Debates of May 14th, 1998

Supply

[Grant McNally, Reform, Dewdney—Alouette, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with great interest to another ministerial speech from the parliamentary secretary. I would like to bring up this point with him.

He mentioned the natural disasters that have occurred in the last several years across our country, in the Saguenay, in the Red River and the ice storm, and I fully support the military's role, their great efforts and their great work to help the people affected by those disasters.

However, if such a disaster were to occur in British Columbia, what would the government's response be?

This government closed CFB Chilliwack in the Fraser Valley. That base would have provided support to the greater Vancouver region if there were a natural disaster. There are over two million people in that area. The closest base has now been moved to a Liberal riding in Edmonton. What a big surprise. I cannot believe it. If there were a natural disaster in that region of the country the forces would have to go through the Rockies for 12 hours with heavy equipment to get there. If there were a natural disaster, I rather doubt that route could be taken by the forces.

The parliamentary secretary mentioned that there is a new naval base in his own riding. Surprise, surprise. I am questioning whether the government is basing these decisions on sound policy, on directions for the country, or is it more political patronage in the establishment of these facilities?

I want to hear about CFB Chilliwack and why this government chose to close that facility.

[George Proud, Liberal, Hillsborough, PE]

Mr. Speaker, numerous bases have been closed over the last number of years, Chilliwack among them. A lot of bases were closed, but the really big hits took place on the east coast of Canada. The air base in my own province of Prince Edward Island was closed in 1989. These things have been going on since the end of the second world war. Many of these bases were out of date and no longer needed.

As far as the Canadian forces' being able to get to British Columbia, there will be no problem with that. As I said in my speech, we have already sent troops to Italy. I am sure if we can send them to Italy we can certainly send them to British Columbia a lot faster.

As far as the naval base in Prince Edward Island is concerned, it has been ongoing for a number of years. It was through this government that we finally got the money to complete it. This was promised long and ever ago. It is now in place on the east coast. It is a very good naval base. I believe that Prince Edward Island and all other provinces deserve to have a military presence.

[David Price, Progressive Conservative, Compton—Stanstead, QC]

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

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

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

[George Proud, Liberal, Hillsborough, PE]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his questions. There is no doubt, and I have heard it many times in my office as I know he has heard it in his, that people have experienced this breakdown in communications and, for want of a better word, this turf protection between the two departments.

I listened to members from veterans affairs the day before yesterday as they appeared before our committee along with a liaison officer from the Department of National Defence. There are still problems with people who are injured in the forces who then leave the forces and come under the Department of Veterans Affairs. However, I am confident this is being overcome. It is not 100% yet. There is no doubt there is a long road to go.

The member talked about different doctors, one from national defence and another from veterans affairs, examining the same person. These things must be overcome and they are being overcome as we go down this road. As this communication continues, as a result of a number of investigations by the committee, by the McLellan report and others, I believe it will be much easier for people leaving the forces to get veterans affairs benefits than it has been in the past. That is not to say it is right and all fixed by any stretch of the imagination.

However, I am confident from what I have heard in the last week that the changes being made are real and that people are very serious about making this transition as seamless as possible.

[Peter Adams, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to join this debate on the motion concerning the armed forces of Canada.

As my colleague has just indicated, the record of this government in meeting the defence challenges and defence needs of this country is outstanding. Our defence policy is responding to the characteristics of the post-cold war environment. Our Canadian forces have shown themselves to be fully capable of executing this policy. This is a clear reflection of the strong political leadership which the government has provided to our forces.

The Canadian forces are designed to do many things. They protect Canada's sovereignty, secure our global interests and co-operate with friends and allies in maintaining a stable, peaceful international system.

Since the collapse of the Berlin wall, the Canadian forces have played an increasingly important role in promoting international peace and security around the world. They have participated in an unprecedented number of peace support operations during this time.

Over the past few years our Canadian forces have been subject to intense public scrutiny and indeed criticism. Yet at the same time they have continued to carry out their assigned tasks both at home and abroad with professionalism and courage. These fine men and women have been put to the test time and time again and they have accomplished great things.

Our military is recognized around the world for its expertise and experience.

The people of our Canadian forces performed admirably during the gulf war. They made a meaningful contribution to that campaign. Since then they have participated in several deployments to the Arabian gulf area to assist in the maintenance of the embargo against Iraq. They have reached out to help and have spared no effort in responding to the humanitarian crisis in Rwanda. While they could not stop the bloodshed, General Dallaire's tiny force was able to save thousands of lives.

They continue to assist in the international community in dealing with the tragic conflict in the Balkans. Their military contributions include land, sea and air capabilities as well as a wide range of humanitarian activities. They helped stabilize the volatile situation in Haiti and initiated a wide range of humanitarian projects throughout that country.

They led a multinational response to ensure the delivery of humanitarian assistance in central Africa thereby serving as a catalyst to help break the impasse that had kept refugees in camps for two years. Recently the Canadian forces have deployed troops in the Central African Republic to assist in the maintenance of peace and security there.

