Debates of Nov. 4th, 2002

Supply

[John McCallum, Liberal, Markham, ON]

Mr. Speaker, rule number one in politics is that sometimes it is not a good idea to answer hypothetical questions. I would take that question to be entirely hypothetical.

[Rick Casson, Canadian Alliance, Lethbridge, AB]

Mr. Speaker, a number of issues have been raised in the presentation so far, but one of the things that the minister himself conceded to a few weeks ago was a review of the whole operation and structure of the military. He indicated that needed to be done and he would start to do that.

Will he tell Canadians who will conduct that review. How will they be selected? What will the mandate be? When will the review be launched? When it is completed, will the House be presented with that report and will all Canadians understand what needs to be done within the structure of our military?

[John McCallum, Liberal, Markham, ON]

Mr. Speaker, as I said in my speech I plan to appoint a small number of individuals with private sector expertise in restructuring and to have those individuals work as a team with individuals within the Department of National Defence to address the issue of how we can achieve a greater efficiency of savings in the budget, not in terms of military capabilities because these people are civilians, but in terms of administrative efficiency.

I do not have the names of those individuals yet. We are still working on how this will be done in precise terms. However I anticipate being able to make an announcement on this topic within a month. It would be my hope that these individuals would report back to me within six months. I will then inform the House and the public as to the outcome of this report.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is with some sadness to hear the minister say that he has to go outside the current military ranks to get that kind of expertise, but my question is more to the point.

The reductions in personnel have been a direct spinoff effect of having the budget slashed, along with the denigration and the moral problems that exist. No one is pointing these out with any pleasure. We do not relish the fact that we have to point these out to the minister. I am sure he is painfully aware that one question is riveting the minds of Canadians and I am sure military personnel, particularly the men and women who fly our decrepit Sea Kings that came into effect at the same time as the current Prime Minister in 1963, and currently limit our ability to patrol and ensure the security of both the east and west coasts, and our military presence in the north.

Will it take the Prime Minister's retirement in the year 2004 before the government will finally stop playing silly buggers over this issue and finally order these helicopters, so that men and women in the armed forces are not putting their lives at risk every time they go up and do their duties in 40 year old aircraft? Is that the position of the minister? When can we expect that those helicopters will be ordered and when will we take delivery?

[John McCallum, Liberal, Markham, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have flown in a Sea King and I can assure the hon. member that it is not a safety issue. I know it is deeply imbedded in the culture of the military that it does not allow its people to go up in unsafe equipment. It is true, however, that as the equipment gets older, the proportion of the time that is devoted to maintenance does go up.

In terms of the timing of the new helicopter, as I have said in the House on a number of occasions, this is clearly one of my top priorities. It is not a simple matter. We have received from industry over 1,000 recommendations concerning specification changes. I acknowledge that there has been some slippage but I am determined to get the right helicopter at the lowest possible price as soon as possible.

[Monte Solberg, Canadian Alliance, Medicine Hat, AB]

Mr. Speaker, in the minister's remarks he acknowledged that the Canadian military is not getting adequate funding today. He pointed out that the leadership of the military has acknowledged that, but when will the Prime Minister and the cabinet acknowledge that?

The minister laid out some of the problems today with the Canadian military, as well as applauding some of its efforts. He provided absolutely no strategy for finding resources outside of internal shuffling to address some of the problems he has raised. What is his strategy to get more money at the cabinet table to ensure that Canadian men and women are properly resourced when they are asked to put their lives on the line?

[John McCallum, Liberal, Markham, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have addressed this question several times. I understand that there is a budget coming up and that different ministers will be making different budgetary proposals. I understand that there are many competing demands and priorities. At the end of the day the government will decide which of those priorities to put first, second or third.

I will be making an application and presenting it to cabinet. I will be asking for some additional resources. I will be offering up some internal savings to supplement those new additional resources, but at the end of the day it is the government, at the time of the budget, that will make its budgetary decisions.

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

Mr. Speaker, the Auditor General and defence analysts have suggested that the operations budget of the CF faces severe shortfalls. The minister has agreed that there is a need. He stated it unequivocally when he spoke to the Toronto Board of Trade.

I am sure the minister knows whether or not the members of his cabinet are supporting him or not. Can we get money into the next budget for the military so we can look after not just Sea Kings, submarines and everything else, but ensuring that military personnel have the quality of life they need?

[John McCallum, Liberal, Markham, ON]

Mr. Speaker, with respect to quality of life, I have on a number of occasions paid tribute to my predecessor because he made quality of life of the military his number one priority. Over the five years in which he was in office there were substantial improvements in pay levels, in health care, as I described in my speech, and in many other areas.

That being said, I have acknowledged many times that there are stresses and strains. My predecessor acknowledged it. The military has acknowledged it. As I said in answer to the previous question, I am indeed putting forward an application for new resources and at the end of the day the government will make the decision.

[Monte Solberg, Canadian Alliance, Medicine Hat, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to rise and address the motion today. I will be splitting my time with the member for Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke.

