Debates of May 14th, 1998

Supply

[Paul Bonwick, Liberal, Simcoe—Grey, ON]

Why don't you talk about what the men and women say?

[Art Hanger, Reform, Calgary Northeast, AB]

This of course is unsettling to bureaucrats and to politicians who want to retain control over all aspects of the government. It is control that this government really would like to maintain.

[Charlie Penson, Reform, Peace River, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I would like to listen to the debate that is happening here today. My colleague from Calgary Northeast is making some excellent points but it is very difficult to hear because of the heckling from the other side. It seems to me that the member should reserve those comments for debate or questions rather than the strong heckling.

[The Deputy Speaker]

The debate is certainly lively and has been for a good part of the morning. If the hon. member cannot hear, then he has a valid point. I know it is important that all members be able to hear the debate. The hon. member for Calgary Northeast has the floor. I think hon. members might show the proper deference to the hon. member while he speaks.

[Art Hanger, Reform, Calgary Northeast, AB]

Mr. Speaker, thank you so much. That would help a lot.

What is essential however if the military is to thrive is to keep the bureaucrats and the politicians out of the administration of the military. What do they really know? But unfortunately we are looking at a government today that is somewhat dictatorial in its viewpoints and likes that control. I have to say that the Liberals have only contributed to the problem.

I would like to talk a little bit about the Somalia inquiry. It was in many significant ways an extremely important process. It brought to light the need for several positive changes to the Canadian Armed Forces.

The recognition of the need for military justice reform and increased accountability throughout the ranks are positive results of the inquiry. Without the Somalia inquiry, the top brass in national defence would never have been exposed to the glaring light of public accountability. Although restricted again by this government not wanting to expose everything, it was exposed as to their accountability and they were found wanting.

Of course the Somalia inquiry also exposed the Liberal government's gross arrogance. In shutting down the inquiry prematurely, the Liberals took abuse of power to dangerous new heights. It was the first time an inquiry was ever shut down. Never before had a government shut down a public inquiry simply because it was embarrassing the very government that commissioned the study.

Unfortunately the whole Somalia affair also did massive damage to the otherwise stellar reputation of the forces. Just when the inquiry was starting to get to the root of the defence department's internal problems, the government ended the process.

I certainly commend the member of the Conservative Party for bringing forth this motion. The debate is worthy and necessary. It has to reach heights beyond what it has right now to really provide a greater input of information to the public. I commend the member on the motion he has presented to the House.

[Paul Bonwick, Liberal, Simcoe—Grey, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I find it somewhat ironic to hear the member bringing forward the word dictatorial. Just yesterday in this House I heard the Reform member speaking about how lovely democracy is on such a controversial debate and how it is working so well in this House and the very next day he is saying that there is no democracy and that in fact it is dictatorial. Maybe they should get their stories straight.

I have a question for the hon. member. I would certainly like to take this opportunity to make a comment to the minister and to offer my sincere appreciation on behalf of the men and women in Canadian Forces Base Borden for the excellent job he has done in representing their needs, in meeting with them and in trying to find proactive ways of handling military issues coming into the next millennium.

As I look across the floor I see a wolf in sheep's clothing. Members opposite are riding on the backs of men and women in the military. They sat here in the last parliament and constantly tore the military apart over the Somalia inquiry, offering no positive words of encouragement whatsoever. Yet today they stand here and run off at the mouth about issues that they know very little about.

With regard to money, I have a question for the hon. member. In 1995 the Reform proposed budget suggested slashing $1 billion from the armed forces or the defence budget. I am just wondering how the hon. member feels he could better serve the military by slashing $1 billion from the men and women in our military.

[Art Hanger, Reform, Calgary Northeast, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the member likes to talk about verbal diarrhoea but there is only diarrhoea coming from one side of the House. Referring to democratic procedures, they are sadly amiss over on that side.

The prime example of this very undemocratic process is to watch the hepatitis C vote. How many members had to kowtow to that front line and their leader?

[Paul Bonwick, Liberal, Simcoe—Grey, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. To suggest that somebody in the House has diarrhoea is absolutely outlandish. Why can the hon. member not stick to the issues and answer the questions? Enough of the rhetoric—

[The Deputy Speaker]

We have a lively debate going on but I do not believe the hon. member for Simcoe—Grey has a point of order.