As my colleague mentioned this afternoon, our Canadian forces have been asked to assist with the tragic mud slides in Italy.

We also have responsibilities very close to home. Last January the Canadian forces mounted an operation which attracted Canadians' favourable attention and I am sure warmed their hearts. Operation recuperation was the largest peacetime deployment of the Canadian forces in their history. Just as the storm in Ontario, Quebec and New Brunswick showed Canadians at their very best, banding together in times of trouble to assist their friends and neighbours, it also highlighted one of the Canadian forces' most essential roles: protecting the lives and property of Canadians in times of crisis.

Operation recuperation at its height saw more than 16,000 men and women of our Canadian forces deployed from bases across Canada into storm ravaged areas where they assisted civilian authorities in responding to one of the greatest natural catastrophes in Canadian history. Masses of uniformed men and women are a sight seldom seen in Canada's urban areas but there they were during the terrible ice storm.

Newfoundlanders, British Columbians, Quebecois, New Brunswickers, indeed military personnel from every part of the country assisted with hydro repairs, distributed camp cots, air mattresses and sleeping bags, set up and distributed generators, assisted in clean-up operations, acted as police and advisers and supplied water and hot meals. I spent three days in the ice storm area and I saw this myself. It was remarkable to see armed forces with full equipment functioning in our own country in that way.

Never was it clearer that the Canadian Armed Forces are a deeply rooted national institution representative of all Canadians and available to all Canadians. They provide a source of comfort, security and pride drawing us closer together.

Like the assistance provided during the Red River flood in Manitoba last year, or in the Saguenay and previous natural disasters, or at the present time in Alberta fighting the forest fires, these were proud moments for our Canadian forces. They were fulfilling one of the crucial functions of any national military organization: reacting, and quickly, to the unexpected at the direction of the government.

Operation recuperation was a chance to render aid where and when it was most needed, to help the taxpayers and citizens of Canada. It was an opportunity to reinforce public faith in our Canadian forces, in their professionalism, in their commitment to service and in the value of maintaining a substantial viable military organization even in times of peace.

Yet with more than 16,000 unarmed Canadian service personnel rebuilding hydro wires and helping people in need move to heated homes and emergency shelters, we must not forget that this mission, critically important though it was, was only one of many that we were asking our men and women in uniform to perform at that time.

At the same time that thousands of our personnel were deploying into eastern Ontario, Quebec and New Brunswick, hundreds more were completing a much longer journey to meet Canada's United Nations obligations in the former Yugoslavia as part of the international community's ongoing commitment to peace and stability in that part of the world. They were replacing other Canadians who had been there busy performing the same function.

Both missions were right and just. Both were rewarding and potentially dangerous. Both demanded of our citizens in uniform the utmost in training, preparation, will-power and skill.

These missions and others like them are not easy. The professionalism of Canadian forces personnel in deploying so many people and so much equipment so quickly to trouble spots does not come without a tradition of expertise and many years of training and experience. Such operations demand organizational skills, physical toughness, mental agility and the art of leadership. Sheer flexibility too.

Think of where the army, the air force and the navy have been and what they have done in just the last two years. Saguenay, Haiti, the skies over Bosnia-Hercegovina, Manitoba, Zaire, the Arabian Sea, ex-Yugoslavia, the Central African Republic, Ontario, Quebec, Alberta, New Brunswick, Italy. These are in addition to all our more longstanding, ongoing obligations.

The fact that the Canadian forces have accomplished so much during the past few years is proof positive that this government has provided and continues to provide strong political leadership to Her Majesty's Canadian forces.

[René Canuel, Bloc, Matapédia—Matane, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to the hon. member who said his government has provided leadership for some time. It may be true in a sense, but there have been some scandals. Some military personnel gave a wake-up call to the government by doing unacceptable things.

Of course, I also want to pay tribute to the Canadian and Quebec members of our armed forces. A number of my former students are serving in the forces and they honour us through their tremendous work. However, when we say that a government must take its responsibilities, we mean a lot more than that. What do we do with an army? Do we want a peacekeeping force or combat troops?

I think Canada should opt for a peacekeeping force and that decision should be made collectively. The government should assume its responsibilities, because what will the role of an army be in five or ten years, if not to maintain peace, or to provide services to the community, as was done in the Lac-Saint-Jean region, in the areas hit by the ice storm, and in Manitoba? I salute our military for their role in these instances.

It is essential to define the role of our forces. But how are we going to equip them? With submarines? Through contracts that were signed, that the government does not want to fulfil, or that it countersigns? We lost an incredible amount of money with the helicopters. Is this taking one's responsibilities? I do not think so. Is this providing leadership? I do not think so.

I also want to talk about another point, women in the forces. How many women said they were almost persecuted? How many women generals are there in the Canadian forces? Women do not have the importance they deserve, and I wonder what the hon. member has to say about this.

[Peter Adams, Liberal, Peterborough, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for a number of interesting points.