The world is a dangerous place and has been since the beginning of time. Unfortunately I think the Liberal government across the way forgot that. I think at some point it decided that perhaps the United Nations was going to fix everything and that a strong and vital Canadian military was no longer important.

Sadly, that meant that whenever there was any kind of budget crunch the first place the government turned to was the Canadian military. We have seen spending drop like a stone when it comes to providing proper resources to the Canadian military. That is a sad thing for a couple of reasons.

First, the world is a dangerous place. We do need to have a Canadian military that can not only protect the shores of this country but also can fulfill its international obligations and its obligations to our allies to protect them in times of trouble, and sadly we have seen a lot of trouble in the last year. Of course we had 9/11. We had the recent attack Bali in which we lost a couple of Canadians and also over 100 Australians, good friends of ours. We have seen other terrorist attacks around the world, in Yemen, Kuwait and the Philippines.

The world is a very dangerous place and we need to ensure that we start to put resources into our military so that we can prevent the types of disasters that have occurred in those countries. We also need to have credibility when we go out as a country that has been a conscience in the world to some degree. The only way we can do that is to walk softly and carry a big stick. Unfortunately, the government has allowed the military in Canada to diminish to such a degree that I do not think we speak with the same authority that we used to on issues of foreign affairs.

More to the point, it is dangerous to our troops when they are not adequately resourced.Some very specific things have occurred in our past that have put our troops in danger. I remember very well the Canadian Alliance raising in the House the instance in Croatia where a soldier suffered brain damage after a troop carrier rolled over, because we could not afford enough helmets. That is an example of some of the problems we have.

This summer I was privileged to go to Wainwright to engage in training with the PPCLI, the Princess Patricia's Canadian Light Infantry, in anticipation of their going to Bosnia. We went out there and did some weapons training. They told me that the military does not supply them with adequate ammunition to practise with, yet they are asked to go to dangerous places in the world, like Afghanistan, like Bosnia, which is not as dangerous now as it was a while ago, without adequate ammunition to practise with in this case. We know for instance that they did not have proper uniforms when they went to Afghanistan. That is a serious issue. The government tried to brush it off at the time, saying that it was no big deal, but their lives were on the line. It is a serious issue. It is not something that the government can simply brush off.

I am encouraged to hear that the minister is starting to come to the conclusion that maybe there is a problem. First he denied there was a problem and said that people were misguided for raising the issue of lack of adequate resources. A couple of days later he changed his tune. I do not know whether he is confused or is simply coming to his senses. The point is that we cannot just talk about this any more. We have to do something to start to put resources into Canada's military.

I am privileged to have a military base in my riding, CFB Suffield. I admire very much the various commanding officers we have had through that base and what they have tried to do with limited resources. They are very good people. They are outstanding people.

I also get to see the British military train there. As the right hon. member for Calgary Centre said, the British government has put resources into its military, so when Britain stands up on the world stage and says something, people listen. We do not have that in Canada any more. For too long the military has been a whipping boy whenever there is a budget crunch. We see it again and again.

The auditor general points to a $6 billion shortfall in the capital budget. The minister just admitted a few minutes ago that the government took money out of the capital budget to put into quality of life for the soldiers. That is fine. It was, I suppose, well-intentioned, but we are no better off now. We are worse off when it comes to the capital budget, with a $430 million shortfall in the supplementary estimates this year. We are billions short of where we need to be.

Before members on the other side jump up and say that the Canadian Alliance wants to have its cake and eat it too, that it wants tax cuts, that it wants higher spending for health care, let me say that we argue, and I know that my colleague the Minister of National Defence, an economist, knows this, that there is tremendous waste in government. There are things that occur in government that are actually counterproductive to economic growth. I know he acknowledges that in his heart of hearts even if he will not acknowledge it here. That is where the cutting has to occur.

In Canada, where we claim to be concerned about peace, order and good government, we should be putting resources into peace and order but we are not. Right now in Canada military funding is 30% lower than it was in real terms when the government came to power and I can also argue that the world is 100% more dangerous than it was nine years ago when the government came to power. Resources have gone down substantially and then up slightly, to be fair, but they are nowhere near where they need to be. We urge the government to get that message.

I would be remiss if I did not say a word about the reserves. I have the South Alberta Light Horse in my riding. It is a great unit, a great regiment, with a long history. Its ancestry dates back almost 100 years now. In case people do not understand the reserve system, these are people who spend their weekends and many days when they can get away from work in preparing in the event that they are called upon to engage in active duty, but I do not know how many times I have heard about the following from reservists. In one case someone came to me and said he got on the bus to go on a course and was hauled us off the bus and told there was no money for the course. This happens time after time after time.

These people are completely dedicated to the service of their country. There is very little in it for them monetarily. They do it because they believe in their country. When is their country going to believe in them? When is the government going to believe in them? I would like to see it happen. It is time to put some resources into the reserves in Canada for these people who are really committed to this country.