I know that the hon. member for Calgary Northeast will be judicious in his choice of words.

[Art Hanger, Reform, Calgary Northeast, AB]

Mr. Speaker, that was a very appropriate ruling. I know members on the other side are very delicate, very sensitive, when it comes to the process of democracy and the hep C vote was one example.

I just came out of the defence committee too and it is the same process. It is a top down process. Here we had a bill trying to correct the justice system within the military and it was all dictated up here and down at the committee. They sat there like a bunch of trained seals, clapping when they were asked to clap, jumping when they were asked to jump. That is the committee and that is the committee process that has to change.

To answer the member's question, he says Reform wants to cut $1 billion out of the defence budget. How little he knows about Reform policy. How little he understands even his own party's policy when it comes to the military.

The Liberal government wants to chop $2 billion from this budget, down from $9.2 billion. The Reform, recognizing that there is a strong need to support our men and women in the Canadian military, wants to increase this budget to $11 billion. That will take care of the procurement problems and the rusting out equipment. That will take care of some of the social problems and complaints.

The government has had five years to correct the problems. For five years it let the military suffer. For five years it allowed housing away below substandard to exist in which to put military families, five years and there was no consideration of the social needs of military families. That is where the fault lies and there is the answer to the member's question.

[The Deputy Speaker]

The time for questions and comments has now expired. I know hon. members are disappointed.

[Pierre De Savoye, Bloc, Portneuf, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I have been listening to the speeches for some time now and I must say that, when I was teaching at a college in Quebec, if a student of mine had behaved like one of the hon. members just behaved in this debate, I would have gladly thrown him out of the classroom.

This type of situation explains why Canadians judge us so poorly. But I would like the public to know that most members behave rationally in this House.

I am pleased today to speak briefly on the motion put forward by the Progressive Conservative Party. The motion reads as follows:

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

First of all, I would like to point out to my Conservative colleagues that the members of the Canadian forces are paid by the Canadian taxpayers and not by Her Majesty, for whom I have the greatest respect. I think we could simply call them the “Canadian forces”.

Having said that, let us get to the matter at hand. Providing political leadership probably starts with managing Canadian tax dollars effectively. Now, in his latest report and previous comments, the auditor general, as you know, repeatedly indicated several flaws in terms of military spending.

Recently, he stated that two thirds of the $3.3 billion defence budget, that is $2.2 billion—so it is $2.2 billion out of $3.3 billion—were spent on goods and equipment that did not really meet the needs of our troops. Now, $2.2 billion is a lot of money. It is an incredible amount of money. In fact, it would eliminate the deficit in the province of Quebec.

That money was spent of military goods that did not meet our needs. Let me give you some examples.

The Griffon utility tactical transport helicopters: a study done in August 1992, after the department had decided on the Griffon, showed that its load capacity was less than that required to transport a gun or engineer equipment. The long and short of it is that this is a helicopter that is not capable of lifting what is put into it, what it has to carry. Its load capacity for evacuating wounded and for logistical support was also lower than required. The government bought a helicopter that was quite simply not up to the job.

Another example is the Leopard thermal weapon sight. The results of tactical analyses on how to modernize the Leopard do not justify the decision to improve only the night vision system. If the government had been willing to spend the money, what the army needed was for the entire vehicle to be modernized, including the gun and the armour. According to the study, that was the minimum that would have been acceptable. More money badly spent.

Then there was the Lynx replacement project, project Coyote. The tactical concept used for the Coyote armoured reconnaissance vehicle was based on a number of studies, including a simulation study used for the Leopard. This study showed that, without powerful backup, armoured vehicles similar to the Coyote cannot withstand the enemy fire they would have to face in mid-intensity conflict.

What does this mean. It means that the government is buying armoured vehicles that are not up to the conditions in which they may find themselves. More money badly spent.

Need I point out that still more money has been thrown away on second-hand British submarines? I predict that, a year from now, the auditor general will come back to this topic and it will not be to congratulate the federal government but to tell it that, once again, it has wasted taxpayers' money.