There is one thing I would like to say first though. I think for a variety of reasons our armed forces have come through a period of time when they have been subject to enormous public scrutiny and criticism. Although wherever there is fault there should be public scrutiny and criticism, I would like to think we have come through that stage now and we are at the time when we can support our armed forces and we can compliment them for the things that they have done and for the things that they do.

That is what I was trying to do in my speech. It was not to ignore some of the problems but the time I hope is now past to emphasize the problems.

With regard to the other parts of my colleague's questions, first in defining the role, as I tried to point out, we ask a great deal of our armed forces. We ask them to be available for disasters here and abroad. We ask them to be in relatively peaceful peacekeeping situations and very dangerous peacekeeping situations and so on.

I do not see how in the modern world we can design an armed forces except one that is very flexible and capable of performing all sorts of tasks, while at the same time being combat capable. It is important. The Canadian forces are a military unit. They have to be combat capable, but also in the new world they have to be able to adapt to a great variety of situations. I do not think it is easy to define a single role or even one or two roles.

The hon. member mentioned the matter of equipment. It is very important, as has been stressed today, that we now move steadily, after some of the problems that we have had, and properly equip our armed forces.

I mention the submarines. I myself, as you know, Mr. Speaker, have done a great deal of work on sea ice. I have studied sea ice in various parts of the north. I greatly regret the fact that we have not had the capability, except by air, of getting people and troops, if that is the right thing, into some of the remote parts of Canada which are covered by ice.

The submarines, I hope adapted for under ice work, will be a useful addition to one of the many capacities that our armed forces need, which is to deal with the huge northern territory, land and sea, that we have in those parts.

With respect to women, I make the point again, in my view great progress has been made with the role of women in all parts of our armed forces. I agree with my colleague and I hope that progress continues.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 38, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Acadie—Bathurst, Employment insurance.

[Mark Muise, Progressive Conservative, West Nova, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with my hon. colleague from Richmond—Arthabaska.

Canada has a very rich and proud military history. Since Confederation our young men and women have responded to this country's call to arms by risking their lives in defence of our country.

The exploits of our Canadian military personnel are legendary throughout the world. History will always remember the determination of our heroic young Canadians at Vimy Ridge during the first world war. Their heroism helped turn the tides of battle in favour of leading to the eventual allied victory. Vimy helped define us as a nation.

The second world war saw our young Canadian soldiers involved in some of the most important battles of the war. The ill-fated landing on the beaches of Normandy, our victorious return to Dieppe and our successful victory during the battle of the Atlantic are all part of Canada's proud military history.

Often lost to Canadians is the vital role our military has played and continues to play in helping maintain a peaceful existence throughout the world. Our Canadian peacekeepers are among the most respected throughout the world. The demand for Canadian peacekeepers continues to exceed our capabilities.

Records of Canadian peacekeeping operations can be found in troubled countries throughout the world including Bosnia, Turkey, Somalia and Haiti, just to name a few.

Most recently our military has received great praise for its efforts at home. I would like to extend our appreciation and congratulations on recent citations of excellence for the work performed during this winter's ice storm, as well as last year's Winnipeg floods. At present some of our forces are involved in fighting forest fires in Alberta. These acts of compassion within our own boundaries have helped rekindle the once proud image of our military.

I mention the military's proud image in the past tense because since the government took power it has done everything in its means to reduce this proud organization from a first rate fighting force into nothing less than a support operation for our NATO allies.

It pains me deeply to have to say this about our military. However, consistent government cuts in military spending and a lack of leadership from the top are responsible for seriously reducing our military's capability resulting in serious morale problems. It does not take long to come up with reasons there is such a serious morale problem in the military.

The Liberal government has done more in recent years to destroy our Canadian military than the German army did during both world wars. It closed many of our military bases across the country including CFB Cornwallis in my riding. In most instances these bases had a long and proud history of service to the Canadian people. The government has even refused to allow stained glass windows that were removed from Cornwallis base to be returned as part of the new military museum. These windows were donated to the base by those who trained there to commemorate all those who participated in the battle of the Atlantic.

This part of our military heritage has been tucked away where only a select few will have an opportunity to enjoy them. The wishes of our military personnel are once again being ignored.

Our brave young helicopter pilots continue to risk their lives each day flying dangerous, antiquated Sea King helicopters. These helicopters have long since worn out their usefulness and should be replaced. For each hour flown it takes almost 24 hours of maintenance, and I believe I am conservative in that comment. An hon. colleague says 70 hours of maintenance. It is not a good ratio.

For what can only be described as crass politics at its worst, the Liberal government chose to gamble with the lives of our brave pilots by cancelling the former government's EH-101 helicopter deal. Not only did it stick Canadian taxpayers with a $500 million cancellation penalty, but it also delayed delivery of much needed helicopters putting our pilots at risk of death or serious injury.

