Debates of May 14th, 1998

Questions On The Order Paper

[Peter MacKay, Progressive Conservative, Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.

Question No. 21 has been absolutely languishing now for eight months. In the name of patience it would be nice to know from the government if it intends to answer this question, let alone when. I have raised this countless times. I would like to know when we might expect to get an answer to this very straightforward question.

[Peter Adams, Liberal, Peterborough, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the member is correct. He has repeatedly sought an answer to this question. I can assure him that it will answered.

Mr. Speaker, as you know, some of these questions require an inquiry to one department of the federal government. Question No. 21 which we are working on involves inquiries to every department of the federal government. We are working our way through them.

[The Deputy Speaker]

I can only remind the House that patience is a virtue.

Shall the questions stand?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

Supply

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

moved:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[An hon. member]

What about McDonald's?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Ghislain Lebel, Bloc, Chambly, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with great interest to my hon. colleague, whom I had the pleasure of working with on the Standing Committee on National Defence and Veterans Affairs, which he referred to.

I noticed pretty much the same things he did. I think the main concern right now in the Canadian forces is pay. Our military feel they are underpaid, and I agree. In addition, for non-commissioned officers and enlisted men, opportunities for advancement are practically nil. The organization is top heavy, which is unusual nowadays. That is another problem.

With respect to equipment, I agree with him that we need state of the art equipment meeting current military requirements. I think that, for the next little while at least, governments will have to balance spending between human resources, military equipment and military training. These three budgetary items must, unfortunately, be kept under tight control at this time.

I would like to hear what personal thoughts the hon. member for Compton—Stanstead has on this issue of financial resources apportioning for the purchase and use of equipment, for human resources, military pay, severance pay and so on, and finally for training military personnel, exercices conducted on land, on sea and in the air. Does he have any idea how these funds should be apportioned?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker, having attended one of the SCONDVA meetings and having heard from numerous veterans and members of the present military, morale seems to be a big issue.

These fine men and women go away and serve our country. They are separated from their families for a very long time. They are faced with keeping a family together yet they have to do it from thousands of miles away. These families incur huge phone bills just to be able to be in touch with their families.

We heard from one lady who spoke about the fact that when they started speaking by phone the phone bill was hundreds of dollars. Instead of having quality family time they were fighting about the high cost of the phone bill and what it would do to their very limited budget.

What does my hon. colleague see as a solution? What about possibly looking at some kind of toll free line that military people could use when they are on extended tours of duty?

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

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

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

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

[André Harvey, Progressive Conservative, Chicoutimi, QC]

Mr. Speaker, during the last election, our party proposed a special intervention unit, a special division of 14,000 troops that would form an elite corps to head our interventions here and abroad.

I would ask my hon. colleague if he thinks this idea could readily be implemented.

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

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

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

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

[Art Eggleton, Liberal, Minister of National Defence]

Mr. Speaker, there is an old saying that when you point a finger at somebody there are three of them pointing back at you. I think that is particularly appropriate for the Conservative Party today because there are three fingers pointing back at them.

Many of the conditions they have talked about today are ones that were in place when they held the reign of power in this country. When Brian Mulroney and his Conservative government were in power we had problems with all of the areas they are talking about. And that is exactly what they are doing. Talk, talk, talk. Yadda, yadda, yadda.

It is this government that in fact is taking action to rectify these problems. We are providing the leadership that is necessary to prepare our Canadian forces for the new millennium, to comply with the requirements of the defence white paper, to provide the kind of support for our forces personnel and their families and to help provide for a quality of life for them that they rightly deserve.

The Conservative defence critic said there had been a 30% reduction over the last four years. That is quite true. Our defence department has been cut 30% in its purchasing power and 23% in actual dollars. It has gone from just over $12 billion down to $9.4 billion. Yes, the defence department and the Canadian forces, together with every other department and every other program of the federal government, has had to contribute to deficit reduction. Why? Because of the big deficit we inherited from Brian Mulroney and the Conservative government.

They virtually put the economy and the fiscal condition of this country into ruin. The first priority of this government was to put the country on a proper fiscal course to be able to provide the kinds of jobs that our economy is now providing. We have lower interest rates. Inflation is under control. We have a balanced budget. Because of what we inherited from that government we had to absorb a lot of cuts in defence as well as in other areas.