But enough about money. Money is important, but it is not everything. Now we are going to talk about integrity, and about the Létourneau commission and what went on in Somalia.

The government showed poor political leadership in categorically refusing to shed light on the events that took place in Somalia. Justice Létourneau had a mandate. To properly complete his job, he would have needed a little more time. We are not dealing with any old thing here, but issues that are important for maintaining democracy.

Justice Létourneau requested that his mandate be extended to December 30, 1997, or a six-month extension. That is all he needed, but the Liberal government simply denied this extension.

This caused a scandal, of course. I must admit that it is not clear whether this is only a Liberal scandal or also a Conservative scandal, as this whole thing started under Prime Minister Campbell, who ran in the 1993 campaign.

At any rate, the current Liberal government swept this issue under the carpet by not extending Justice Létourneau's mandate. Let us face it, for all intents and purposes, the unilateral decision made by the minister represents nothing less than direct political interference in a judicial process, which is contrary to every democratic principle, including the separation of powers between the judicial and legislative branches.

The list goes on. Fortunately, we have a committee, the defence committee, that is currently touring military bases. I would like to briefly comment this tour, first because it is an important tour and second because I had the pleasure of sitting on this committee when hearings were held at Canadian Forces Base Valcartier in February.

As I recall, many senior officers testified at these hearings, as did many soldiers and members of their families. I can remember part of what was said. First of all, the lower ranks are underpaid. They cannot provide their families with a decent living on their pay. This is not inconsequential.

There are regions in Canada where the cost of living is so high—take Vancouver for instance—that we have seen Canadian forces members based in Vancouver go on welfare because they could not make ends meet with their pay. Is that political leadership? Let us be serious. The government goofed a long time ago. It is wasting our money on equipment that does not work, and it underpays the most important resource in our armed forces, namely our troops.

We now come to moves. Military personnel gets transferred from one base to another. When they move, they must sell their house if they have one and, more importantly, their spouse must quit his or her job and try to find another one. It is not easy for an English speaking spouse to find work near the Valcartier base because, as you know, things are done in French in Quebec. But the reverse is also true. It is not easy for a French speaking spouse to find work in an English province. All this causes serious disruption to family life.

But there is worse. Take the case of a young francophone whose parents are transferred to a base with an English environment. What school is that young francophone going to attend? How is he or she going to get an education in French? Some situations are truly deplorable.

I want to move on to the protection afforded to our military, in the case of an occupational injury. If the injury occurs in a theatre of operations, they are entitled to generous compensation, based on the nature of the injury suffered. However, if the occupational injury occurs here, during training in Canada, our military do not get any compensation. Worse still, they are released, because they are no longer able to fulfil their duties.

No injured worker in Quebec would received such shameful treatment, as Major General Forand pointed out during the hearings. Something must be done about this.

There is also the issue of building maintenance. Military buildings are deteriorating because there is no money to maintain them. We will lose a fortune because we cannot afford to do inexpensive repairs that would keep these buildings in good shape.

In conclusion, the federal government is mismanaging our money and the Canadian Armed Forces. I can guarantee you that things would be different in a sovereign Quebec.

[Ghislain Lebel, Bloc, Chambly, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate my colleague from Portneuf for summing up what he saw during a tour of our military bases.I was also on that tour.

Earlier, the minister of defence blamed the Tories for leaving our armed forces in a really poor state. You know, it is always easy to blame others. One is never to blame, it is always the other guy's fault.

There was no deficit in Canada before 1973. The first one to open the door to a deficit was the current Prime Minister of Canada, who bragged about being the first finance minister from Quebec to become prime minister. I do not think it does us great credit.

Anyway, it is easy to always blame others. I have noticed several things. Let us use the example of our armed forces. In Trenton and in Petawawa, some members of our Canadian Forces told us that they had been waiting eight months for a pair of boots. Our soldiers in Bosnia buy kevlar equipment from the U.S. military, because we are unable to provide them with what they need.