The government will say it has purchased new search and rescue helicopters at a much cheaper price. These new helicopters resemble the cancelled EH-101, but taking into account some of the needed modifications to these new helicopters the final tally will be very close to the original EH-101 deal therefore offering Canadians no savings at all.

Our military personnel who served in the gulf war deserve our utmost appreciation for a job well done. They distinguished themselves with honour. How does the government choose to recognize these brave men and women who once again answered the country's call in a time of crisis? I am not sure it recognizes the valiant efforts of these soldiers.

The government still refuses to recognize this conflict as the gulf war, instead choosing to call it special duty area Persian Gulf. I believe we are the only country involved in that war which does not acknowledge it as such. By not recognizing it as a war the government can defend its decision not to award the veterans the same disability benefits as they would war veterans.

During the recent SCONDVA hearings in Halifax we heard from a number of military personnel and their spouses. Among those presenting was a wonderful human being from my constituency by the name of Sue Riordon whose husband has been left totally disabled from the effects of gulf war syndrome. The military has a gulf war clinic, yet the government does not recognize the gulf war. Military doctors question the existence of this syndrome. Surely they cannot deny the debilitating effect this disease is having on thousands of Canadian and U.S. veterans alike.

People such as Sue Riordon, Louise Richards, Rudy Saueracker and Michael Innes, to name just a few, have had to battle the Department of National Defence every step of the way to try to obtain benefits they and others affected by gulf war syndrome are legally entitled to receive. Many former veterans have refused to pursue their rights for fear of reprisal through possible reduction of their existing pensions.

There is reason for fear as Sue discovered. Having raised very pertinent questions about gulf war veterans benefits she quickly found herself and her husband being chosen for audit with the results continually pending.

Our military needs the government to show some leadership. The stories about military personnel moonlighting because they cannot make ends meet, our veterans having to fight tooth and nail with national defence to secure an adequate pension, living arrangements on bases that are far less than normal standard, torn uniforms, outdated equipment, and a serious lack of direction for our military personnel are all about problems that must be immediately addressed by the Liberal government if we are ever to restore pride and dignity to our military.

As parliamentarians we have a duty to Canadians including our Canadian forces. If we do not speak up for them who will? If we continue to treat them with disrespect how will others treat them? If the government fails to provide leadership to our forces how can we expect our forces to show leadership whether it is in Canada or abroad?

These are but a few of the illustrations of the government's continuing campaign not to provide for the military. The government sends speaking notes on Remembrance Day in November and then forgets about its veterans until next year. I believe we should remember and honour our veterans each and every day. The government has forgotten our veterans. The government wants to forget the men and women who serve in our forces today.

I am humbled to stand in the House today to speak on behalf of all the men and women who fought and continue to serve so valiantly on foreign soil in the quest for peace and freedom. Lest we forget.

[Hec Clouthier, Liberal, Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate the hon. member for West Nova especially the genesis of his talk. He seemed to be using all the correct terminology when speaking about our military being honourable, dedicated, devoted and hard working. Then he reached a certain point in his discourse where he went downhill faster than an Ottawa valley otter could slide into the local creek, on his belly I might add.

The hon. member raised the case of the helicopters and was rather creative in his methodology. I had a math teacher in high school who certainly would disagree. In the first instance he was talking about $5 billion with the Conservative government, and then the Liberal government did the right thing and put the helicopter bidding process out for public bid. It received the best bid that it possibly could get, although personally I was a little disappointed that Boeing, which is in my riding of Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, was not the successful bidder. We saved literally hundreds of millions of dollars in the awarding of that contract.

The member said there were certain reprisals for people who appeared before the defence committee which has been travelling throughout the country. Many people do not realize that committee members from all political parties have been doing an absolutely outstanding job.

I might say to the member for West Nova that even a member from his particular party has not been real conservative in his thinking when it comes to looking after the spouses and members of the military. He should inquire from his colleague in his own caucus. All people who appeared before the committee have been told very explicitly that there will be no reprisals whatsoever.

[An hon. member]

Is this a speech or a question?

[Hec Clouthier, Liberal, Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON]

I am getting to the question. I just had to set the record straight. I will rush to the conclusion.

With regard to the veterans he would be interested to know that the veterans in Canada have without a doubt the best compensation of any veterans in the entire world. I would ask him, if he would care to do so, to respond to my question.

[Mark Muise, Progressive Conservative, West Nova, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I take great pride in answering the hon. member's question.

The hon. member states that he was very happy to hear my comments, but I think he became disturbed when I went further and spoke the truth about the situation that our forces are faced with. I think it hurts him. My mother used to tell me an old saying that the truth hurts. The truth is hurting and we are hearing it today.

Let me just quote a couple of facts about the cost of killing the deal for the EH-101 back in 1993. They do not take into account that the deal the Conservatives entered into in 1993 was for 15 search and rescue helicopters and 35 shipborne helicopters. We are getting 15 helicopters similar to the EH-101s for a similar cost or less money but by the time they are reconfigured to function the way they are supposed to there will be very little saving.

