time in Canadian history that an order in council has been used to shut down a commission of inquiry.

The reason that happened was the commission was about to investigate the involvement of the Liberal government in the Somalia affair. Allegations of murder, the cover-up of murder, the failure of the general staff and the government to hold anyone accountable for their actions or omissions, the culture of secrecy at the Department of National Defence and the double standards of the military justice system all bubbled up during the Somalia inquiry.

We all know that the Liberal government is no friend to the Canadian Armed Forces. It has done no favours for our armed forces by allowing a cloud to hang over them by shutting down the Somalia inquiry. It has not given them a clear mandate to fulfil and it has failed to adequately equip them for their tasks.

During the term of this government the Canadian military has never been asked to do more with less resources. The government has failed to provide openness, accountability and independence for the Canadian Armed Forces. There were three important recommendations that came out of the Somalia inquiry. They continue to be ignored by the government.

Regarding the military police, they should be taken out of the chain of command and given more independence. Judge Marin was commissioned to report on the military police. He recommended that they not have the power in Canada to conduct criminal investigations. This recommendation is totally ignored in the legislation.

It was recommended that the office of the judge advocate general be split into defence and prosecutorial roles. It was also recommended that the judge not come from the same office and probably should not come from the federal court, trials division.

The Somalia inquiry recommended the creation of an inspector general. The government continues to ignore this recommendation. It ignores this request because an inspector general would be independent. The Liberals continuously ignore the role of Parliament with respect to national defence. The government has forgotten that deployment decisions of our troops should be taken by Parliament.

British Columbians are justifiably proud of our military. But we are also very concerned that this government has denuded British Columbia of part of our military. It decimated Chilliwack. We still have Esquimalt and we still have Comox. It would be very difficult indeed for this government to remove the naval presence from British Columbia. Otherwise it would have done so by now, there is no doubt about that. All the west coast coverage for the air force comes from Comox, which is essential. It is bad news for British Columbia that we no longer have an armed forces base in Chilliwack. We no longer have the army presence that we look for in national or international emergencies, ice storms, Bosnia, Kosovo or Haiti.

If we have an earthquake on the west coast who are we going to look to? We are going to look to our military. Ottawa has let British Columbia down very badly indeed.

The Liberals have put politics before principle. They have put politics before what is good for the nation and good for society. The Liberals are no friends of the military. They are continuing to ask our personnel to fly unsafe helicopters. We had another helicopter crash last week. As my colleague said, it is a good thing they float better than they fly.

I think what we have to remember out of all this is that people in uniform are ordinary Canadians. They come from our communities and they are trying to do a job for our country. Yes, they are trained to an extraordinary degree in many disciplines and they are often extremely responsive and responsible. Let us be very thankful that we have them. This is not the treatment the military has received from this government.

In downtown Ottawa and in other cities we have military personnel in uniform being mistaken for security guards or parking lot attendants. That is how far our military has plummeted in terms of public perception in this country because our government is doing nothing to maintain, restore and give Canadians pride in our military tradition, a very important military tradition. It is crucial that we go beyond Liberal lip service and live off the legacy which is this government's way of dealing with our military.

Recently at the APEC conference we received a slap in the face. The Seaforth Highlanders were not considered Canadian enough for APEC. The Seaforth Highlanders from British Columbia, that proud group, were replaced by the Van Doos because of a decision by the Prime Minister's office. I wanted to ask a question but unfortunately I already know the answer.

There was a political decision to fly those people to Vancouver from the province of Quebec at a cost of $210,000. Who pays for a political decision? The Prime Minister's office? No. The Department of National Defence paid that $210,000. A hard pressed department of government paid for that political decision. That is the ultimate slap in the face.

Under the government the military has lost pay comparability with the public service. This is what our Liberal administration told us on Friday. Non-commissioned officer pay had a 6.7% shortfall compared to the public service and our general service officers had a 14.7% shortfall compared to our public service.

This displays Liberal mindset. First of all, our military personnel should not be compared with the public service. They are not the public service. They do not resemble the public service. Our personnel should be compared with military personnel on a world scale. I would suggest we start with other Commonwealth forces and U.S. forces. More on that later.

Shame on this government for allowing our military personnel and our police personnel, by the way, to fall even shorter than our public service. Why was this allowed to happen? Talk about demoralizing.

I see it right up front. I do not think I explained but within my riding is Comox armed forces base. I have a fairly good feel for what is going on with personnel. The problems all rest with this frontbench. Shame on it.

As I mentioned, Comox armed forces base is in my riding. The stress of low pay and extended absences on individuals and families is tremendous. Moonlighting is rampant and essential for many of the young members. A news release from government on Friday states that economic increases for Canadian forces personnel were intended to mirror similar pay increases expected to be awarded to all federal employees, including members of the public service.