Two years ago, the Auditor General of Canada told us in his report that the RCMP had 4,000 hats in storage in Ottawa. Some people have too many hats, others have to do without boots. There is currently a lack of warm equipment for those who are posted to Alert. What is the problem? It may lie with our suppliers who are probably not getting as much as they think they deserve, because they are not providing us with anything. Have we come to the point where our soldiers will have to provide their own rifles and their own bullets to join the army? We are almost there. Eight months for a pair of boots, does that make any sense?

Let us move on to housing. Our colleague said he was concerned about the welfare and health of the members of our armed forces and their families. The committee visited military housing. I do not know whether he would want to let anything live there. There was two feet of water in the basement and military personnel were told to keep quiet, they were not renting the basement.

They get a $100 increase and end up with $46 after taxes. The cost of food is raised from $200 to $425 a month and housing costs are raised by $125 or $150 a month, and military personnel are told they should be content with that.

Morale has bottomed out. The military are exhausted. The armed forces are demoralized. Meanwhile, the minister is spouting fine rhetoric, saying he did this or that well. The armed forces, however, are a disaster. Something has to be done to raise their self-esteem.

Corporal Paquette in Trenton, a francophone, with a quadriplegic child whose only hope is to one day learn to speak, cannot obtain the services of a remedial teacher in French to teach his child to speak. After 17 years of service he is told “If you are unhappy, why don't you go home to Quebec and leave the forces?” This is the way our soldiers are being treated.

I see the member for Mégantic—Compton—Stanstead nodding, because it is true. He was there and heard the testimony with me. When will all this come to a stop?

Millions of dollars have been wasted. I remember the cancellation of the privatization of Pearson airport. Doug Young, the minister at the time, said it would cost us a maximum of $25 million. Last time I looked, the government was being sued for some $500 million because of this purely political decision.

I agree that the purchase of helicopters was not the greatest decision by the party previously in government, but its cancellation cost us an arm and a leg. At some point, there is a need for consistency, for logic.

I would ask my hon. colleague, who does an admirable job in all areas, but especially in this one, to tell us what he thinks of the well-being and the morale of the military. Perhaps he would give us some details.

[Pierre De Savoye, Bloc, Portneuf, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague for Chambly is too kind, but he is right about the Canadian military being highly skilled and the Quebec soldiers having great courage. The problem is not the military or the military hierarchy, but the political decisions that are made against the best interests of the general population and the armed forces.

Some soldiers have shown me drinking water that was so dirty I would not have bathed in it. I would not even have given a dog a bath in that water. It was unbelievable. That is what was coming through the water supply system.

I can only hope that this debate will help the government realize the importance of making decisions that will give our military the means to do their job, so that we have soldiers who are proud of what they do, who are well paid and well thought of, who have decent housing and who are properly dressed and well equipped, and so on.

[Wendy Lill, NDP, Dartmouth, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak to the motion by the member for Compton—Stanstead:

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

I regret to say that I have to agree with the conclusion reached by this member that the government has indeed failed to provide strong political leadership to Canadians who are within the military and also working for the Canadian forces.

In the last 11 months that I have had the privilege of representing the people in Dartmouth, I have been quite frankly astounded by the deep malaise I have seen in every sector of the community involved with the military.

That sector is substantial. In Dartmouth and Halifax there are 10,000 military personnel and over 2,000 civilian personnel working for the military.

Our citizens have been central to the war effort in both the first and second world wars. Thousands of sailors and merchant marines have sailed out of our harbour and thousands have never returned. Thousands of civilian workers stayed a home during the wars and fuelled the war effort.

My communities, probably more than any in this country, have really felt the effects of war. Everyone has a grandmother or an aunt who can remember the exact place where they were during the Halifax explosion. That explosion killed thousands of people in our community, an east coast community right here, during the war.

I remember something that happened to me when I first arrived in that community. I went to a church that has now become my church. I was there on Remembrance Day with my children and a couple of people in the choir came down from the choir.

They took off their robes and started singing “The Band Played Waltzing Matilda” which is a very poignant song about a young Australian soldier going to Gallipoli, fighting in that war and then returning with his legs blown off. It is an anti-war song.

I looked around me and there was not a dry eye in sight. There were many military families in that church that day. I thought these were people who have a whole different view of fighting for a country and investing a great deal in it from what I ever had. I think I really changed my mind that day. I began to understand some new things about what commitment meant.