There are so many things that we could talk about. My friend mentioned the Sea Kings. It is a disgrace. With great respect to the minister, his answer does not hold water. We know that Sea Kings fall out of the sky all too frequently because they are too old. After 40 years, they are too old to fix, even with frequent servicing. They are dangerous. They need to be replaced. The government did the country a disservice when it cancelled the EH-101s contract with no plan to provide helicopters to replace them. That was completely wrong.

I have to say a word about rotation. The minister touched on it and good for him, but it is a serious issue. When I spent a week with the soldiers at Wainwright this year, some of the warrants there were going back to Bosnia for the fifth time in 10 years. If they have families and children and are going back for another six month roto, as they call it, for the fifth time in 10 years, that can have devastating effects on their families and it frequently does. It is one of the reasons why we are losing some of our best, most experienced people from the Canadian military.

It is time for the government to recognize the human toll. Apart from just the danger they are put in, the danger that they possibly may face due to lack of resources, there is also a human toll. We have to begin to understand that and start to address it and, I am afraid to say, it can be addressed only by putting adequate resources into the Canadian military. That is not happening.

I know I do not have much time left so in essence I will end where I began when I questioned the minister. I am not certain that the minister has an adequate plan to address this. We know that there are huge demands in the country for all kinds of funding, for health care for instance, and for other high priority items like higher education and those sorts of things. I am not certain that the defence minister has even yet rallied the support in his caucus that is necessary to push the government to put those resources into the Canadian military. My time is up so I will simply say that is the minister's challenge. I hope he will find a way to meet it.

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

Mr. Speaker, I listened with great interest to the member's remarks. I know that he has a base in his riding and I want to just have him expand a little on his comments about our international commitment. I think that right now we have close to 4,000 people involved around the world in various places, in Operation Apollo and also in Bosnia and other areas. With between 3,700 and 4,000 people currently out of the country on operations, we have Aurora aircraft, ships and other commitments around the world. I just wondered about that when the member said we are not meeting our international commitments. I believe we are and I would like to know what more he expects us to be able to do.

I do not want to sound negative, because I think we are all singing from the same songbook. I certainly want to congratulate the member for Saint John for bringing this forward. It is a very opportune time. I think there is a change in the air. We always say in our caucus, particularly those of us who sit on the defence committee, “do not walk by the Minister of Finance without asking him about military spending”. The opposition can also play a role in that. However, I am more interested in just what he feels our international commitment should be.

[Monte Solberg, Canadian Alliance, Medicine Hat, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the question and the tone of the question. Maybe the best way to put this is to say that Canada makes commitments around the world and I think we do a good job. I do not deny that, but my point is that historically Canada was a leader in the world in providing troops to trouble spots and we did more than our share. As a result, we had more than our share of weight when it came to foreign affairs. I think that our reputation has been diminished by our inability to answer the call in the last number of years.

When we do answer the call, what happens is that we get responses like the one we got from the current finance minister and Deputy Prime Minister who says that we are victims of our own success. The finance minister can do that for one year and maybe two years, but he cannot do it for ten or fifteen years without causing morale problems in the Canadian military for people who are deeply committed to their country. They want to do a good job but they cannot continually put their families and their lives at risk knowing that the Canadian government is not prepared to provide them with adequate resources.

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

Mr. Speaker, I commend my friend the hon. member for Medicine Hat on his remarks. I think he has very recent experience, having been on an army base and having done some training and experienced first-hand some of the difficulties and challenges.

I too want to bring this back to some facts and statistics that are important to keep in mind. The hon. member has done a great deal of work on the finance committee and would know that in the period of time since 1993 $7 billion has been taken out of defence spending. He would know that there are 18,000 fewer members of the Canadian armed forces and 10,000 fewer reservists over that same period of time of approximately 10 years.

My colleague the parliamentary secretary asked what more could we do. The Auditor General is saying that the current budgetary allowances are $1.3 billion short in terms of what is actually needed. With 40 year old Sea King helicopters and 30 year old frigates, the equipment itself is putting people at risk. Yet there are also domestic circumstances for which we need to bolster our armed forces. We know what happened with the floods in Manitoba and with the ice storm.

Does the hon. member feel that the current status of the Canadian armed forces is sufficient to perform even the domestic role that is required of the forces, let alone our international obligations?

[Monte Solberg, Canadian Alliance, Medicine Hat, AB]

Mr. Speaker, in a way it is the curse of being a great country like Canada that we need a large military. The land mass of Canada is huge. Not only do we need a vigorous military to ensure we can patrol our borders, which are expansive because we have so much coastline for instance, but we also have natural disasters. The Canadian military has often been called upon to help out during disasters and it always does a fantastic job.

Here is something a lot of people do not realize. When those soldiers helped out in Winnipeg and during the ice storm where did the money come from? It came directly out of the military budget. No money was forthcoming from general revenues to help out. This left the military much less capable to provide proper resources, proper funding for pay and all those kinds of things, at that time to ensure that the military was well looked after in doing its primary job, which was and is to protect the country and fulfil our international obligations.