[An hon. member]

Oh, oh.

[Mark Muise, Progressive Conservative, West Nova, NS]

The hon. member just goes on and on shooting rhetoric across the floor so I will sit down.

[Roy H. Bailey, Reform, Souris—Moose Mountain, SK]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member mentioned the morale. I would like to ask him the following question.

With approximately 60,000 troops in the Canadian forces and 60 generals we have more commissioned officers per soldier and per military personnel than any country in the world. No wonder the NCOs are in the mood they are in. Would the member not agree with that?

[Mark Muise, Progressive Conservative, West Nova, NS]

Mr. Speaker, the morale question in the military is not necessarily one that has to do with dollars, cents and equipment. It is how people are treated. It is how military men and women who are still serving see their counterparts that have left the military being treated by the institution they so proudly serve. When these types of things happen we cannot expect anything but for morale to drop.

The staffing situation is also another issue but I see that I do not have time to continue.

[Claude Bachand, Bloc, Saint-Jean, QC]

Mr. Speaker, essentially today's debate has touched on a number of details and information, but primarily the problem is this government's lack of respect for the men and women in the Canadian Armed Forces. I think that is the way it can be summed up lack of respect.

Our military personnel go everywhere in the world. People react favourably when they see “Canada”. They are drawn to the men and women who represent us in peacekeeping missions. They are glad to see our soldiers in Bosnia and elsewhere.

When there is flooding or some other problem in some part of the country, our armed forces personnel go out into the part of the country affected, to our counties, to our rural areas, and Canadians and Quebeckers are glad to see the men and women of the Canadian forces out lending a hand. They are glad to see them there, glad to know they are not ignoring those with problems, glad they will lend a hand.

The men and women of the armed forces are respected by people everywhere except by the government, or more precisely by cabinet.

I am prepared to say that, when it comes to looking at the problems of the armed forces, my colleague for Compton—Stanstead is far more aware of the details than I, but one might say that the general in charge of the armed forces is a man respectful of his men and women, and respected by all, a man who is doing a good job. What is it that is not working properly?

We turn to the minister. I would not want to make any excuses for the minister, but I do believe that in some cases he wants to ensure that the men and women of our armed forces receive the equipment, the training and the money they need to do a good job. The problem again lies within cabinet. We do not know how, but funding is being cut by 30%.

With the helicopters we have today—because the government decided to buy some—every hour of flying time requires 70 hours of maintenance. Essentially, our helicopters are birdhouses with rotors on top. That is what they are like now. They put the lives of our pilots and their passengers at risk.

Today we would have the latest model helicopter had the Liberals, for strictly political reasons, not spent over $500 million to cancel a contract on an election promise. This shows a lack of respect for Canadian forces.

It also shows a lack of respect for Canadians for having wasted $500 million. The Minister of National Defence also displayed a lack of respect for parliamentarians in preparing to announce the purchase of helicopters by trying, for purely political and partisan reasons, to find a way to hide the fact that the helicopters were the same as those the Conservatives wanted to buy, in consultation of course with the Canadian Armed Forces.

They looked for a little hint, a little sales pitch to say that the helicopters were not the same. They came up with a name: Cadillac, Chevrolet. That was the best they could do. In the meantime, months went by and no helicopters.

The issue was totally partisan. How can the men and women in the forces feel good about themselves and young people be interested in signing up if the purchase of the helicopters was delayed over the need to come up with a name like Cadillac or Chevrolet? They waffled about for six months. This is a flagrant lack of respect.

The armed forces are being realigned, but there are limits. There is still a problem. Our soldiers have no boots. The uniforms are pitiful. The men and women in the Canadian Armed Forces have no boots. There are no boots.

I was a mayor for some ten years, and we supplied work boots to our employees. That was customary. We had them. If a pair of boots were worn out, we replaced them. They are having a hard time getting boots for the Canadian Armed Forces. There are limits. Is there no respect? How do we expect to get people to join the armed forces when we cannot even equip them properly?

Incidentally, I have in my riding one of the businesses that manufacture boots for the armed forces. I am sure that it is ready and able to carry out a contract to supply the men and women of the armed forces with boots.

Another example of lack of respect, which my colleague touched on, concerns those who saw battle and supported allied forces in the gulf war.

They will not admit that the gulf war was a war. Why? Because, once again, they do not want to recognize gulf war veterans. They are showing a lack of respect for the men and women who fought and provided support services in Iraq.

It is the same thing with helicopters. Instead of describing them as Cadillacs, they describe them as Chevys. Instead of talking about the gulf war, they talk about the Persian adventure or whatever. There is a big problem somewhere. I hope the minister is not the problem. I do know, however, that the problem is within cabinet.

A clear message ought to be sent to the men and women of the Canadian Armed Forces to let them know that the days of savage and disrespectful cuts are over. First we cut their funding, then we ask them to give us a hand. Enough is enough. It is time to send them a very clear message.