I am now the MP there. A great percentage of the people who come through my door or call our office are from the military or civilian workers.

They are asking for assistance intervention with DND, with DVA. They need ministerial inquiries into pension issues, unfair dismissals from the Department of National Defence and simply the draconian methods of downsizing that have been going on under the process of alternative service delivery.

In trying to fight for some of these citizens, I have run up against bureaucracies and a leadership that will not take responsibility, is not responsible or responsive to the concerns of these people.

On May 8 and 9, I sat in on the parliamentary committee which is crisscrossing the country to hear quality of life concerns within the military. I listened to dozens of soldiers and sailors, some of them fathers, and their wives speak out about the situations facing them. I heard from a peacekeeper who had been sandbagging PCBs in Sarajevo for seven months. He had been exposed to incredible environmental poisons so that now his health is completely gone. He was pleading before the committee for a decent pension level so he could look after his family.

A father named Al Lannon spoke for his son Glen Lannon, a young man from Truro who was injured during a military exercise at Camp Shilo. He was trying to receive some sort of pension that would allow him to take care of his family. A woman named Susan Rierdon spoke on behalf of her husband Terry Rierdon who returned gravely ill from his deployment in the gulf in 1990. They are still fighting for recognition of his illness. They are still waiting for the government to take some responsibility for the wounded soldiers and their families.

Mrs. Rierdon had a question for the committee:

Why is it that our country will not stand up with us in our hour of need? Veterans affairs is a minefield, and as I speak, Terry's pension is under complete and total review. The outcome will not be known for one or two months due to misplaced paperwork. Medical documentation that was misplaced at veterans affairs.

It's not new to me. Misplaced files, unreturned calls, constant delays are standard. I am the sole paper fighter for the military and veterans affairs. As an ex-military wife, I am ashamed, not only of the way our family has been treated by this country's agencies, but the treatment of all our ill and forgotten lost soldiers. I appeal to each one of you to restore dignity to those brave men and women, they all served us with no questions asked.

A sailor who now has AIDS and hep C from tainted blood transfusions done in a military hospital said:

I am in a battle for my life and to make matters even worse I must now fight a major bureaucratic battle with national defence and veterans affairs to ensure that when I no longer breathe that my wife and children will not starve, will not lose the family home.

All these submissions paint a picture of an oppressive, vindictive leadership, a bungling, secretive bureaucracy. All expressed fears of reprisal for coming forward and all are waiting for such things as pensions. They are in line-ups for operations. They are waiting for diagnoses from military doctors whom they have lost faith in.

The civilian military workers await the next round of cuts which will see their jobs diminish. Jobs that used to bring $12.50 an hour, family supporting jobs, are now privatized and restored at $7.50 an hour. I do not blame them for their feelings of anger and betrayal. Their years of service have been met by the prevailing government attitude of privatizing everything that moves, of shifting responsibility to the private sector so it does not show up on the government books, so the Minister of Finance can gloat and bray about his surplus, while communities such as mine become weaker and more anxious by the day about their futures.

These people did not become part of the military effort to fight for those values. They did not fight for the values that now pervade the leadership of the military and the government. They committed their lives because they had an ideal of a country and a community they wanted to live in and were willing to fight for. That ideal involved the concepts of justice, fairness, equality and protection of the weak.

We now have parliamentary committee crisscrossing the country to hear quality of life issues from military personnel and their families. Each night we see on the news the horror stories of the families that have no money and are going to food banks. We hear the horror stories I have just put forward.

I am glad to hear that the country is waking up, that our own citizens are waking up and changing some of the stereotypes and mythologies they carry about the military.

This has to go further than that. In the fall there will be probably a very large report released by the committee. There will be lots of trees cut down in the interests of this weighty document. However the document will mean absolutely nothing unless there are ears to hear and unless there is a strong political leadership within the government to back up the recommendations of the report.

That leadership must herald the return to the values for which these young men and women have fought and put down their lives: justice, co-operation, care for the wounded, the vulnerable and the ill. If it does not happen we will in the not too distant future have no one left willing to stand up to fight for a way of life: democracy, fair play and justice. All we will have is generals who will be by themselves rattling their sabres. We will have our ministers flaunting their reports. However the battle for the way of life we believe is valuable will be lost.