[Cheryl Gallant, Canadian Alliance, Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON]

Mr. Speaker, as we approach Remembrance Day it is fitting for the House to devote the debate today to the sad neglect of our military, which has become the hallmark of this government's defence policy.

It is indeed sad that the Prime Minister is always quick to take credit for the work of the Canadian men and women who, as members of the Canadian armed forces during peacekeeping missions, clearing snow in Toronto or helping the people of Manitoba during the floods, perform their tasks faithfully and well.

It is the same Prime Minister who refuses to listen to members of his own party, the military, the public and our allies who state that the Canadian military is in crisis.

The federal government has always focused debate on military equipment. It knows that by focusing debate on expensive, new military equipment it can divide the public over the need to modernize the Canadian military. This tactic of divide and conquer has masked the reality of the policy of neglect.

I will focus my remarks on the true casualties of the Liberal government policy to underfund the military, the people. The women and men who work in our military, either in uniform or in the many support roles as civilian defence employees, have been fighting a slow, losing war of attrition that has moved morale to an all time low in our armed forces.

As a member of the Standing Committee on National Defence and Veterans Affairs, on more than one occasion I have listened to witnesses from the government talk about the need to improve the quality of life for Canadian Forces members and their families.

The reality, and I refer to the April 2002 report of the Auditor General, is that the Canadian armed forces has been reduced to some 52,300 trained and effective members, with another 5,300 not yet trained and others on medical leave or retirement leave or were unavailable for administrative or disciplinary reasons. As well, some 3,300 positions at the time of the Auditor General's report were vacant.

Based on those audited numbers, the Auditor General concluded that there were not enough trained and effective personnel in the Canadian armed forces to meet occupational demands with the effective trained strength having dropped eight percentage points in one decade.

What does that mean to the men and women who are currently serving? On any given day approximately 8,000 Canadian Forces members, or one-third of our deployable force, are either preparing for, engaged in or returning from an overseas mission. If one takes the numbers, almost one-half, 45% of our Canadian armed forces are not available for deployment.

Just to demonstrate the way our military is being mismanaged, out of 52,300 members, Canada has 8,500 forces members at Ottawa headquarters with no base to run.

Canada is committed to more and more peacekeeping missions and fewer people are available for deployments. While some forces members have seen five, six or seven overseas missions, we have Canadian Forces members with 15 or 20 years of service who have never been deployed overseas, yet at Ottawa headquarters members still dress in battle fatigues every day and walk to work with a briefcase.

This has placed an almost unbearable strain on serving members who are expected to wade out into the fray of some civil war in some far off country and then come home to life as usual.

What has become abundantly clear to the men and women on the frontlines is that it is not life as usual when they return from an overseas assignment.

In the past, mechanisms existed to support the solider. The regiment looked after its own. That does not happen to the same degree as it did in the past as it is now Liberal policy to dismantle the regimental system.

The base community that once existed is being torn apart by the government policy decision to increase base rents to the point that families are forced off the bases into the general community that in too many cases is not equipped to deal with the special needs of military families, particularly those military families that have to deal with the stress of separation from loved ones for longer and longer periods of time as it takes for those individuals to resume their family life.

Family resource centres on military bases across Canada are reporting increased levels of crisis intervention. Death rates and, more worrisome, suicide rates are skyrocketing as the government buries its head in the sand over the stress and strain it is placing on Canadian Forces members.

It is no secret that since the Princess Patricia's returned from Afghanistan a record number of soldiers have applied to leave the military. This in turn will put increased pressure on those individuals who remain in the service.

The other great tragedy is the push to put Canadian Forces members in unsafe conditions because they do not have the proper equipment to do the job. Unlike the rest of us, if we were placed in an unsafe working condition we could say no. For a member who is serving in the military, saying no is a career decision.

While the Liberal Party makes a political football out of the need to replace the 40 year old Sea King helicopters, we remember Major Bob Henderson, a father of three, and Major Wally Sweetman, who died at the controls of their Sea King helicopter, burned alive after making an emergency landing that saved the lives of the other two crewmen who managed to scramble to safety before they too were engulfed in flames from the burning helicopter.

I will quote from retired Canadian Forces fighter pilot Laurie Hawn who wrote to the Prime Minister last year saying that she hoped for the military's sake that his legacy would not be bloodstained by the loss of loyal air crews in the Sea King during the years they should have been serving us in their new aircraft.

The legacy is also bloodstained with the deaths of Captain Colin Sonoski, who the people in my riding of Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke remember during the time he was stationed at Canadian Forces Petawawa, and Captain Juli-Ann Mackenzie who died piloting a CH-146 Griffon helicopter. They died on the evening of July 18 this year during a search and rescue mission they should have never been called out on.

The Griffon helicopter is basically a commercial helicopter painted green. There are currently 98 Griffons in use in the Canadian armed forces and of that number 9 are being used in search and rescue, primarily as combat assistants.

In the case of the 444 combat squadron, it was to support the allied training program. The two young pilots, Captain Sonoski and Captain Mackenzie were called out because the proper search and rescue helicopters were not available.

