Debates of Nov. 4th, 2002

Supply

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to take part in this debate and to follow my colleague from Nova Scotia, who is a diligent defender of the military, as is the mover of the motion, the member for Saint John. She has consistently and persistently been a champion for the men and women of the Canadian armed forces.

For a number of reasons I am pleased to take part in this debate. The motion itself is one which I think sheds a dismal light on the current record of the Liberal government with respect to the Canadian armed forces. I believe there are a number of issues that arise from that record and have to be identified, but more important, where do we go from here? What do we do to improve the lives of and the situation for our men and women in the armed forces?

As it has been noted, we are preparing this week to recognize our veterans on November 11. It is a great reminder of the incredible sacrifice that the men and women of the armed forces have made over the course of our country's long and proud history. For it was on the fields and blood-soaked beaches of Europe and other foreign lands that Canada earned its hard-fought and formidable reputation. The theme for this year's Veterans' Week, which officially begins tomorrow, is “Remembering Our Past, Preserving Our Future”. It is a fitting theme and one to which I would encourage government members in particular to pay close attention.

Time and time again we have heard members of the Canadian armed forces, members of the opposition, Senate committees, former generals and, most recently, even the Minister of National Defence discuss the need for greater funding for our military. The shape in which the government has left our forces in the past number of years gives me pause to reflect on and question the very future of our military. As we look this week at the past achievements of veterans across the great nation in which we live, as we recognize the sacrifices they made in our stead, as we enjoy the freedoms that were afforded to us because of those sacrifices, we should also look to the future and we should do everything we possibly can to address the most dangerous shortfall in defence spending that the country has faced in years.

The sad reality is that the current Prime Minister and his record are sort of the political equivalent of a posthole digger. I say that because the more he takes away, the bigger the hole becomes, and the bigger the hole becomes, the more ground that will have to be made up by the military. This situation, this atrophy that has occurred within the military, is going to take some time to remedy. It is not going to be one big budgetary influx that will allow our military to make up the lost ground.

Some of the startling statistics have already been put on the record but bear repeating. The current Auditor General's report suggests, and this is based on a defence analysis which goes into some detail, that the operational budget of the Canadian armed forces is facing shortfalls of approximately $1.3 billion a year. That, added to the knowledge that we have about $7 billion that has been removed from the Canadian military budget since the government came to office, is truly startling when one looks on the other side of the equation, at how much the military has been able to accomplish, not because of the government but in spite of the government.

The ability of the men and women of the Canadian armed forces to adapt and to do more with less, and the ability that they have to recognize the importance of the task that they have been given, is once again cause for us to stop and reflect and give praise to those brave individuals.

Defence spending has been reduced by 23%, or 30% in real terms, during the government's tenure. Personnel levels have fallen by almost 18,000 since 1993. Reservists have fallen by almost 10,000 during that same time period. The army lost a brigade group of 6,200 reservists and has faced regular personnel problems given the high operational tempo of the last decade. The navy lost 3,500 sailors. The air force lost 7,100 members and went from 260 combat aircraft to 140 and from 128 armed helicopters to 30. The Canadian Forces is facing acute shortages in specialized trades, including pilots, engineers, doctors and various technical trades. Defence spending fell from 1.7% of GDP in 1994 to the current 1.1% today, ranking seventeenth in NATO.

This is all factual statistic information that is not partisan. It is simply information of which Canadian should be made aware. Despite the obvious need, which even the Minister of National Defence has now acknowledged, the department likely will not receive a substantial infusion of resources, given the efforts by the new finance minister to downplay the expectations and the Prime Minister's skewed priorities and pathetic look for some sort of legacy.

After being starved for resources by the government and while facing increasing demands, the Canadian Forces are likely to be victimized again as the internal leadership and the legacy politics of the Liberal Party will obviously trump the need of our soldiers.

This is all to say that when the budget does come down in February, March or whenever the government gets around to doing it, even with all this information available and with the outcry from the many groups, including armed forces personnel have made, it would appear that this is simply not registering.

The federal government has overlooked the needs of the Canadian armed forces for so long, yet we continue to see the human effects that this partisan and callous decision making process by the government has had. A majority of the equipment is in need of upgrading and replacement. The men and women are forced to operate on shoestring budgets.

One of the most heart-rending and gut wrenching experiences I have had as a member of Parliament was when I was approached by a former member of the military who came to my office. He literally had tears in his eyes as he discussed the shame and the lack of morale the armed forces personnel faced when they had to go into a combat zone in Afghanistan with forest green uniforms in a desert setting. He discussed the danger in which that put them and the target that they represented as they stood out in those forest green uniforms against a desert background. The solution of the government was to send them capes, or that they borrow uniforms from the personnel of other countries or that they take paint and put it on their uniforms.

We have a manufacturer, Wear Well Garments, headed by Stirling MacLean. Mr. MacLean offered quite generously to shut down his operations and to manufacture those uniforms if the Canadian government would provide the material and the specs that were needed. That was denied. That would have allowed them to have uniforms in very short order to address this obvious shortcoming and negligent decision that was made by the department.

The lack of funds and the continual use of aging material prevents replacement and long term repair. Just the upkeep also becomes extremely expensive. We need only look at the record of the government in terms of the aging Sea King helicopters. These helicopters spend far more time undergoing repairs than they do in the air. As the senate committee on Canadian security and military preparedness found, the level of funding for national defence is insufficient to meet the many tasks assigned to our military.