This makes no sense. They are not doing the same job and there is no comparability. We should be tying our military to Commonwealth forces, to U.S. forces. We can look at the pay. We can look at the perks. We can look at the tax treatments.

If we had looked at all this we would not have a scramble from over here trying to deal with catch-up for our pilots. They are losing pilots one after the other. We will have a shortfall. There is no doubt about that.

Instituting a measure that favourably treats pilots is demoralizing for the rest of the personnel. Why in heaven's name we got ourself into this. There is no vision over there.

Canadian forces personnel travelling in the United States have more perks than in our own country.

Why this reciprocity is there is a little beyond me because there is a lack of any substantive favourable treatment shown to U.S. personnel travelling in Canada. They are not extended the courtesy that our personnel are extended there. Once again, this is shameful. It is something that needs to be addressed, but all we get is lip service.

The pay of the military has been frozen since 1991. We started to see some increases in an attempt to catch up with the public service, as I described earlier. However, a four year phase-in period is totally inappropriate. The morale within the armed forces is not only down because of the pay, it is down because there is no clear indication from government when the cuts are going to stop, when their organization is going to stop being downsized, when their organization is going to be equipped in the way that it needs to be equipped. There is nothing but uncertainty and concern that it is so far down the priority list in the pecking order of this government that it is becoming increasingly difficult to keep people in the military, especially our best and our brightest.

Where is the government's vision? The only conclusion that I am able to come to, after observing this place for four years, is that there is none. If we read the documents, all the fine words are there, but it is lip service.

Another thing that is contributing to problems with morale in the Department of National Defence is that the organization is always getting smaller and there are obviously very few opportunities for advancement. People are having to stay in their job classifications or job categories. Those are valuable people. We want to keep them. We also want to compensate them in a way that they deserve. That is not happening.

This government is great at pitting one group against another. It is starting to split the military into groups. I have already talked about this favourable treatment to pilots and how that is going to be viewed and is viewed by some personnel. This is just not the way to operate. We cannot constantly be ad libbing about how we are going to manage a major department.

Something we should all be very proud of is Canada's long military tradition. In many respects what makes and defines Canada as a nation started back at Vimy Ridge and continues to this day.

Whenever there has been a military engagement, peacekeeping or otherwise, since I came here in 1993, the impression I have had is that the government is making up the rules as it goes along. It does not have any sense of creating stability in the armed forces, creating combat capability or high morale within the voluntary military to represent Canada's interests and to fulfill what we deservedly should represent given our strong military tradition and history. All we have seen is the death of 1,000 cuts and a lack of commitment from Liberal administrations. We have actually never had a Liberal administration which has been supportive of the military beyond lip service and living off a legacy.

I have a brother who lives and works in the United States. I consider him to be part of the brain drain. He has been there for a long time. He works in a university environment where there are many very intellectual and intelligent people who are on the leading edge of many endeavours. It can be rather humbling at times for anyone in that environment to recognize that one has met someone who is more than one's intellectual match. One observation he carries that has really struck home with me is that some of the brightest and best in American society have their roots in the U.S. military. They say that the U.S. military has many of the nation's best and brightest. It is all because of this legacy and tradition and devotion to country and to making society a better place.

We have to ensure that we carry that tradition in this country. It is very important that we do that.

National Defence ActGovernment Orders

1:05 p.m.

NDP

Peter Stoffer NDP Sackville—Eastern Shore, NS

Madam Speaker, I agree with the fact that military personnel in this country are severely underpaid. My riding of Sackville—Eastern Shore has a large military air base and naval base called Shearwater. I was at a dinner the other day with the commander of the base. We were discussing the very same concern about the lack of attention that previous governments and current governments have given with respect to the pay for all ranks within the military.

There is one question I would like to ask the hon. member for Vancouver Island North. Would he not agree that the military within Canada and the United States have a large attachment of civilian workers who work with them? I have yet to hear anyone from the Reform Party talk about the very serious cuts, not only to the civilian workers, but to the alternate service delivery and the effect they have on the workers who are currently there.

Many workers are losing their jobs. Goose Bay-Labrador is a prime example where people who have worked with the military for many years on a civilian basis are now being asked to take a 60% cut in pay and a different job classification.

I would like either the hon. member's personal comments or his party's comments on how they view alternate service delivery and the effect it has not only on civilian workers but on the military as well.

National Defence ActGovernment Orders

1:05 p.m.

Reform

John Duncan Reform Vancouver Island North, BC

Madam Speaker, regarding the member's question about alternate service delivery, I do understand from my visits to Comox air force base that there has been a lot of alternate service delivery which has been brought into the military and to that base over the last several years. I think much of it makes sense, so far. However, there comes a point at which some of the essential things, especially those things that military personnel need to carry with them into combat, should be retained by the military.