Those are just a few of the examples of the policy of neglect that has characterized the Liberal Party's mistreatment of our military and the incredible burden it is placing on the men and women who serve in our military.

In the September 2001 budget, the government announced $396 million to be allocated to the Office of Critical Infrastructure Protection and Emergency Preparedness in response to the tragic events of September 11.

How did the Department of National Defence respond to this influx of cash to DND for this particular purpose of preparing Canadians for emergencies? Did the money go to fulfilling previous promises, some made by the government as recently as 1997 by the previous defence minister to upgrade the Emergency Preparedness College in Arnprior, an institution that had been operating in that community since 1942? No. The first thing to happen was the creation of more bureaucracy and in this case a new associate deputy minister by the name of Margaret Purdy.

What was Margaret Purdy's first act as new associate deputy minister? Arnprior was not good enough, not grand enough for her. She immediately set out to build a bureaucratic empire in Ottawa. For her way of thinking, why not. Let us spend the $396 million on buildings and expense accounts and who knows what else to build an empire.

What about the staff of the college and the people of Arnprior? When was the department was going to let them know about their jobs? They were not going to let them know. Once again a decision was made in which the people at the Department of National Defence are run over roughshod at the expense of the safety and security of all Canadians.

It is not good enough to talk about military issues only in the time that leads up to November 11, Remembrance Day. My wish is that the new Minister of National Defence, a thankless job if ever there was one, will keep faith with those whom we remember on November 11, as well as those who are currently serving as members of Canada's Forces.

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

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate the member for Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke on her speech. Also, having accompanied her to Bosnia, I know she has a great interest in the military. I am glad she finally has seen the light on the spending because it was not that long ago that the former leader of the opposition of her party indicated in Hansard in 1995 that he did not intend to dispute any cuts that were made to the military. His party even went further. The chair of the public accounts committee indicated it wanted to cut a billion from the defence budget in the taxpayers' budget of the party.

I take this opportunity to congratulate the Alliance Party. Obviously its road to Damascus has had many turns. However it now is calling on the government to spend about $9 billion extra on various things and I look forward to its conversion to military spending.

In 1998 the leader of the opposition indicated that he would hold the line on defence spending. I am very pleased that we are now are all singing from the same book. That is wonderful and I want to congratulate the member on her conversion to increasing military spending. Could she tells us how much she thinks the military budget should be increased and for what it should be used?

[Cheryl Gallant, Canadian Alliance, Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is me who must congratulate the parliamentary secretary for defence for seeing the light and becoming converted because along the Canadian Alliance has been demanding more spending on our military.

For several years we said we need an immediate injection of $2 billion, as well as an increase proportional to the gross domestic product. We had that put forth in a report that was unanimously endorsed with the exception of the Bloc. We have yet to see the response from the government and the increases.

I am looking forward to the Minister of National Defence coming to committee with a case presentation and his outline asking specifically for more spending and where it would go.

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

Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague made a very strong case that more funding for the Canadian Forces is long overdue. The Canadian Alliance has been highlighting this issue for years, contrary to what was said earlier. The Alliance is also a very strong proponent of more responsible and effective spending in all areas of government.

Could I hear my colleague's views on the need for better spending in the Department of National Defence?

[Cheryl Gallant, Canadian Alliance, Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON]

Mr. Speaker, there have been many cases of waste and misplaced priorities in the Department of National Defence and I thank my colleague for the opportunity to outline a few of the worst examples.

We start with the two new Challenger jets to fly the Prime Minister and cabinet ministers around. They were paid out of DND funds, even though the department itself advised that there were no problems with the existing aircraft.

Given the difficulty the military has had in keeping its 40-year-old Sea Kings and Hercules transport planes in the air and the problems that have been identified with the CF-18 fleet, the Challenger jet purchase is an example of Liberal ministers putting their own comfort ahead of the safety and effectiveness of Canadians troops. The unnecessary jets are being purchased from where? Bombardier, a huge Liberal donor.

It seems like the Liberals are raiding the military budget for their own political benefit which is shameful. This is part of a trend. The government gave another $65 million to Bombardier in the last two years for pilot training that was never received. It is a 20 year program so obviously something has to be done to ensure that hundreds of millions of dollars more are not wasted over the next 18 years.

This year DND has run up a budget shortfall of $439 million, of which $64 million has been spent on rentals. When we consider that every time the Canadian Forces deploys overseas, or even within Canada in the case of the ice storm and the Red River flood, it has to rent transport aircraft and cargo ships. It makes one wonder whether we would have saved any money if we had purchased the equipment ourselves.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today and comment on the motion moved by our friends in the Progressive Conservative Party and provide the Bloc Quebecois' position. Each time a motion is presented before us, we as legislators must put things in context and ask ourselves about overall priorities.

As legislators we are called to vote on a number of different issues here in the House, including those related to national defence, but also on all of the federal government's responsibilities. In the current context, we are being asked to increase funding for National Defence.