Helicopters were finally purchased, but at an absolutely incredible price. Let us not forget that, until the old contraptions were replaced with brand new helicopters, for each hour of flight, the military had to spend ten hours on maintenance. It all adds up. Now, we can say goodbye to our old contraptions and fly decent aircraft. Eventually, we will also get decent submarines.

Could we not send other messages as well, because our Canadian Armed Forces members are human beings. There are human problems on the bases. There have been a number of suggestions, in several documents, that an independent ombudsman be established to whom the men and women in the forces could turn to obtain information and report difficulties. Why not?

This would be one of the best messages we could send the men and women in the Canadian forces, and it would not cost a fortune. We are not talking about helicopters, boots, submarines or canons. We are talking about the human element in the armed forces. The human issue must be resolved by humans.

In closing, we hope that there will be humans, men and women, on the government side, who will finally understand what the men and women in the forces are really going through and agree to provide solutions.

[Hec Clouthier, Liberal, Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the member has a problem with the way he sees money.

My apologies. I speak French like an Ottawa valley logger. My French is not as clear as that spoken in Paris.

The hon. member has a big problem with money. Permit me to point out that, before the last election, the Progressive Conservative Party was talking about cutting $800 million from the defence budget. The member said the Liberal Party showed no respect in its handling of the helicopter and submarine acquisitions, but it is the Conservatives who decided to cut some $800 million.

I might ask my colleague to comment on that.

[André Bachand, Progressive Conservative, Richmond—Arthabaska, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I understood perfectly. The member's French is truly excellent.

I would, however, tell my hon. colleague not to think too much because, if he does, he will come up with the right answers and probably cross the floor to join us. I therefore ask him to be patient.

On the issue of money, and I made this very clear, there is of course an economic context. What is clear, however, is that the armed forces have always been one area where it was easy to make unwarranted cuts. It is peacetime, the government says, and proceeds to cut, cut, cut.

If the hon. member wishes to pursue the matter, however, he could perhaps read the document and the appendices. What my colleague, the member for Compton—Stanstead, regularly proposes in committee is that there should be a guideline and some common respect for the men and women of the Canadian armed forces. I think that is important.

In conclusion, I remind the member that we have nothing to learn from him about finances, because, with an election in the offing, the government party, with a single stroke of the pen, signed a lovely cheque for $500 million and up to cancel a helicopter contract for strictly partisan reasons, thus endangering the lives of the men and women who fly these bird houses.

[John Bryden, Liberal, Wentworth—Burlington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in this debate. I think the role of the Canadian government, at least these past few years, in supporting the defence forces has been not brilliant but very good at the very least.

I would like to direct my remarks primarily toward the reserves because I am very interested in the whole issue of the reserves. My riding is Wentworth—Burlington, but close to my riding in Hamilton there are two major reserve battalions of great historic fame, the Royal Hamilton Light Infantry and the Argyle and Sutherland Highlanders.

Just two weeks ago the member for Burlington and I went on a training exercise with the Argyles at Meaford, the militia support training centre opened in 1995 near the little town of Meaford in the Bruce Peninsula. Note the date, 1995. This is obviously an initiative of this government, not the previous government.

This militia training support base is a part of a series that is to be opened across the country. There is already one that has been opened at Valcartier in Quebec. There is another one to be opened in the west at Waineright ad there are two to be opened at Gagetown and Aldershot in the maritimes.

The theme of these proving grounds is to give Canada's reserve forces an opportunity to train in near combat circumstances. Meaford is a section of ground that was set aside during the second world war for the training of our troops for overseas. It went more or less into mothballs for many years. It was opened 1995 primarily for the use of the militia but also permanent force people train there as well.

It was very interesting. The member for Burlington and I arrived about noon and we were taken on to the proving grounds. There are some very excellent and modern support buildings, barracks for permanent forces primarily but also for militia forces. The area is very large, comprising of a lake, a section of the Niagara escarpment, a lot of brush and mixed countryside. In one section of the proving grounds there is an artillery range.

While we were there we saw artillery being fired. They use live rounds because they want to test the quality of the ammunition.

More important, we went down to where the Argyles were dug in. There were dug in to some terrain facing the mock enemy. The mock enemy were not all that mock. They were U.S. marines from Buffalo who were testing out the Meaford proving grounds. They were the supposed enemy approaching the Canadian militia across about two kilometres of open ground.

It was very interesting. The youngsters who were in the foxholes dug on the side of the hill were men and women who had been recruited from primarily the city of Hamilton and the surrounding area. There they were in foxholes with their primary support weapon, the C6, and a machine gun derived from that in their positions. They were staring across the countryside at the opposing forces that were supposed to be coming.

It was very interesting for me. I have done some research in the past on the military. One of the great dangers of peacetime military is that it might get engaged in buying toys or buying hardware that has political value but little real value in the event of combat.