The Sea King helicopter program has become the symbol of just how bad it is. The cancellation of that program alone cost over $500 million without factoring in the benefits that would have come from taking delivery of those helicopters, the component parts that would have been made by EH-101 in Canada and the profits that would have been made from future sales of that type of helicopter. It would have been the state of the art equipment at the forefront, at the vanguard of that type of military equipment, the helicopter. Yet here we are 10 years later still looking for the replacement that would lead to the ability of our armed forces to not only carry out their responsibilities, but to pick up the slack for some of the other decisions that were made that are associated to the shortcomings.

We no longer have the degree of capability in our coast guard. The government chose to disband the ports police. All of this to say that it leaves our ports and our coastal communities even more vulnerable. The Sea King fleet is unable to address that shortcoming. In fact they have to live with those problems as well.

The Auditor General, who is an impartial observer of Parliament, an investigator, an individual who all parliamentarians respect to do the good work of being a watch guard for the government in an impartial way, both the Senate and House of Commons defence committees, academics, defence analysts and individuals from across the country have called for additional funding of at least $2 billion in the yearly operating budget to maintain the levels that they currently operate.

Our armed forces participate in many missions around the world and it is clear that there is a cost in terms of vulnerability, respect and capability, given the current state of equipment and funding. Under the substantial financial strain, our military has been forced to do more with less on a daily basis. This has led to a serious deterioration in that equipment and also in the morale.

I spoke earlier about the individual who had approached me about the morale and the shame they felt when on international missions. They work shoulder to shoulder with other countries and they look at their equipment by comparison. They look at their uniforms. They look at the missions with which they have been tasked. They have to ask the serious question as to why their own government would leave them in this situation.

That is not to say that our men and women do not do their job admirably, with great pride and incredible ability, perhaps even more so given the situation in which they are left. Our record as peacekeepers has been as strong as any country in the free world. It is something of which Canadians are proud. It is something that defines us as a country. However the lack of attention paid by the government has left us unable to perform in the current global environment.

Our current military faces great difficulties of being ill-equipped due to sizeable cuts in its defence budget. A year after September 11, it has become painfully obvious that we are slipping in our ability to not only contribute to international peacekeeping and protection missions but even in our ability to maintain security at home. There is a great overlap between the issues of internal security and domestic preparedness, as well as our ability to partake in response to emergencies.

We know that a number of environmental disasters have occurred in Canada that have required the military to intervene. We saw that with the floods in Manitoba and in the Saguenay region. We saw that with the ice storm in Ontario and in Quebec. We know that there have been occasions where the military has stepped in and done an incredible job, for which we have to give it the greatest credit in the world, given its current stretched resources.

An increase the defence budget is obviously needed to reaffirm Canada's commitment to our men and women who take so seriously the defence of this great nation, both at home and abroad.

Between 1993 and 1998, the current member for LaSalle—Émard, the former finance minister, tabled budgets that led to a 23% cut in the defence budget. This figure comes from the Council for Canadian Security in the 21st Century. I find this figure almost unbelievable. Yet while the former finance minister was at the helm, the DND budget dropped to $9.4 billion in 1998-99 and from $12 billion in 1993-94. These cuts represent a trend of an ongoing lack of attention to this important issue.

These drastic cuts have had a very detrimental impact on the military at a number of levels, not the least of which is this steady decline in the numbers who enrol, who participate and who choose to make the armed forces a career; a very distinguished career that it can be. Official department estimates put the trained effective strength of the Canadian armed forces at somewhere between 50,000 and 55,000, well below the currently mandated 60,000.

I have already mentioned the drops in defence spending as a per capita percentage of GDP, falling from 1.7% to the current 1.1%, ranking seventeenth among our NATO counterparts.

Blame for the desperate state of our armed forces lies directly with the government, including the member for LaSalle—Émard, for it was during his tenure that there were a number of choices that had to be made. While all budgets underwent change, the drastic cuts to the defence budget put our personnel and our country at risk.

While he tours the country, speaking of the democratic deficit, he should take a while to reflect on the deficit that he created not only in the military but also in our international reputation, in health care and here in Parliament when he stood and voted against his own words on a number of occasions.

In the red book he talked about having an ethics counsellor who would report to the House. He voted against that on two occasions. He voted against his own words most recently last week in a Bloc motion. There is a credibility deficit when we look at the record and the words of the member for LaSalle—Émard. These are just a few morsels that I refer to when it comes to his record and when it comes to the actions of that member.

I mentioned earlier in my remarks the decision taken by the government to disband the ports police. Under the current funding scheme for our armed forces, there is an even greater emphasis put on the lack of security that exists at our borders. By that I also include our ports. We have witnessed this disregard for safety by the government for a number of years.

I want to spend just a few minutes concentrating on the situation regarding the ports police. There is a direct correlation between the shortcomings, the availability and the capability of our military at ports coupled with this decision that was taken by the government. This is a trend that has been very evident to even the casual observer for a number of years. It is simply not a priority for the government.

When the standing committee on national security and defence issued its report on Canadian security and military preparedness, it included an examination of Canadian ports. I brought this to the attention of the minister back in November of 1997 when I rose in the House to address concerns over the disbanding of the ports police and what it would mean for Canadians and their security. Ports policing is a very specialized responsibility. At that time I told those in attendance that, for all intents and purposes, many of our ports would be open for business in terms of illegal drugs, gun trade and other types of illicit materials.