This morning, I was looking at a study done by the Canadian Council on Social Development. According to the study, there has been a dramatic increase in the number of children living in poverty in Canada since 1989. I would like to remind the House that in 1989, the government said it would solve this problem once and for all. In fact, the number of poor children in Canada has risen steadily since 1989. Many people may say that this has nothing to do with the issue that we are discussing today; however, as legislators, we must realize that if we put more money into one area, other areas suffer. This is the kind of choice we must routinely make.

If I were to ask parents of poor families if they thought there was more need for money in the form of transfers to the provinces, rather than for National Defence, I am sure that 90% of them would say, “We want help. We believe that National Defence is less important”. This is what polls indicate.

I do not mean to say that there are not needs at National Defence. I have been the defence critic for two years now, and I am fully aware of the department's needs. However, when it comes to voters—those watching us from home, or listening from work—polling indicates that when we ask them if this spending is necessary, they do not think that it is. Voters would rather we solve the problems with employment insurance and the premiums they have to pay. They do not think they should have to pay so much, but that would mean less money for the government. There are always choices to make.

They are calling for more money, but the cabinet is reticent to give more money for National Defence. I would say to the government that if it stopped interfering in areas of provincial jurisdiction and looked after its own areas of jurisdiction, it would have an easier time finding money.

If we look at this government's interference with the millennium scholarships, and in Quebec, with the Canadian flags, the Minister of Canadian Heritage inundating Quebec Canadian flags, not to mention the sponsorship scandal, there are costs involved. The government is handing out substantial amounts to its friends, especially in Quebec. I think that 70% of the money invested in the sponsorships was designed to convince Quebeckers of how great the federal system is. If the government spent less on invading provincial jurisdictions, and investing it in exclusively federal areas, its own jurisdictions, perhaps we would not need to have this kind of debate here.

Moving to the political component of national defence.The current defence policy has been in place since 1994. The fundamental question we must ask ourselves is: can we afford to do everything? When I say “everything”, the white paper on defence was clear. It mentioned three or four very important missions. I think the international role ought to be maintained. Participating in peacekeeping missions is important, and it is Canada's role to meet such international obligations.

There are many ways of ensuring the defence of this country. The navy defends the country through maritime patrols; the air force defends the country through NORAD and through airspace control over North America. Disaster relief is also very important in this country. I think for example of what happened in the Lac-Saint-Jean area, or in my own riding during the ice storm. We were proud and relieved to see Canadian troops come and lend a hand when we needed them.

But when we look at the overall mission of DND, we can wonder how many more billions would be necessary. I will remind hon. members that in response to a question I put to him last week regarding the use that would be made of the money, the Minister of Defence candidly said he did not know yet what exactly it would be used for.

I agree that there is a lot to do. There are many gaps to plug, because it is true that things are not going well at the Department of National Defence. However, it is a matter of priority.

Where are we going to invest? If we give an additional $2 billion or $3 billion to the Minister of National Defence, where exactly is that money going to go? Where are we going to begin to plug the gaps?

I fully agree that the Department of National Defence does not have enough money. Just think about the navy. At present, and this is no joke, there are ships that cannot put out to sea simply because there is a shortage of seamen. These ships remain in the ports, they cannot leave because there are not enough seamen in the Canadian Navy.

As for the air force, in 1994, the Department of National Defence said that it was important to take part in the defence of Canada's air space. At the time, 120 F-18s were bought. Now, we will be left with 80, because there is not enough money to maintain 120. Worse still, the F-18s that are being mothballed will be cannibalized. This means that some components will be removed from them and installed on other aircraft. As we can see, the air force is also experiencing problems.

Similarly, everyone agrees that the army is also running out of energy. I can personally attest to that, because I had the honour of spending time with the Royal 22nd Regiment last year. I spent time in Bosnia with members of that regiment. This was a unique opportunity to talk to soldiers and officers. These people are running out of energy. They leave on far away missions, for long periods of time. The core of the issue is the frequency of these postings.

From 1960 to 1980, I believe there were about 20 international missions. Since then, there have been close to 80. These people are sent abroad for six months, they come back home for a short period of time and then they are sent back again, often on a peacekeeping mission or on a more aggressive operation, such as the one in Afghanistan. So, it is obvious that the army also has a problem.

Lastly, the demand is virtually endless. The Americans invest some $400 billion yearly in defence, while Canada, a country ten times smaller, invests some $11.8 billion. Proportionately speaking, the equivalent for Canada might be $40 billion for National Defence. Obviously, however, public opinion might well be opposed to that. A jump from $11.8 billion to $40 billion is barely feasible; it would mean close to 25% of the budget for National Defence. That is absolutely impossible.

Some policy decisions will have to be made, therefore. At the moment, the government is being faulted for making policy choices on a case by case basis. When some disaster arises and some need absolutely has to be met, then the reaction is “we'll put some money there” and then then they shuffle the financial deck again at National Defence, with its $11.8 billion budget.