As a military historian, I was most interested to see that these young militia members in their foxholes were armed with something called a C6, an automatic fire weapon that fires bullets of about .25 in calibre. It is actually measured in millimetres but I can never get the metric straight. It is half the weight of the bullet that would be carried in a normal AK47 or M30 or whatever it is the Americans use.

This weapon was totally without class. In other words, I cannot imagine gun dealers across the world wanting to acquire this weapon. It is manufactured in Canada. We started manufacturing it in Canada for Canadian forces only four or five years ago.

It is a superlative firearm. The average soldier can carry twice the amount of ammunition as an opposing soldier carrying one of the more traditional firearms that we would expect in Russian made weapons and certainly NATO made weapons.

We can see that someone in Canadian forces hierarchy is thinking very carefully and is considering the fact that when there are Canadian forces in the field, they want to minimize the weight and maximize the amount of munitions they actually carry.

This was a superb gun as well in the sense that the militia members demonstrated to me and explained that it was a gun that fires dirty. In other words there is not a lot of maintenance. It is extremely reliable.

I thought to myself that there is a lot of intelligence going on somewhere in the Canadian forces brass, in its hierarchy, to come up with a specific firearm for use by the Canadian forces and which is unique to the Canadian forces.

Provided that we do not have a repeat of the catastrophe that occurred in the first world war with the Ross rifle. I do not know whether many people around here remember Canada's first foray into producing its own—

[An hon. member]

George Proud.

[John Bryden, Liberal, Wentworth—Burlington, ON]

George would know. I do not know that many people in this Chamber would go back to the first world war. Certain members might, perhaps.

Nevertheless, this is a superb weapon, and I am very, very impressed. I was given the opportunity to fire the machine gun. It was quite amusing. It was more amusing to see the member for Burlington lying on the ground firing this machine gun because as you know, Mr. Speaker, the member for Burlington is noted for her charm and forthrightness. It was quite amusing to see her down in the trenches firing this machine gun. Fortunately, it had blanks in it and I felt quite safe as a result.

The important point about this is that this machine gun was highly portable and the amount of kickback was very minimal. We are looking at weapons that have been designed for the modern battlefield.

Coming back to my militia, it was very interesting because there they were, all dug in. Their weapons were in place. Later we moved down the road to look at the opposing forces. Along the road came the U.S. Marines and I have never seen anything like it. It was really amusing because these enormous young men with big shoulders were marching along. I could not help but laugh because in comparison to these youngsters serving the Canadian militia up on the hill awaiting the enemy, they were huge strapping professional soldiers.

I have to say that this C6 .25 calibre high power weapon is a great leveller. The reason they can use the lighter weight bullet is that it has the same ultimate impact of bullets twice as strong.

Maybe I am just showing my Canadian nationalism but in the end I would put more trust and more confidence in those youngsters from Hamilton who were manning those trenches. Provided that the Canadian government always remembers to equip its forces properly, we cannot go wrong in the kind of policy that we have toward our militia.

Turning to that, I will point out that in 1994 the defence committee came out with a white paper that suggested cutting back on the reserves.

It is very important to listen to what standing committees produce and what the MPs in this Chamber produce in recommendations to the government.

We can say with some satisfaction that the defence minister overrode some of those recommendations and had another report done. Rather than cut the reserve forces back to a total of 24,000, he in fact reinstituted a basic level of 30,000 for the primary reserve. In this year's estimates almost $1 billion is going into the support of Canada's reserve forces.

I should switch for a moment. I have another story with respect to our reserves.

Not very long ago, I think it was last year, the HMCS Shawinigan came into Hamilton harbour on a demonstration cruise. The then defence minister was there to tour the ship and I happened to be able to come along. Local dignitaries on the afterdeck were enjoying an occasional glass of wine and quite nice sandwiches. I had the opportunity to go along with the first officer and tour the Shawinigan from stem to stern.

It is like the C6 gun I was talking about. The Shawinigan is a superb little vessel. This is tomorrow's ship. Technically it is a minesweeper. It goes along on the ocean and it is supposed to spot mines, but in fact it maps the ocean floor. It has multiple defence capabilities. There is a container in the back of the vessel. At that time the container contained extra barracks. The Shawinigan is designed just like a container vessel. Any container containing any kind of weapon system on the Shawinigan can be transposed and it can be turned literally overnight into any kind of a support vessel.

The other thing that impressed me about the Shawinigan is that it is designed to be extremely mobile. The design of the ship's bow thrusters, which are not installed and I hope the defence minister will install them shortly, combined with the type of propulsion it has, the Shawinigan can actually turn on a dime. It can turn on its length. It should be able to turn on its length.

In today's world we have the problem of homing torpedoes. These are torpedoes which can be left on the sea floor and as soon as a vessel passes nearby, they can pursue the vessel and sink it. The Shawinigan has the capability of avoiding contact by one of those undersea missiles on very short notice. This is one of the reasons it is such an excellent support vessel, an excellent minesweeper.