The hon. member talked about helicopters. They botched that arrangement as well. They were going out, when the country had a $42 billion deficit, and buying expensive developmental helicopters with all the bells and whistles, things that were relevant to the cold war period which they did not seem to recognize as being over. They were spending a lot of money for equipment; money that we did not have at that time because of the deficit situation they put us into.

We have bought search and rescue helicopters. We will replace the Sea King with a new maritime helicopter. We will do it at a cheaper price with off the shelf equipment which is more appropriate for our needs and cheaper than what they were going to provide.

When it comes to dealing with the issues that face our forces personnel and their families, the pay, the living conditions, the housing conditions and all of the other things, there is nobody who is more committed than I am in seeing that these problems are dealt with.

On behalf of this government, because that is what this government wants to do, I went to the Standing Committee on National Defence and Veterans Affairs. At the very first meeting I told them “This government wants to deal with these issues”.

I had visited a number of different bases during the summer, within two or three months of being appointed Minister of National Defence, and I heard a number of stories. I told the committee, made up of members of all parties, to go to the different bases and communities and listen to what our forces personnel and their families have to say about the challenges they meet. How are they coping? Are they having difficulties in terms of pay levels or housing? What about the postings which result in them frequently being moved from one part of the country to another? Families face difficulties when they are at home and forces personnel are overseas, sometimes in some rather dangerous conditions. All of these things are important to this government. It is important that we address them.

At the very first meeting of the committee I asked members to address those matters. I said at the time that I needed to have a stronger understanding on the part of all members of parliament, on the part of the government and the Canadian public as to the challenges our forces personnel and their families are facing.

What we heard from the member this morning is of course what I heard previously and what others are now hearing in the standing committee. The reason those hearings are being held is because of the leadership of this government and the desire to get to the bottom of these issues and the desire to take corrective action to make sure that our forces personnel have a quality of life, a standard of living, that is befitting of the great service they provide to this country.

All that we hear today is a regurgitation of what we have heard from the public. What suggestions do those members have? They do not have any suggestions at all. They ridicule every other idea. They even criticized the idea of trying to get sponsorship for various non-public activities, non-core activities of the military. They got it all wrong in the course of doing it. We are not about to put “Drink Coke” on our tanks or on our armoured personnel carriers, or submarine sandwiches on our submarines. They know that is the case.

They know that what we are talking about are things like tattoos or the Snow Birds performances, all of which are not part of the core activities, but are areas where we do require some sponsorship, tastefully done I might add. It will not be done with the kind of advertising logos they are talking about.

This has been going on for several years. There is nothing new about this. It is an appropriate way of getting sponsorship for the things that are not part of the core activities of the Canadian military. Those things that are core, which require public funding, will continue to be handled out of public funds in the traditional way.

He got that all wrong. The other thing he was wrong about was our allies. They all do it. When the United States sends entertainers abroad they get sponsorship. They are all doing the same kind of thing, but it is those additional things that also help, whether it is the Snow Birds or a tattoo, to give the public a better understanding and appreciation of the skills and the talents that our forces personnel have.

As tragic as the events of the Saguenay, the Red River and the ice storm have been, they have also given the Canadian public a better understanding and appreciation of what our forces personnel are all about and the kind of professionalism they bring. In concert with that professionalism, this government is providing leadership to make sure those forces are ready for the next century.

We are bringing about institutional changes. We have agreed with more than 80% of the Somalia commission report. We appointed a new chief of defence staff and overhauled many of the senior positions within the Canadian defence upper echelons.

We have brought into the House the most extensive amendments to the defence act since its creation 50 years ago. They did not bring any amendments to the defence act. We are overhauling the military justice system to make sure we have an appropriate system for the new millennium. We have had reports on our reserves and we are implementing those reports.

In many cases we are not even waiting for the reports. We are taking action now. The 9% increase in pay is an example of something we are doing now. The retirement allowance for the reserve forces is also something we are doing now.

Institutional changes and reforms are being carried out and monitored by a former Speaker of the House, the hon. John Fraser.

The purchase of the helicopters, the submarines and the armoured personnel carriers are all decisions that came out of the white paper. The things they did not do and did not do properly we are carrying out.

We have also improved communications, as I think even the hon. member has admitted, both between the forces and the public and within the forces.