The disbandment of the ports police leads to greater vulnerability and infiltration for terrorist organizations. When the government disbanded that special unit, in essence it completely got rid of a specialized police force with specific training and extensive authority empowered throughout the Criminal Code, customs and immigration. This was again undoubtedly done at perhaps a great saving in the budget but at huge cost to the Canadian taxpayers in terms of security.

The Minister of National Defence has now admitted in the House and publicly that there is a problem. As the old saying goes, admitting there is a problem is perhaps the first step to remedying it. In this instance we know that the first step in remedying that will require a commitment from this minister to now go to the cabinet table and make a strong pitch to have money returned to the budget of the Canadian armed forces. That commitment still is not clear from the remarks today of members and the minister. The sentiment and the attitude that will be required from the government to shift its thinking and to put a greater priority on this subject matter is not clear.

We know a surplus exists, a surplus that has existed for some time in other areas of the budget. The EI fund, as we know, is carrying a huge surplus which comes out of the pay cheques of working men and women in the country. I say with great confidence that those men and women would be glad to see money go to assist in the revitalization and the reinvigoration of our armed forces.

While the Liberal Party may try to triumph the obvious need that now exists, what it needs to do is act. The Progressive Conservative Party supports providing immediate funds to our military. We are committed to initiatives that would secure our military's future. As we debate this issue today, I urge the defence minister and cabinet ministers opposite to revisit this issue at the cabinet table with diligence. While we spend next week remembering our veterans and our past, let us do all we can to necessitate and ensure that we preserve our future.

[Loyola Hearn, Progressive Conservative, St. John's West, NL]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I believe you would find unanimous consent for the following motion:

That at the conclusion of the present debate on the opposition motion, all questions necessary to dispose of this motion be deemed put, a recorded division deemed requested and deferred until Tuesday, November 5, 2002, at 3:00 p.m.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair)]

The House has heard the terms of the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[John O'Reilly, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence]

Mr. Speaker, I listened to the member for Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough with great interest. He has moved back a few seats from where he used to sit and is looking at leadership. I notice that he has a milder approach to his parliamentary decorum. Now he tends to be praising people instead of denigrating them. I am pleased to see, if he is running for the leadership of his party, that he certainly is taking a look at that demeanour.

However he seems to fear the member for LaSalle--Émard. He quoted a number of things that do not ring true in my mind. Maybe he has not read the budgets of 1999, 2000 and 2001 where the Government of Canada offered significant increases in defence funding which, through fiscal year 2006-07, would be more than $5 billion. I do not know how he squares that circle by saying that the member for LaSalle--Émard has somehow cut back when in fact he is responsible for an increase in the last three budgets that he did.

We were pleased to ensure that we lobbied the then finance minister to increase military funding so that it would not erode any more than it has. This is not to say that more is not needed, but I believe that he should recognize that.

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

Mr. Speaker, speaking of squares, I want to address the hon. member opposite because he took a moment to make what was a weak attempt at sarcasm or humour, but it is too important an issue. If he wants to be economical with the truth about his government and the man he worships, that is his illusion and his delusion.

During that member's time, the member for LaSalle--Émard took $7 billion away from the military. The member speaks of the 2000-01 budget. Defence spending was reduced by a full 23%. The facts speak for themselves. That came from the Auditor General's report. He ought to take some time and read up on these issues before he gets up in the House and embarrasses himself.

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

Mr. Speaker, as we near November 11 Canadians should have some idea as to what this country did and where we were at in 1945. In 1945 we had half the population we have now, but we put one million people into uniform. We had the third largest army, air force and navy among the Allies.

Having said that, Canadians should know that we are placing the responsibility of the military in the hands of relatively few people, 10% or less today than we had then. We cannot seem to find consensus out there among the general population that we are not doing enough. We have not even reached 60,000. I would like the member to comment on those figures.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his intervention. He is right to point out that during the 1940s when Canada was at war we had over a million men and women in uniform. Today, we have somewhere in the range of 52,000. The reserves have dropped significantly by 10,000. There is a problem with recruiting. There is a problem maintaining our presence overseas and maintaining our operational budget. That goes directly to the issue. It goes directly to the reason why we have chosen to make this a priority in this debate today.

The Progressive Conservative Party has always been a strong backer of the military. We made the last major investment with respect to the new frigate program, which is now over 10 years old. It is going to require refits very soon. We made the last major investment for LAVs. We had signed on for the purchase of military helicopters. All of that good work was undone in the last decade by the government.

Try as it might it suggests that things are not as bad and that somehow it is now a priority 10 years after the fact. By talking to men and women in the armed forces and the reserves, they will say what it is like. Members should visit an armed forces base and talk to individuals who must live daily with the carnage that has been wreaked by the government, and then forget about all the statistics because it is there, it is real, it is in our faces. There will be a time when there will be a reckoning for that. I hope that at the very least this next budget will reflect a recognition and a respect for the men and women in the armed forces.

[Antoine Dubé, Bloc, Lévis-Et-Chutes-De-La-Chaudière, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I agree with a lot of what the hon. member for Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough said in his discussion of needs, particularly with respect to the frigates and other equipment.

However, today's motion seeks to increase military spending. In our view, this motion lacks precision, and vision.