I do not like to say this, with all due respect to the Minister of National Defence, but I actually like the forethought that has gone in to the Canadian built Shawinigan more than the forethought that is going in to the submarines that we are buying from Britain. I do want to say that I support the minister's decision to buy the submarines, but Canadian built is better. These vessels, like the Shawinigan , and there are four of them, are better than anything in any known navy.

What does that have to do with the reserves? The entire crew of the Shawinigan except for the chief officer are reservists. The reserves also have a naval reserve based in Quebec, for those who are interested in the regions of the country and how they play into our Canadian forces. We have about 5,000 reservists and they take their training and do their duty on these vessels.

It was most interesting to go around with the first officer. I am really sorry I do not remember where in the country he came from. He was most informative in showing me the various systems in place on the Shawinigan .

In terms of Canadian defence policy, preparing for the next millennium and preserving our nation, we have to stay ahead of the worldwide threat that will constantly develop against Canada. I am not talking about peacekeeping. I am talking about actual threats.

The difficulty is that Canada is one of the richest nations in the world. I am sorry to say that we have to protect that status and our sovereignty. We will always be the subject of a certain amount of hostility from other nations, not necessarily third world nations nor former iron curtain nations. There are other countries which sometimes have designs on Canada. That should make us want to preserve a very active and capable military response.

That is why the reserves are so important rather than a professional army which takes a long time to change. With great respect for our own professional army, professional armies are like military bureaucracies. When you join as a private or as a young officer and you stay in for 20 or 30 years, you are very much influenced by your first experiences. Your vision tends to be rooted very much in the past. An army with at least half of its response force made up of reserves has an advantage. It provides the opportunity to work with young people to create a modern army that is loyal to its new weaponry.

Meaford was an interesting experience. There was a change from armoured personnel carriers and tanks. The Persian gulf war showed us that this type of hardware is enormously vulnerable and is no longer an effective answer in a land war. We have actually turned back to the citizen soldier. This is another reason I like reservists. We are creating a Canadian forces based on the classic concept of the citizen army. It is just like republican Rome. When the state gets into trouble it has a cadre of relatively well trained personnel to call upon to answer the emergency.

While I do not pretend to be an expert on all the things the government has done in terms of national defence, I believe the minister is very much on track with his changes to the reserve forces. This is where we should make the investment. In tomorrow's wars, whether it is peacekeeping, whether it is local wars, or whether it is a national emergency, we need intelligent citizen soldiers who understand modern weaponry and modern tactics.

I would put my faith any day in those young militia members I saw at Meaford or on the Shawinigan rather than in the professional soldiers I saw from the United States or any other country either in NATO or out.

[David Price, Progressive Conservative, Compton—Stanstead, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for his very interesting speech. I quite enjoyed it. There is only one thing that bothers me a bit. It is probably the same situation as the situation I expressed to the member for Oak Ridges.

It is this thing of the militia. The member said that the government has made steps by increasing the numbers of militia. The member talked about Meaford and other training centres across the country and about improving training. At the same time the bean counter somewhere along the line has said it is fine that the numbers have been increased but now the expenses have to be cut down. So they have dropped the training to 32 days a year which is not enough time to give somebody good training and to get them used to it. The member has seen how the militia works. A normal training year used to be in the 60 day range. Now we are talking half of that time. By expanding the numbers but cutting the hours we are dropping behind.

I would like to see both the hours increased and our soldiers well trained, particularly our militia. Part of the problem is that we seem to be comfortable with the fire power they have. Unfortunately they are lacking a lot of other things.

The militia has access to clothing, but they do not seem to have access to other things such as equipment. Our soldiers find themselves in the opposite situation. They do not seem to have access to clothing. Something seems to be missing.

Perhaps the member would care to comment on that.

[John Bryden, Liberal, Wentworth—Burlington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, one of the advantages of a debate like this is that we can raise genuine issues that we are concerned about.

When I was at Meaford I was impressed by the basic weaponry they were supplied with. They had excellent weaponry. But I did notice that the tents, for example, in the communications area, although well organized with maps and so on, had holes in them. My thought was that if it rained they would get pretty wet. There was no doubt about it.

I would also like to say that while I applaud the fact that the primary reserve level has been brought up to 30,000, I would actually like to see it increased even more. I would like to see the reserve increased by another 10,000.

What I failed to mention in my speech is that the reserves have an enormous role to play in our society in giving young people an opportunity to serve in an environment in which they put selfish motives aside and look at larger issues such as serving their country and being part of an effort that is not celebrating just the individual, but working together as a group.

Do not mistake my remarks that I am only here to praise the government. I believe there are things the government can do. I agree with the member on the equipment problem. I believe from what I have heard the defence minister say, especially during question period, that there is a move afoot to re-equip the Canadian forces. If we are going to send these kids out to fight it is very important that they have the best weapons.

I believe that someone at the head of the defence establishment, and I would like to think it is the minister but I suspect there is some brass involved as well, is thinking ahead and will supply the Canadian forces with the appropriate weaponry first. Next must come good equipment and, I agree, more hours if possible.