This is just a quick thumbnail sketch of a lot of things that other speakers I hope will get a chance to talk about further, but it clearly shows that when they point their finger there are three pointing back at them for their inadequacies during the time they were in government. This government is showing solid leadership.

[André Harvey, Progressive Conservative, Chicoutimi, QC]

Mr. Speaker, every chance he gets, our colleague, the Minister of National Defence, says the Conservative Party, always the Conservative Party, is the one responsible for everything that is wrong.

There are some things that need to be remembered, if one wants to be objective. For instance, the matter of the debt, which will take but a few seconds. Let us talk about the period from 1970 to 1984. In 1970, the debt stood at some $15 to $18 billion. The Liberals multiplied it tenfold. By the time we took office in 1984, the debt had reached $200 billion. Instead of multiplying it by 11, we doubled it. That is a considerable slowdown.

At the time, however, we knew the deficit had to be controlled, so we adopted tax reform measures. Moreover, free trade, against which you voted, has freed up considerably more money to reduce the deficit.

I would like to ask the minister, since his choices are supposedly always the wisest possible, how it happens that, having suspended the helicopter purchase contract, negotiated at the time for $33 million, he is now bragging about the same purchase, but at $40 million plus, without considering that there was absolutely nothing set aside for R&D, and nothing for maintenance.

How can they pay 20% to 25% more for helicopters and try to convince us that the wait was worthwhile, after spending $600 million? How can he claim that it was worth the wait, and then try to boast to us about the purchase?

[Art Eggleton, Liberal, York Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I know the Conservatives are not very good at figures, given the way they ran up the deficit, and they seem to have a hard time recognizing that.

They equally have a very difficult time coming to grips with the helicopter purchase. They fail to understand that they were proposing helicopters at a time when we could not afford them. They were military development helicopters which meant that a lot more money was going to go into the development stage before they would fly.

We are buying off the shelf helicopters that are already commercially certified in search and rescue which do not have all of the costs associated with them which their proposal had. We have ended up buying helicopters, and subsequently the maritime helicopters, at 30% less than what they would have paid. That was a shame. The taxpayers could not afford that.

I am very pleased about the search and rescue helicopters that we are buying. Yes, they are a cousin of the helicopter that was in its developmental stage, but getting it off the shelf and commercially certified is a lot cheaper. This helicopter will meet our requirements, which was the most important aspect of this purchase. It went through a very rigorous test and an extensive examination to ensure that it was the helicopter to best meet our operational needs and to do it at a price that was affordable to the Canadian public.

Even more important is to note that buying it now as we have, we bought it at a time that we could afford it. We got rid of that big deficit which we inherited from the Conservative government.

[Art Hanger, Reform, Calgary Northeast, AB]

Mr. Speaker, to address the comments of the minister about debt, and also the Conservative Party, I do not think either one of those parties can claim to be on the high ground in that area. After all there is a $600 billion debt. The Conservatives added $250 billion. The Liberals trashed the taxpayer by adding another $100 billion since they have come into office. Nobody can claim the high ground.

In speaking about the military, I just came out of committee on Bill C-25. It became evident on how undemocratic our process really is. This bill is coming from the top down. I ask the minister, in producing a bill and pushing it down to committee, why does he not give the committee more power to adjust, make amendments and do what is right for the military through that process?

[Art Eggleton, Liberal, York Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, maybe if the member goes back to the committee instead of sitting in here he might be able to get some amendments put on the table. We are certainly happy to see him discuss the matter at committee.

In terms of the National Defence Act amendments, as I indicated these are very extensive amendments. They have come through as a result of two things. A lot of the recommendations in there should not be new to the hon. member. A lot of them came out of the Somalia commission report. All of them virtually mirror the report from former Chief Justice Dickson and his committee on the military justice system. They are well thought out by people, including a former chief justice of Canada, as to the kind of updating that is required in the military justice system to ensure that it has within it Canadian values and justice principles that are also acknowledged in the civilian area as being those that are required.

We are updating and streamlining the operations. If the hon. member has some amendments, or his party has some amendments, there has been every opportunity to be heard at the committee. I look forward to the committee reporting back to this House.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. There seems to be a lot of interest, and we are very attentive in the minister's answers to our questions. I would seek unanimous consent to prolong the questions and comments so that we can hear the hon. minister's reply.