[Elsie Wayne, Progressive Conservative, Saint John, NB]

Mr. Speaker, so much for the 1994 defence white paper that the minister of defence claims the government is still committed to.

The white paper has been turned into a word of fiction. The government has ignored the white paper, its own defence policy. We saw a news release that was sent out today by the minister of defence saying that he welcomes the auditor general's report.

The auditor general's report also condemns the Department of National Defence and what it has been doing. I wonder if he will look at the recommendations in the auditor general's report and really implement them. He certainly has not implemented the white paper.

The government has ignored the white paper, its defence policy, and failed to implement many of its very necessary recommendations. These recommendations include replacements for the Sea King, new multi-role support vessels for the navy, 3,000 extra soldiers, new armoured personnel carriers for the Canadian army and upgraded weapons.

I refer to chapter 7 of the national defence white paper for those on the other side who may want to read up on their government's official policy. The unofficial policy and the one most often put into practice has been neglected. How can we in Canada in good conscience continue with alliances such as NATO and the UN when we do not give our armed forces the resources to meet our obligations?

In fact we have been embarrassed. All Canadians are embarrassed now as are the members of our armed forces. We cannot continue to expect the respect that has been shown in the past for the many Canadians who have given their lives in conflicts all over the globe when we do not give our armed forces the ability to do the job we are asking them to do.

I cannot believe that we are saying to Subway that it can put an ad on our submarines. That is what we are to do. We will serve Subways to the men who serve on the submarines. I cannot believe that we are to put Rocket 88s on our rockets. I cannot believe that we are to sell ads to raise money and to put those ads on our vehicles and on all of our equipment. That is the way we are to raise money. I have never seen this done in Canada. It is an embarrassment around the world.

The government has cut the defence budget by 30% in the last five years. That has affected equipment and training. Recent news reports have highlighted the effect it has had on the quality of life of the soldiers. It is a disgrace.

As most of us in the House are aware, a second lieutenant at CFB Moose Jaw told the defence committee how he moonlights as a security guard for $5.75 an hour so that he can feed his family. A sailor aboard the HMCS Calgary canvasses for the United Way. There is a gentleman in Moncton, New Brunswick, Mr. Soueracher, who when he was in the armed forces had a blood transfusion. He now has AIDS and he contracted hepatitis C. Our people will not even look at the man because they kept absolutely no record of the blood transfusion. His wife was there during that operation. There is still on the bottom of his foot a spot where they put the transfusion, but they will not give him his medical records. He offered to fly here and talk with the Minister of Veterans Affairs or with his staff, and no one will meet with him. I cannot believe this is happening.

The auditor general noted last month that defence spending often does not match the goals and the policies of the department. He pointed out that while Canadian soldiers were expected to fight alongside the best and against the best there was not sufficient capital to equip and modernize our forces. The auditor general also noted that despite a commitment to ensure that the experiences of the 1970s were not repeated when equipment was rusting out rapidly, the long term capital plans and the defence services program currently forecast a decline in equipment spending over the next five to fifteen years.

Can we imagine? We will have decline for the next 15 years. We just will not have a Department of National Defence.

Our minister of defence is saying that he will listen to the auditor general. He never listened to the white paper and he did not adopt it, and he will not listen to the auditor general either.

What about our veterans that made great sacrifices to uphold our values in international law and security? What do they get in return? The government has made deep cuts to veterans programs. It has slashed veterans affairs operating budget over a three year period by $182 million.

I have wives of veterans coming to me. They cannot afford to bury their husbands. The merchant navy will be here on the Hill, on the steps of the Parliament Buildings, to protest. One merchant navy veteran said to me “I would rather sit there because they would have to bury me in the end. They will not give my wife enough to bury me so I will sit there on a hunger strike. When we die on the steps of the Parliament Buildings they will have to do something with our bodies”.

I cannot believe it. We should reinstate the means test back to $24,000 for the last post fund. It should be a priority. It was reduced in 1996 to $12,000 and very few veterans now qualify for burial benefits. That is $12,000 between husband and wife, not just for the veteran. Various legion branches have passed resolutions calling for reinstatement of the last post fund to $24,000.