I would be in favour of having more maritime equipment in the riding of Lévis-et-Chutes-de-la-Chaudière, as the hon. member knows. We both represent ridings with a shipyard, he on the Atlantic coast, and I on the St. Lawrence River.

Given how important this issue is to him, would he agree to have a debate in this place so that we can review the national defence policy, even develop a new one if need be, before we get into any discussion of budget planning?

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

Mr. Speaker, just by way of explanation to my hon. friend, and I thank him for the question and understand his point, we drafted the motion by taking the words from the current defence minister's speech. That has been done in the past and members opposite are still never hesitant to vote against their own words. They have proven that time and time again. That was the way the specific motion was drafted.

I could not agree more that there has to be a complete revisitation of how we are spending money. Perhaps we should have a locked-in budget for a bare minimum of spending. Perhaps we should look at the way in which military contracts are awarded. We need to put greater emphasis on shipbuilding and frigates. We have purchased submarines. We have submarines that should not go down and helicopters that should not go up. That is the sad reality of where we are today with our military equipment on those two important files.

There could be more done to protect the coast and improve personnel and equipment. I could not agree more that this is something the Parliament of Canada should be fully engaged in and giving greater priority to.

[Peter Stoffer, NDP, Sackville—Musquodoboit Valley—Eastern Shore, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my hon. colleague from Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough. I will ask a simple question in terms of our reserves. Many reservists come from universities and other jobs. These are young men and women who are looking at the military as a possible long term career. I would like to have the member's perspective, because he has reservists in his riding, of what they are telling him they require from the government to make that decision in the future.

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

Mr. Speaker, in a word or two, hope and encouragement. I speak with individuals like Colonel Doug Stallard in the riding of Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough. I have attended events that celebrate the work done by reservists and by army and sea cadets who operate within our armed forces. They are already choosing at an early age to make that commitment to our armed forces. These are great training grounds for future men and women who will serve this country proudly.

We should do more to give incentives, scholarships, or perhaps more in the way of support for their education. I could not agree more with the hon. member for Sackville—Musquodoboit Valley—Eastern Shore that we should be embracing the opportunities to enhance the reserve's role in the military to ensure that they can make a smooth transition into regular forces should they choose to do so. That is a priority in many countries and it is something that is sadly slipping away in this country.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to participate in the debate this afternoon. First, I would like to pay tribute to the hon. member for Saint John for her commitment to the military, to members of the Canadian Forces and to veterans.

Over in the corner I see my colleague from the defence committee, the member for Sackville—Musquodoboit Valley—Eastern Shore, who also deserves a lot of credit for some of the things that have been coming out of the defence committee. He certainly has displayed what I would describe as an independence of thought within his party as far as defence and security issues are concerned. Sometimes it is hard swimming against the current but he has done that remarkably well over the course of the last few years.

Both those members deserve credit for their concern with respect to the state of our military.

The motion before us, which stands in the name of the member for Saint John, for whom I have tremendous respect, reads:

That this House condemn the government for continuing to overstretch our military personnel and call on the government to increase spending more than is currently planned, as the Canadian Forces need more money simply to continue operating in a sustainable way.

For the benefit of those who may be watching the debate, the fact that the motion contains the word “condemn” means that it is a non-confidence motion. It is a vote with respect to confidence in the government. From that standpoint, it certainly raises the hair on the back of the neck of the people on this side of the House.

I should also say, and this is not a reflection on the member's drafting skills, but I know what was intended here. It was to take a fragment of a speech given by the Minister of National Defence and turn it into a motion, presuming of course that members of the government would be embarrassed by having to vote against the words of the Minister of National Defence.

I believe one of the reasons the defence committee has been relatively successful in terms of getting its point across with respect to the state of the military and the conditions faced by members of the Canadian Forces, is that we have taken, by and large, a fairly non-partisan attitude to the subject.

As well as the two members I mentioned before, there were other members of the defence committee from the Alliance, and even from the Bloc, who kept an open mind with respect to approaching these issues and who made a generally constructive contribution to the debate on the future of the forces.

I want to inform the House that personally I would have preferred a much more non-partisan motion that members from both sides of this House could get behind, as far as an expression of support for the military and an encouragement to the government to increase the budget for the Department of National Defence in the upcoming budget that we expect in February.

As a matter of fact, I had come up with some wording: “That the House strongly encourages the government to continue to increase the base budget of the Canadian Forces to help ensure the protection of Canadian sovereignty and to allow Canada to make greater contributions to international peace and security”. I believe that would have been a decent motion and one which I think most members of the House could have supported. I do not know whether it was lack of time or lack of consideration on this but some of the folks on the other side did not feel it was appropriate, I suppose, to support the motion. I find that regrettable.

I would encourage the members on the other side to reduce the level of partisanship that we have on this issue. If they are partisan toward us, we could be equally partisan toward them and, ultimately, that does not accomplish the goal of better public policy. I believe that very strongly.

I hope that at some point in the future the House will be able to reform itself to the point where we do not look at issues on a partisan basis, but that from time to time we look at the issue from the standpoint of the objective reality of the situation, when what is best for the men and women of the Canadian Forces rather than what is best for our particular party, or what is the best political tactic or strategy at any given moment.