[The Deputy Speaker]

Is there unanimous consent to extend the questions and comments time on the minister's speech?

[An hon. member]

No.

[The Deputy Speaker]

I am afraid that there is not unanimous consent.

The time for questions and comments has now expired.

[Art Hanger, Reform, Calgary Northeast, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to stand here today, although I have to say I am somewhat surprised that this motion came forth from the fifth party, the Conservative Party, from parts of the maritimes and from parts of Quebec.

[An hon. member]

Parts of Alberta.

[Art Hanger, Reform, Calgary Northeast, AB]

There are no Conservatives in Alberta. I obviously appreciate the opportunity to speak to this issue.

To say the least, I cannot begin to stress how disappointed I have been with the treatment of our Canadian forces and how this government has impacted on their well-being and their effectiveness.

Again my surprise is that the motion comes from one of the two parties that really contributed to the problems we see in our military today. It was the Tories who continued to gut the forces during their disastrous tenure in government. I do not think they have a whole lot to offer in this debate apart from the fact of making it a debate. I certainly agree with them on that issue.

Our military exists fundamentally to protect the freedoms of our country. It is a proud institution which has distinguished itself in two world wars, the Korean war, the gulf war and a myriad of other international conflicts. Our peacekeepers have set the international standard for competence, professionalism and humanitarianism.

Unfortunately the past 30 or so years have seen an increasing tendency by the federal government to neglect its responsibilities to the Canadian forces. Decreased funding, increased bureaucratization, failing equipment and a decreasing standard of living have taken an enormous toll on the morale of the forces. I am going to throw in one other item because I believe that military justice is a key aspect to morale.

If we see a two tier system as is present with only some tinkering done with Bill C-25 which the government is introducing we are not going to see morale improve a whole lot. I find that rather unsettling. The government has had years to make corrections to the military justice system and to the defence act and has failed to do so until now. And when it does so, it is superficial to say the least.

When I talk about decreased funding, increased bureaucratization, failing equipment and a decreased standard of living having taken its toll on morale there is no question that these evils are also cutting into the forces' operational capabilities. Members of the forces are now in the uncomfortable and often unrealistic position of being asked to perform duties with outdated equipment and with insufficient financial support for themselves and for their families.

The auditor general's report released about two or three weeks ago clearly puts the military at a disadvantage when it comes to their equipment and the way they are being administered.

Touching briefly on those points, first is decreased funding. For too many years successive governments, and the very government which ran up higher and higher deficits, cut mercilessly into the heart of DND, into the military. It seemed that DND served as the sacrificial lamb whenever governments wanted to take an overt demonstration of cutbacks. It is easy to whack somebody who cannot defend themselves.

The inefficiencies of the operation continued behind the scenes. When it came to showing the public how the government was balancing the budget, it was balanced on the backs of those who cannot defend themselves. There are no advocates for the military on that side of the House. None. When the government wanted to make this demonstration these cutbacks were always deemed as belt tightening. Unfortunately at some point belt tightening became limb amputation.

During the 1993 election, Reform proposed that the military's budget should be preserved at approximately $11 billion. We argued that this was already too low for the military to function effectively but we felt that $11 billion was a realistic figure which could be justified when compared to other government obligations. We argued that a strong military is an essential resource and therefore should be protected along with other government necessities. In other words cuts should come from somewhere else.

Since 1993 the DND budget has been cut to just over $9 billion. Now even the auditor general is warning that equipment is getting dangerously outdated.

Let us talk about bureaucracy. Bureaucracy is a term that the Liberal side of the House understands to perfection. Perhaps the greatest mistake the Canadian government ever made with respect to the forces was folding it into the government bureaucracy and treating it as though it were just another government department. This had a number of disastrous effects.

First of all it fostered a sense of careerism which had not previously existed. Many military leaders that have the military and the country at heart have made it very clear to this government that this was going to happen. It refused to listen. Suddenly, advancement in bureaucracy replaced advancement in the military chain of command. Kowtowing to bean counting bureaucrats became essential for career development.

The military is not and should never be just another government department. The very nature of the military requires that it exist outside the bureaucracy but is still accountable to parliament, words that are going to be difficult to swallow on that side of the House which really does not appreciate many democratic principles.