By the end of World War II the Canadian merchant marines grew to 180 ships and 12,000 mariners. Sixty-seven ships were lost with 11,046 mariners killed and 198 taken prisoner. Despite being referred to as the fourth arm of the fighting services during the war, merchant navy veterans were denied veteran status and many of the benefits offered to veterans. In particular, they were offered very limited career training opportunities.

We as a country have recognized the injustices against our merchant navy seamen and women. Why have we not compensated them adequately? Some of the measures the merchant navy is seeking include a payment of a tax free $20,000 to each merchant navy war veteran or surviving spouse as compensation for their exclusion from many of the benefits offered to military veterans after the war and for the job and career opportunities merchant seamen were denied.

There should be an extension of the same benefits available to allied military veterans to veterans of allied merchant navies, provided the latter meet standards applicable to military veterans. We need to look after our veterans.

I am splitting my time with my hon. colleague from Quebec. I want to close by saying that we need to look after our veterans. Not only do we need to look after our veterans. We need to look after our military right now. We need to look after the man from Moncton and all those others who have not been treated in a manner in which they deserve. We will continue to fight for each and every one of them until this is corrected.

[David Pratt, Liberal, Nepean—Carleton, ON]

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—

[Jean Dubé, Progressive Conservative, Madawaska—Restigouche, NB]

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. We are on questions and comments. The hon. member has been giving a speech. I believe there are other members who would like to ask questions. We only have a certain amount of time.

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault)]

This period is called question and comments so a member is quite free to comment rather than to ask a question.

[Elsie Wayne, Progressive Conservative, Saint John, NB]

Madam Speaker, all I want is enough time for me to reply to his question. It does not leave a lot of time for me.

[David Pratt, Liberal, Nepean—Carleton, ON]

Madam Speaker, I did not hear the last comment by the hon. member for Saint John.

[Elsie Wayne, Progressive Conservative, Saint John, NB]

I have the answer if I have the time to answer.

[David Pratt, Liberal, Nepean—Carleton, ON]

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.

[Elsie Wayne, Progressive Conservative, Saint John, NB]

Madam Speaker, when it comes to the submarines, they have bought used submarines from Britain and unlike nuclear subs they cannot stay submerge indefinitely and therefore do not allow for Arctic patrolling.

The auditor general takes note of a very limited capability to assert national will in the very demanding environment of Canada's Arctic. He has stated this is not good. Furthermore, when it comes to the Sea Kings he did not mention that because some of our people lost their lives. In our area they lost their lives and their parents are writing to us and the Sea Kings are still there. Every one that goes up in the air has to have 70 hours of maintenance afterwards. It is an absolute disgrace. Why do I not want McDonald's and Subway and everybody on the side of our vehicles for national defence? Ask around the world. It is embarrassing when we reach rock bottom like that. For our defence people that is embarrassing.

So I say to him work to put back the respect that should be there. Some of our people now in the forces there are going to food banks. He wants me to be proud of that. No, I will fight tooth and nail to give them their respect.

[André Harvey, Progressive Conservative, Chicoutimi, QC]

Madam Speaker, I want to thank my leader for sharing her time with me. She is totally committed to defending the interests of both our veterans and all active members of our armed forces who are experiencing very serious problems at the moment.

We have put forward this motion because we are aware that the present government has brought our armed forces back to the sixties and seventies. They are close to not being operational. This is strange because we expect a lot from our soldiers and their families. It seems to me that it is the duty of the House of Commons to care about what is going on within our armed forces.

Everybody is pretty much aware of this reality that is devastating our armed forces. It does not affect 10,000 or 50,000 people, but hundreds of thousands of Canadians. Our soldiers are directly affected by this devastating reality. Are their immediate families and their extended families. Practically all Canadians are affected by what is going on right now, by what we have been learning about life within the armed forces.

As the member of the Progressive Conservative Party for Chicoutimi, Quebec, I must say that there are soldiers in that region who worked extremely hard during the national disasters that hit our country in recent months and recent years. Members of our armed forces have been and continue to be our national heroes. However, this fact must be recognized in a tangible way; the government must act responsibly.