The other point I want to make is that there has been additional funding for the Canadian military over the last number of years. For instance, about $3.9 billion in new funding went into the military over the course of the 1999 and 2000 budgets and more than $1.2 billion in the last budget.

We dealt with some of these issues at the defence committee in terms of the funding issue. We were concerned that some of the money that was coming in from an operational standpoint to deal with operational deficits, for instance, was not adding significantly to the base budget and there was a need for more money for the base budget. The base budget has increased somewhat but not to the extent that we on the defence committee felt was appropriate.

I draw the House's attention to the fact that if we look at the overall funding that has gone to defence from the year 2001 to what is expected in 2006-07, because there are increases built in over the next couple of years that are anticipated, the increased funding works out to about $5.1 billion. Again, some of that has been the flow through money and some has been for disaster relief for the provinces. However some of it does not add specifically to the capability of the Canadian Forces. Again, this is something that has been recognized by the Auditor General, by various groups involved in defence, such as the Conference of Defence Associations and the Council for Canadian Security in the 21st Century, by our committee and by the committee in the other place.

Another thing that is worth pointing out is that some of the money that has gone into the military over the course of the past few years has been as a direct result of some of the work that has been done by the standing committee. I would draw members' attention to the quality of life initiatives that have been announced by the government and which I must say have been very well received by the members of the Canadian Forces.

The strength of any military clearly rests with those who serve. This is why the government has taken these steps to improve the conditions of military service by enhancing the quality of life, not just of the members of the Canadian Forces but other families as well.

We have seen the pay increases that have come about over the last couple of years. We have seen housing concerns addressed. The government has also introduced special benefits and allowances, such as improved maternity and parental leave benefits. Pension Act amendments, which were of immediate assistance to about 1,200 Canadian Forces members with permanent service related disabilities, were also very important steps forward.

One of the things that struck me when I had the great opportunity and honour of visiting Canadian troops abroad was that they were able to stay in touch with their families in a more substantive way than they were in the past through access to the Internet and e-mails and long distance telephone.

Employment assistance programs have been put in place to assist spouses whose careers are often disadvantaged because of frequent moves.

As far as the daily lives of the members of the Canadian Forces, these sorts of improvements were very significant. I remember travelling with some of my colleagues from this side of the House, as well as from the other side of the House, to various bases across the country, right from Esquimalt through to Goose Bay and Halifax. We touched down in places like Moose Jaw, Edmonton, Petawawa and Valcartier. We talked to a tremendous number of people, both on and off the record, with respect to the conditions of service in the military. From that standpoint we listened, we made substantive, concrete and, I think, positive recommendations and those recommendations were listened to.

From that standpoint I would give full credit to the previous minister of national defence who did a tremendous job on the quality of life issue and who understood, better than most, that having the right people and maintaining the morale of those people is absolutely critical to any military organization.

Some military theorists say that there are three things to a military: people, ideas and equipment, in that order. I think the former minister of national defence certainly had his priorities right when he concentrated a lot of effort and a significant amount of political capital, not just himself but with the involvement of committee, in terms of the quality of life improvements.

I also want to speak to some of the modernization programs that the Canadian Forces has undertaken recently. There is a continuing commitment to the issue of maintaining multipurpose combat capable forces that are capable of performing the complex and varied tasks that have been assigned to them, whether it is ensuring the safety of Canadians, the security of the North American continent or international peace and security in general.

In recent years the government has shown its commitment to modernization, maybe not as much as we would have liked from the standpoint of the defence committee certainly, through a series of initiatives aimed at modernizing the Canadian Forces. Thanks to these initiatives, the Canadian Forces is better equipped now than it was a decade ago in terms of the level of sophistication and the level of lethality of some of the systems with which it is working.

One of the major improvements on the maritime side has been the acquisition of the Victoria class, previously known as the Upholder class, submarines.

I would like to take a moment to talk about those submarines. It is really a shame what has been said in some quarters of the media with respect to these submarines. I think they have been badly labelled as lemons. Some of the commentary that has been attached to the submarines in terms of suggesting that they are unsafe and that Canadian crews have next to mutinied and have refused to go to sea on them, has been completely inaccurate. It is a disservice to the people who are working on the submarine project and to the men and women of the Canadian Forces generally.

One of the things that concerns me is that a very positive aspect of an acquisition program, of very sophisticated equipment, has been basically maligned unfairly and has not been accurately portrayed.

I hope the defence department is listening to this because I really think it is time for us to start talking about these submarines and the capability they add to Canada's naval forces and the future of these submarines in terms of other operations.

Some people would ask why Canada has submarines. The answer, quite simply, is that approximately 600 submarines are out wandering the world's oceans. Some of them are nuclear submarines and some are diesel-electric, the more conventional type of submarines that exist. One of the reasons Canada needs submarines, in my view, is that we need an on the water, above the water and below the water capability to ensure that Canada's maritime interests are protected in the widest sense of the word.

I am not trying to underplay that there have been certain issues related to some of the technical details of these submarines, such as the problems with the ejector and diesel exhaust valves. We all know about the publicized dent in the HMCS Victoria . I went to Halifax to look at the submarines and had a look at the so-called major dent in the submarine. It is about this deep and this wide on a submarine that is, I am guessing, at least 150 feet long. Ships bump into things from time to time in docks and clearly that is what happened with the HMCS Victoria . It is not a big issue when talking about the cost of repairing it and the cost of the submarines in general.

Let us look at the cost, because it is another important issue. We paid roughly $750 million for these submarines. We essentially traded the costs for the use of Suffield, Alberta, by British forces. It was one of the most creative, forward thinking and positive acquisition programs that I have seen in relation to equipment in some time, but the fact remains that these subs are not going to go to sea unless they are right up to scratch in terms of Canadian standards. They absolutely have to be completely seaworthy and they will be by the time the project is completed.

Another point that is worth mentioning is that the cost of bringing these submarines up to Canadian standards and making them seaworthy is going to be borne largely by the government of the United Kingdom. That is an important point to make. These submarines are as complicated and as sophisticated in terms of the technology as any aircraft we will find. They have to go through the same checklist of standards across the board to ensure that they are perfectly up to Canadian standards and perfectly safe for the crews that are going to be using those submarines.

I wanted to touch on that because I think our subs have gotten a bad rap. They are going to be critical pieces of equipment, for instance in terms of surveillance of our coastal areas. I was looking through some old material on this just last week and noted a figure that really struck home with me. One of these subs, with the sophisticated listening equipment, the radar and the communications package that goes with it, will be able to control or at least know what is happening in an area of roughly 125,000 square miles. That is very significant. It is a capability we need and it is a capability that I think is going to be put to use very well with the submarine program.

Certainly I would like to touch upon a number of other issues, but one point I would like to make is this. Obviously our new defence minister's words were quoted in the context of the motion we have before us today, but I would like to pay tribute to our Minister of National Defence. Coming from an economic background with very little in the way of background as far as the military is concerned, he really has brought himself up to speed and I think he has become one of the strongest advocates we have in the government for the Canadian Forces. I think we are going to see some great things from this minister in the future. As well, and it is important to mention this, I think he is going to be successful in terms of getting more money in the budget for the Canadian Forces come February.

There are a couple of other things I should mention. Why should we put more money into the military at this time? We all know that the world is a pretty dangerous place these days. We have commitments in various places in the world, obviously in Bosnia. It is my understanding that the minister may be going to Bosnia. I am hoping to accompany him within the next little while to visit Canadian troops in the theatre of operations and to express on behalf of Canadians the level of confidence we have in the work they are doing.

There obviously is a lot more that I could say on this subject but my time is running short. Let me leave members with one simple thought. As a Parliament, I think we have to come together in a non-partisan way in terms of dealing with the issue of the Canadian Forces and the things that we expect of them. The Canadian Forces, the Department of National Defence, is not a department like any other department of government. It has very special responsibilities that go right to the heart of our sovereignty, right to the heart of protecting everything we value as Canadians, and also right to the heart of projecting those values internationally in terms of our contributions to international peace and security. Let me end my comments there. I would be happy to respond to any questions members may have.

[Betty Hinton, Canadian Alliance, Kamloops, Thompson And Highland Valleys, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it was not my intention to join in this debate today. I was quite satisfied to listen, but some of the comments that have come from the other side have forced me to stand.

I have a legislative assistant in my office who is also a reservist. Not only do I invite the member, but I would actually encourage the member to come to my office and spend 15 minutes with this young man. I think he would get an earful.

The member said that the government has done all these good things for the military but as for the uniforms it gave to the military during the desert action, it might as well have painted a bull's eye on the backs of those men. As well, in many cases the wheels have fallen off the trucks and we have to rent equipment to haul the cannon up to the hill for gun salutes. One thousand men have been paid to sit because there is no funding for the training. These are all things that have not been addressed.

When I have the member across the way say to me that he does not like the word “condemn”, that he finds it very strong wording and therefore will not be able to support the motion, I have to ask why in the world he is here. The word “condemn” is strong because nothing has happened on the government side of the House for the military and those on this side of the House are very concerned about the way things are going.

You mentioned sovereignty earlier, sir. Do you not understand that sovereignty is dependent on a healthy, well funded military?

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair)]

Please address your comments to the Speaker.

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

Mr. Speaker, I certainly have not seen this member anywhere close to the defence committee, but nonetheless I take her comments. I too have spoken to many reservists. People have expressed to me concerns about various aspects of service and the government has listened. It is in the process of trying to deal with many of the concerns that have been expressed. I fully expect that we are going to see some improvements in the next budget.

I wanted to make this comment in my previous remarks. I should have added as well that as for some of the money that went into the issue of security immediately after September 11, much of that money was dedicated toward the border issue and preserving Canada's economic lifeline with the United States but also to intelligence. We work very closely with our allies on intelligence issues. We have beefed up our intelligence capabilities. The government is very concerned about protecting Canadians and certainly about protecting Canada's interests abroad.

To say as the hon. member has said, that I would get an earful from the particular reservist, we have heard from a lot of people. A lot of them have said that some positive things have happened in the military. Not everything has been a bowl of cherries, not by any stretch of the imagination, but I think the government is making a very honest attempt to try to deal with some of those problems and to ensure that our people in uniform are well equipped and well trained for all the jobs we give them. I would add as well that in my view we have never sent Canadian troops into a theatre of operations, and I have spoken to a lot of commanding officers, without the training or without the equipment they need to do the job.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to say to my hon. colleague who happens to be the chair of the defence committee, and I think all of my colleagues here should know, that when the hon. member from the Alliance Party mentioned the word “condemn”, I had agreed that I would remove that. I would support removing the word “condemn” and putting in “strongly recommend”. I have no problem with that. The only problem I had is that those on the government side wanted the whole motion changed. As the member knows, I will not play politics when it comes to the military. I absolutely refuse to do it.

I say to my colleagues on the government side that if the word “condemn” is changed to “strongly recommend”, I am fine and dandy with it. I am sure my other colleagues are too because we want to do what is right for the military. So I ask my colleagues to just take another look because all I did was quote their minister.

Another thing I want to say is this. On those submarines that we bought--

[An hon. member]

They should have been built in Saint John.

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

Yes, they should have been built in Saint John, but if those submarines were okay, then how come, I ask my hon. colleague, the military in London, England did not keep them for its navy? How come they turned around and said that is it? How come we have just paid $8.5 million--

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair)]

The hon. member for Nepean—Carleton.

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

Mr. Speaker, let me answer that last question first. It is well known, certainly I think in most defence circles, why the United Kingdom did not decide to maintain these subs as operational components of the U.K. navy. These subs were designed and built in the 1980s and intended to cover what is known as the GIUK gap, the Greenland-Iceland-United Kingdom gap. They were to be placed out in the North Atlantic as listening posts, essentially, for the United Kingdom.

The United Kingdom went through a period in the early 1990s when it was cutting back on its military just as we were doing here in Canada. As a matter of fact, the earliest cuts to the military in the 1990s did not come from this government. They came from the Conservative government of Brian Mulroney.

These subs were extremely capable platforms and we acquired them for $750 million. To give hon. members an example of the cost of building these subs ourselves, the Australians built the Collins class submarines at approximately $750 million per copy. We got four for $750 million. I think it is a good deal by any stretch of the imagination, not the least of which is also the fact that from the standpoint of bringing these subs up to operational standards the British are going to be paying for that as well.

[Peter Stoffer, NDP, Sackville—Musquodoboit Valley—Eastern Shore, NS]

Mr. Speaker, one of my concerns is that the Minister of National Defence has said in the House that, yes, he is looking forward to more resources in the next federal budget but at the same time he is going to give something back. My question to the hon. member is, what is the military supposed to give up in order to maintain those extra resources? Will it be the supply chain? Will it be the tanks? Will it be CF-18s? Will it be Goose Bay and Labrador? What will be cut in order to ascertain additional resources? In essence there may not be any additional resources at all. The government may cut off so much of the military in order to meet so-called new financial resources from the government.

The hon. member is a very learned gentleman when it comes to military affairs in the country and I appreciate his comments, but what is the government going to cut from the military in order to ascertain so-called additional resources?

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

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the hon. member's comments, but I am certainly not an expert on the military, not by any stretch of the imagination. I think it is important to note that when we have a budget as large as that of the Department of National Defence, with $12 billion of taxpayers' money, there are always things within that budget that probably could be dropped as far as expenditure items go. The issue of tanks has been raised and I think that is an important issue from the standpoint of how we modernize our forces.

The Minister of National Defence has said that we need a certain amount of money to keep the forces sustainable until we get a major review of defence and foreign policy. He is definitely on the right track there. He is bang on in this situation, because what we need within a defence review is an examination that takes into account the revolution in military affairs and the changing technology of the military. Tanks have been fingered as a possible area where we may cut. The important thing is that right now we are looking at light armoured vehicles that have a significant direct fire capability, which is very important, but there may be other platforms developed, especially by the Americans over the next few years, which will essentially replace the tank with something lighter and more mobile but a platform that is just as lethal.

[Deborah Grey, Canadian Alliance, Edmonton North, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise on the debate today and I would like to thank the PCs for bringing this forward. In some recent polling in Edmonton North an enormous percentage agreed that this was a huge issue. People are very concerned. Post September 11 Canadians are concerned about what goes on with our military and maybe what is not going on with our military. There is an incredible sense of frustration. For those of us who travel a lot there is a real issue of security and maintaining our own sovereignty.

Canada ranks 12th out of 19 NATO countries in its defence spending per capita. With the world's 34th largest population we have the 56th largest regular force and 77th largest reserves. That is unbelievable and I am not sure how a parliamentary secretary would be able to get up and talk about how terrific things are. I do not know that any person would be able to do that.

I would like to go on for quite a little bit about this but I will be splitting my time with the member for Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca. He represents a large military base as well out on the west coast. I am looking forward to hearing what he has to say.

The Auditor General, who is an amazing person has all kinds of staff that determine some facts and figures, in her 2001 report stated that the Canadian Forces require a minimum of $1.3 billion added to their budget yearly just to make up for current shortfalls. I am not sure how the minister, the parliamentary secretary, or anyone else can say we need a few of this and a few of that as if they were going to the grocery store.

Some $1.3 million is needed for current shortfalls let alone any planning ahead. We could talk about submarines or Sea King helicopters again. We have been talking about them for years, as was witnessed last week when I asked a couple of questions of the minister who said he hoped everything would go well so that we would be able to get more equipment. That is just not good enough.

The Auditor General also said that to meet equipment replacement requirements over the next five years the capital budget alone would have to be almost doubled in that period from $6.5 billion to $11 billion. This is not cheap equipment we are dealing with. Everyone knows that it costs a phenomenal amount of money for light armoured vehicles, helicopters, frigates, or whatever it is. This is intensive spending that the government needs to do. It cannot hope that we can talk about it for 10 years and then everything will show up on time. It is poor planning that continues to go on with a government that lurches from crisis to crisis.