The member's question about personnel being asked to take a 60% pay cut concerns me greatly. It tells me that somebody else has become the new employer and they want to retain the same employees but pay them less. If that is the circumstance, it is not one that I am aware of on the home front. I cannot say that it is something I would subscribe to. If there is alternate service delivery I would assume that the reason it is being done is because efficiencies are going to be achieved in some other way, through scheduling, through economies of scale or inventory.

However, to make one's cost savings by offloading onto employees does not make sense to me. I am with the member in terms of that part of his question.

National Defence ActGovernment Orders

1:10 p.m.

Liberal

Lynn Myers Liberal Waterloo—Wellington, ON

Madam Speaker, I listened with great interest to the member opposite and was astounded by some of the comments he made with respect to the military and some of the jingoistic statements he made.

I want to remind the hon. member that the government has moved on a number of fronts with respect to our military, certainly on issues relating to housing, across the board pay increases and capital equipment acquisition. We are in fact positioned in a way that will meet not only our obligations here in Canada but around the world.

It recently came to my attention that the defence committee is working very well in trying to address some of the issues raised and the problems that are identified in a very collegial fashion.

I was somewhat amazed when one of the members from the Reform Party, the member for Lakeland, was chided for trying to turn the committee into a political side show. Talk about turning people against people and region against region. I guess the Reform Party is obviously very good at that in all cases and in all ways.

My question to the hon. member is: Why does the Reform Party, in its usual extreme manner, always insist on trying to turn the military into a political football? Maybe the Reform member could answer that for me.

National Defence ActGovernment Orders

1:10 p.m.

Reform

John Duncan Reform Vancouver Island North, BC

Madam Speaker, I consider that comment an insult. If the member thinks that way about me it is because he has not listened to me very much. That is the last thing I am doing here. This is a Liberal apologist.

He said that I made jingoistic statements. I suggest the member look up jingoistic in the dictionary. Somehow he tied that to housing and pay increases.

National Defence ActGovernment Orders

1:10 p.m.

An hon. member

Jingle bells.

National Defence ActGovernment Orders

1:10 p.m.

Reform

John Duncan Reform Vancouver Island North, BC

I heard that comment, too. That is highly inappropriate when we are trying to have a constructive debate. That is the ultimate in lip service to a Liberal apologist.

The member made reference to the defence committee addressing some of the problems in the military. That points out a fundamental flaw in the way this administration operates. Those problems did not originate this year. Those problems have been brewing and the lid is just bubbling. We have people who have to moonlight. We have members of the military going to food banks and collecting welfare supplements because of structural problems in the military. This has been front page news in Esquimalt, Victoria, Edmonton and other locations. We do not need a defence committee to tell us how to address these problems. The government has known full well about these problems for a long time and has chosen to ignore them because it places the interests of the military at the bottom of the totem pole and not where they rightfully belong.

National Defence ActGovernment Orders

1:10 p.m.

Reform

Art Hanger Reform Calgary Northeast, AB

Madam Speaker, it is always interesting to hear the Liberal viewpoint on the military and to see how quickly they point the finger elsewhere, blaming others for the problems they have created.

From the very beginning the Liberals have hated the military, all the way back to the Trudeau era, and have cut it apart. Under Hellyer, Trudeau wanted to unify the military, which was the most destructive force that ever could have happened to destroy the military. It was done under Trudeau and it continues to this day. They then turn around and say they are going to fix the problems.

The member talks a lot about morale. The morale problem is the result of Liberal action and inaction. Morale is a major issue. It is equated to pay, to equipment, to purpose and to honour and courage in their leadership. That is what morale deals with. I would like the member to talk about honour and courage in the leadership and in the ministry of defence.

National Defence ActGovernment Orders

1:15 p.m.

Reform

John Duncan Reform Vancouver Island North, BC

Madam Speaker, the frontbench of the Liberals is a place where Canadians should think that they can look for leadership and for profound demonstrated progressiveness. What do we see instead? We see a caretaker status quo, protect their behind attitude from the frontbench and it starts at the top.

National Defence ActGovernment Orders

1:15 p.m.

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault)

Is the House ready for the question?

National Defence ActGovernment Orders

1:15 p.m.

Some hon. members

Question.

National Defence ActGovernment Orders

1:15 p.m.

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault)

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

National Defence ActGovernment Orders

1:15 p.m.

Some hon. members

Agreed.

National Defence ActGovernment Orders

1:15 p.m.

Some hon. members

No.

National Defence ActGovernment Orders

1:15 p.m.

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault)

All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.

National Defence ActGovernment Orders

1:15 p.m.

Some hon. members

Yea.

National Defence ActGovernment Orders

1:15 p.m.

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault)

All those opposed will please say nay.

National Defence ActGovernment Orders

1:15 p.m.

Some hon. members

Nay.

National Defence ActGovernment Orders

1:15 p.m.

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault)

In my opinion the yeas have it.

And more than five members having risen:

National Defence ActGovernment Orders

1:15 p.m.

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault)

Call in the members.

And the division bells having rung: