Mr. Speaker, I move that the first report of the Standing Committee on National Defence and Veterans Affairs, tabled on Wednesday December 1, 1999, be concurred in.
Thank you for giving me the time this morning to debate this motion which is, in my opinion, an extremely important one.
It is important, first of all, because the budget, on which we will be required to vote in about two weeks, will no doubt include billions of dollars for National Defence.
The last budgets of that department were in the order of $10 million or $11 million. That is a very large portion of the budget. It accounts for a large part of the revenue of the Government of Canada.
It is important to address this matter because the Standing Committee on National Defence and Veterans Affairs has been looking at a number of aspects of military life over the past two years. The auditor general himself was interested in the way the army was spending the money allocated to it.
The committee has been looking at military life over the past two or three years. What sort of life do our military personnel have day to day? How do they feel when they are sent on missions abroad? How are they treated and with what sort of satisfaction do they enjoy daily on the bases, be they land, naval or air bases, where they are assigned, at home or abroad?
The committee was interested in this question because, for a number of years, especially since the government started its fight against the deficit, the army has been in large measure hit with budget restrictions. Our military personnel and our generals complained of it, and even NATO complained.
NATO, of which Canada is a member, criticized the fact that Canada was not investing enough in its share of the peacekeeping missions abroad, such as the ones in Kosovo, East Timor and Bosnia Herzegovina. According to NATO, Canada is one of the countries investing less, in terms of its gross domestic product, in the missions.
After doing studies and research, hearing dozens of witnesses, including experts—some from abroad, some from Canada—a number of members of the military, including soldiers, those most affected by the policies of the Government of Canada, on November 25, 1999, the committee tabled a motion on the revitalization and modernization of Canada's armed forces.
The 1994 white paper, mentioned in this resolution, was introduced six years ago.
The resolution read as follows:
Whereas the Government's White Paper on Defence from 1994 calls on the Canadian Forces to play a vital role in protecting Canadian sovereignty, maintaining collective defence through NATO and NORAD, providing support to United Nations peacekeeping operations, search and rescue, disaster relief and humanitarian assistance;
This resolution read further:
And whereas, the Department of National Defence budget has been reduced by 23 per cent against original projections since Budget '94;
And 23% is a sizeable proportion of a budget.
And whereas, in comparison to our principal allies, Canadian defence expenditures have fallen sharply from 1.7 per cent of GDP
I referred to it earlier.
in 1993-94 to 1.15 per cent of GDP in 1999-2000 with the NATO average being 2.1 per cent of GDP;
The difference between what Canada and other NATO countries invest in national defence and peacekeeping operations is almost 1%.
And whereas, our international commitments—in places like Bosnia, Kosovo and East Timor—in support of peace and human security have increased to the point where we have one of the largest contingents of troops deployed abroad since the Korean War;
And whereas, the Canadian Forces continue to experience problems with respect to housing—