As this issue affects hundreds of thousands of people, indeed all Canadians, we think the time has come for a ministerial statement, either by the Minister of National Defence or the Prime Minister, to show all Canadians that we are committed to modernizing our Canadian forces and making them effective again.

We expect a lot from these people and I am positive they do not feel their services are considered essential. They are called upon for every activity, for every national disaster we go through. They are also called upon to travel to other countries, to give up being with their families for months at a time, with absolutely no recognition.

The government in power is waiting on the recommendations in committee reports. It does not need to wait; at the very least, it could start by immediately improving its management of equipment replacement. It costs about $1.5 billion a year just to replace and modernize our equipment.

There has been talk about many purchases that have been made without regard for the priorities that any soldier would be able to set. The supply department itself is extremely inadequate. These are things that could be done very quickly. Normally, recommendations in the auditor general's report can be acted on within the year. But instead the government is waiting on the standing committee's report.

Before the committee's final report is in, there are extremely progressive measures I think the defence minister and the government could take.

Canadian soldiers have been serving abroad for four years now, as well as at home. And who is Canadian soldiers' worst enemy? It is the budget slashing Liberal government.

Everyone agrees that there has to be rationalization, but the government has gone into the banking business. It has set aside $20 billion in a special fund at a time when our soldiers are underpaid and lack modern equipment. They are the laughing-stock of other countries. With completely obsolete equipment, they are the best soldiers in the world. That is what the government should do something about and pronto.

It all began with a purely political move, the cancellation of the helicopter contract, which had been carefully worked out. This contract cost hundreds of millions of dollars in delay, compensation and the whole business of renegotiating a new contract that is costing several millions more than the 1992-93 deal.

In addition, there are serious shortcomings with respect to activities such as training, that have not been taken into account. Also not taken into account were the cost of replacement parts and maintenance, as well as the $960 million because of postponing replacement of the old and now unreliable Labradors and Sea Kings.

And it goes on. I prefer not to speak about R&D. The contract was scrapped, a term the government understands. It promised us it was going to scrap free trade, even though it has been responsible for raising our export figures from $90 billion to $215 billion. It also promised to scrap the GST, another thing it has not done.

What it did scrap, however, was the helicopter contract. Renegotiating a poorly negotiated contract cost hundreds of millions of dollars.

The former national defence chief of staff has admitted that the Canadian army was ill equipped to fight a true armed conflict. Really now. According to the Globe and Mail , in 1996, the chief of defence staff said that the Canadian army is not equipped to wage a serious war, and the rank and file are justifiably dubious about the competency of the high command. We are not talking about 1939, before the second world war, but about 1996.

In the 1996 auditor general's report, it was pointed out that certain well-known deficiencies in their tanks made it impossible to keep the risk of missions on which the armed forces were sent to an acceptable minimum. This means that the Canadian generals—and this merits careful reading because there is a considerable responsibility here—sent thousands of soldiers to combat zones in Bosnia and Somalia, knowing that their safety was compromised because of serious deficiencies in their armoured vehicles. The auditor general said that even machine-gun bullets could go through them. And our military personnel were riding in these, an instance of unacceptable irresponsibility.

This is why our party has decided to make this an official motion today in the House of Commons, in order to try to bring about some rapid improvement if possible and, of course, to also continue to work, as our colleague is, within the standing committee in order to have an official report ready very soon.

As for troop morale, one need only look at the reports from the standing committee currently travelling across the country to see how devastating this situation is to our armed forces.

A senior officer based, not in Washington, at the Pentagon or in Silicon Valley, but in Bagotville, in my riding—no one will challenge me on reporting what was said there, I am sure—told me that the situation was “just this side of a crisis”. This means that the government should not wait for the standing committee's official report. There are plenty of reports available. There are reports by the auditor general, who recommended that our military be better equipped both in terms of personnel and of operational equipment. That much the government can do, and it should do it quickly.

Members of the armed forces sometimes come across instances of shameless squandering on purchases of various equipment, on which they do not dare blow the whistle for fear of what would happen to them if they were found out. This is not Russia, or the former Soviet Union. This is not right. I hope the government will take into account the recommendations made by both the auditor—