We feel that this ad hoc method can no longer be continued, because it is a bottomless pit. Before investing any more money, Quebeckers and Canadians need to be asked what they expect of the army. In the end, it is the taxpayers who decide. It is not up to the member for Saint John, the member for Halifax, or the member for Calgary East. Nor is it up to the Minister of National Defence alone.

It must be understood, once and for all, that in a democratic system the citizen is the one who pays the bills. It is the people working today, those who see on their cheque stubs on a Friday that they have paid so many hundreds or thousands to the government. They are the ones to decide what kind of army they want in Canada.

The government, however, has a responsibility to tell them “This is how we see it” and to submit various scenarios to them. The public can then react and say “We, as taxpayers, think that makes sense.” This is not often done. The only things the taxpayer sees written up in the newspapers are scandals.

Speaking of scandals, I would invite the minister to exercise greater control over his department. There are scandals. This morning, we learned that $8.5 million was spent to send submariners to England to learn how to operate submarines.

As for those submarines, that is a whole other matter. We purchased old British submarines. Personally, I do not believe that Victoria class submarines can be considered the latest. These are old British submarines and we have had all sorts of problems with them. Every time they go out to sea, they have to come back to dry dock for repairs.

We may wonder, with respect to a new National Defence policy, if we need submarines. This is a significant expense for the department. The problem is that decisions are being made based on the white paper from 1994, and a great deal has changed in the past 8 years, particularly since the events of September 11.

Everything has changed. Even the Canadian army's special forces are evolving, which was not the case in 1994, because they did not yet exist back then. They did exist, but very minimally. In 1994, Canada's armed forces were viewed quite differently from the way they should be viewed today. For these reasons, I wonder if we really should be proceeding on a case by case basis.

There is also the whole debate about specialization. This is something that is even being debated at NATO. I will be accompanying the minister to Prague in two weeks, and I thank him for the opportunity. Clearly we cannot ask Lithuania or Estonia, which are small countries, to make as big a contribution as the United States, whose NATO contribution exceeds everyone else's. We cannot ask that of them.

More and more people are asking, “Could we not specialize”? Similarly, we could ask ourselves this legitimate question in Canada. Could we not specialize in certain areas?

There are many options and, unfortunately, decisions are made on a case by case basis. When something happens, we say, “We must invest here, so let us cut there”. But, if Canadian voters had a choice, it should be the government's legitimate choice. The government should listen to the taxpayers and challenge the idea that the Canadian Forces must do everything. Do we need this many ships to patrol three oceans? Do we need submarines capable of patrolling under the polar ice cap? We must not forget this is what they will used for as well. Do the Canadian Forces still need tanks? Will there ever be another war in which Russian tanks will face American and Canadian tanks? We could ask ourselves this kind of questions.

The military doctrine has changed. Many things have changed. Do we still need as many F-18s to patrol Canadian airspace and North American airspace? These are questions we must ask ourselves. There may be many people who disagree with the minister.

As regards the army—and this is very good for that force—people have a great deal of respect for what we call peacekeeping missions. They are somewhat less impressed by aggressive missions, such as in Afghanistan. There is unquestionably a sense of pride, and if we ask these troops to take part in an aggressive mission, they will certainly do so. It is their job. They are capable of doing it, even though their turn comes again very quickly.

As regards peacekeeping missions, most Canadians agree that this is one of our areas of specialization, even though Canada may now rank 30 in terms of what we contribute to such missions.

However, Canadians, and particularly Quebeckers, are much more peaceful and they have no problems with peacekeeping missions. They would be prepared to say “We will regularly take part in peacekeeping missions”. This is one type of specialization. This may require a reallocation of resources from one area to another. It may also require a budget increase.

If the government explains very clearly to voters the reason why it is asking for a budget increase, and if it is for a legitimate reason and the public agrees, then the minister could legally and legitimately go forward. However, this is not what is happening. The government is using a piecemeal approach. If we must send troops to Iraq tomorrow, resources may be taken from elsewhere, as was done in the past, including from fixed assets or future projects.

I want to go back to another very important example. I am referring to Sea King helicopters. As regards replacement, they actually made two calls for tenders: one for the platform and one for the integrated system. For the benefit of those who are listening to us on television, it is as if one said “I will order a Chrysler, but I will put a Ford system in it”.

According to current studies, this will cost $400 million more and a number of companies say they are not sure it will work. Certain things that have happened within the department as a result need looking carefully into by the minister.

I have already referred to the $8.5 million for the people to learn about submarine operation in England. Then there is the $400 million for helicopters, and I am sure there are other places at DND where the minister could put things in order a bit.

Before getting involved in any kind of injection of cash, it is important that the House of Commons form some idea of what the voters want. Once choices have been made, the government will be able to say what the cost will be and how it will move its money around in order to respect the public's wishes. That is how things need to be looked at. It is up to the public to decide what kind of society they want to have.

The conclusion, in my opinion, is obvious. If the 200,000 families living in poverty were asked whether they agreed with investing in the armed forces, or would rather see transfer payments to the provinces make their lives easier, I think they would opt for the latter.