It is the ninth anniversary of the government saying that it would replace the Sea King helicopters. I asked the Prime Minister the other day and the Minister of National Defence if what we were hearing about a procurement date starting officially on January 3 was true. They are not even able to commit to that. We are going to be at a 10 year anniversary with people flying Sea King helicopters that should simply not be there.

In the December 2001 budget the government claimed that it had invested $5.1 billion in defence since 1999. However we know the true sum. The money was either in tiny sums or committed to specific areas such as specific missions or fixing the Y2K bug. It seems like a few years ago that we had the Y2K scare, but enormous amounts of money went into that to ensure that it did not happen. Funds were also paid back that were advanced to DND, leaving next to nothing for sustaining the military.

It is a frightening thought because if the Liberals are going to get up and say they have spent so much money on the military, I do not know who they are trying to fool. Any of us who have any number of defence people in our areas, folks who are in the military, know that they are talking about quality of life issues, equipment and tours that they are supposed to be on. They are supposed to come home after a tour and be home for x amount of time, but before they know it they are deployed again because we do not even have enough manpower.

This $5.1 billion is a bail out. The government makes it sound like it is happy times for everyone and the military is going to get everything it needs. This is simply a bail out and not an investment. Some $750 million of the purported $5.1 billion will be added to the DND budget base. So $750 million out of $5.1 billion is a far cry from someone standing up and bragging what amazing amounts of money that is. The rest will be used to pay current bills or be transferred to other government agencies or to the provinces. The Auditor General has stated that a quarter of that $5.1 billion will be spent on non-operational objectives or to service the operations and maintenance deficit.

There is someone over on the Liberal side that talks about the deficit a lot, the democratic deficit. However, when we look at the huge deficit funding there is in the military, it is frightening. The operations and maintenance deficit this year alone is $1.3 billion according to the Auditor General. A cumulative operations and maintenance deficit will be $8.4 billion over the five year period, to which the $5.1 billion will be applied. This is pretty fancy math. The bottom line is it does not add up. There are huge deficits on one side. The government says it is looking after it, then it turns around and we see serious problems here.

I have been listening to the minister over the last couple of weeks and it is a little difficult to figure out what he is actually saying. On October 24 the minister called my colleague's question regarding more defence funding misguided and apocalyptic. That is in Hansard . Mr. Speaker, you were probably here that day to hear the Minister of National Defence answering my colleague saying that we were apocalyptic and insinuating that we were fearmongering about the military. Anyone in the military knows that it is underfunded. For the minister to stand up in the House and say we are misguided or apocalyptic is a bit much.

I do not know what in the world he slept on that night but the very next day, on October 25, the minister gave a speech supporting increased military funding. When asked to clarify his position a couple of days later the minister waffled and said:

--the government at the end of the day will be deciding on the priorities. However, in my humble opinion I submit respectfully that more resources for the military might be one matter the government might consider

Now there is a heavyweight at the cabinet table saying that he hopes everything goes okay and that more money is brought in. That is unbelievable.

In terms of recruitment and retention, the Canadian Forces are not just looking for overall numbers as some Liberals might say, but also the right people for the job. In fact, I would question that the right person for the job is the minister here. I really would. Instead of saying that he hoped things would go okay at the cabinet table, he should be in there fighting. Military personnel would want to know that their cabinet minister was there fighting for them especially when the Auditor General said what unbelievable shortfalls there were. Yet the government refuses to help. It is going to play Russian roulette with the dollars.

The government says it is truly committed to a well funded, well equipped, well maintained and well manned, in terms of manpower and womanpower, military. It says our sovereignty is secure. It can meet our NATO commitments or whatever commitments we have. We could not even send two rounds to Afghanistan. I was there this summer when the troops came home to Edmonton. What a homecoming it was. Those people need rest. They need time off with their families.

Then we see a government that says we are not able to keep up those commitments. That is embarrassing. I would recommend that the government really take note of this.

As the member for Saint John said, it should be happy to change the wording from condemn to strongly recommend. I think there is wisdom in that. A government can only have it one way. It is either going to believe in the military, fund it well, give it good equipment and manpower, ensure that our sovereignty is protected and we are able to meet our deployments and our commitments, or it is not.

I agree with the member for Saint John and strongly recommend this. It is high time that the government gets on with this without talking on the one side about how important it is and on the other side having the cabinet minister say that he hopes things go okay at the cabinet table. We need a stronger representative there for that.

[John O'Reilly, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence]

Mr. Speaker, I share some military history with the member who just spoke. Training was held in Cold Lake, Alberta for CF-18 pilots to compete in the William Tell competition in Florida. The pilot who ended up winning that competition was from my riding in Ontario. The Americans were so mad they have not held the competition since.

The motion states:

That this House condemn the government for continuing to overstretch our military personnel and call on the government to increase spending more than is currently planned, as the Canadian Forces need more money simply to continue operating in a sustainable way.

An amendment was put forward to change the motion so everyone could be in favour of it. It suggested that the House strongly encourages the government to continue to increase the base budget of the Canadian Forces to help ensure the protection of Canadian sovereignty and to allow Canada to make greater contributions to international peace and security

I wonder if the member would care to comment on why support did not come for that amendment because it is something that all parties--