The government will have the very weighty responsibility of submitting things to the taxpayers that will gain their approval, and get them saying “Yes, I agree with paying for that”. After, when the government goes ahead, the taxpayers' reaction will be “We got value for money, and we are very pleased. That is what we want our army to be like”.

Certainly, the government will have to make some strong arguments. Like it or not, national defence is not high on people's list of priorities. If the government wants to improve that, it will have to explain the kind of army it wants, listen to the public, and then take steps to ensure that those views are reflected in what it does with the Canadian Forces.

I will be pleased to respond to questions from my colleagues. I trust that I have made a worthwhile contribution to this debate.

[André Harvey, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport]

Mr. Speaker, allow me to begin by thanking my hon. colleague from the Bloc Quebecois for his remarks. I think he touched on a number of things that are absolutely true. He said, among other things, that everyone in every sector is asking for more money. I agree with him on that. Unfortunately, the way representations are made verges on demagoguery at times and is not always truthful.

To illustrate this point, at present, there is an ad campaign across the country, including in Quebec, naturally. It has been going on for several months. This campaign deals with health care needs. Its purpose is to demand funding for health care from the Canadian government. This obviously concerns everyone. But these ads state that the federal government is putting in only 14 cents on every dollar. The truth is more like 40 cents.

The hon. member was quite right in what he said about the defence sector. There is much talk about rationalizing health care. We are told that, before reinvesting massively, it might be a good idea to go through a rationalization process, to take a closer look at how things are being managed. There are other sectors where the figures and the demands do not always match. References were made to fiscal imbalance.

With regards to the Canadian federation and the Canadian government, I think that most provinces benefit from belonging to the country. This is the case for all of the provinces; it is true for Quebec. We receive several billion dollars as a result of our investment in the federation. This is because the federal framework benefits all of the provinces, but to various degrees.

Other demands are being made. Among them, there is the issue of parental leave. There are provinces, Quebec in particular, who want money. They received it in the area of labour training. They asked to take over this area for 30 years. Five years ago, labour training was transferred. The federal government gives Quebec $600 million per year, and we receive a great many complaints.

By and large, I believe that my colleague is right when he says that we need to look into what the Canadian forces should be doing.

I would like to ask him if he is aware that our Minister of National Defence, to whom I tip my hat, is already taking part in consultations through a variety of mechanisms, including a special one on the web site? There are also consultations with a number of major stakeholders here in Canada. That is my question.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his question. I do not want to spend too much time discussing with him the issue of health and parental leave, because I do not share his opinion, and nor do all the members of the Quebec National Assembly and all the provinces of Canada, since they all feel that there is a fiscal imbalance.

However, as regards the last part of his question on a consultation process by the Department of National Defence, I am aware of the existence of a web site and of the fact that the minister will surely consult. He said it earlier. He talked about experts who may be able to tell him how to proceed. But, as far as I am concerned, that is not the issue.

The web site is not accessible by all. There is no one who will go home this evening after having worked all day in a small business and will sit in front of a computer, key in the words “National Defence” and then write “I have something to say about National Defence”. A much broader debate than that is needed.

The government should get the input of the taxpayer, of the person who is working for a small company and sees this evening that there is a broad consultation on National Defence. He will know that he can have a say. This is what we are interested in: broad consultations, not narrow ones on the Internet in the evening, or behind closed doors with military personnel or National Defence experts. Personally, I think that taxpayers should have a say in this.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to compliment the Minister of National Defence for going public in Toronto saying that we need more money. I am surprised at the comments of my colleague from the Bloc. I am sure the people from Quebec, particularly those who are in the shipbuilding business at MIL Davie, and from our shipyard in Saint John and Halifax who build ships for our navy would like to work again. When one talks about being in poverty, the 4,000 men, who worked at my shipyard, are part and parcel of the poverty of today.

I am really shocked at what I am hearing today. When it comes the military, as I stated earlier today, those men and women in uniform cannot come here with placards like everyone else, no matter what the subject. They expect their elected members of Parliament to speak out for them.

When it comes to the replacement of the Sea Kings, does the hon. member think that people did not lose their lives? A pilot from outside my city lost his life in a Sea King. His father came to me and said, “Please get some new helicopters for our people. Give them the tools to do their job”.

How could a member of our defence committee not be in favour of giving more money to our military? It is a number one urgent matter right now with what happened on September 11. If those attacks ever come to Canada, he will have a difficult time answering those questions.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am surprised to see that the hon. member is not aware of the recently tabled National Defence report.

My opinion, the Bloc Quebecois dissenting opinion, is part of that report. What I have taken great pains to try to explain in the past 20 minutes is pretty well what is contained in the dissenting portion of that report.

The hon. member is illustrating how National Defence operates. The hon. member for Halifax wants naval shipyards, wants to see all Canadian vessels built at Saint John. Another member, who has aircraft operations in his riding, will be wanting to have all aircraft built and repaired in that riding. Then there is the gentleman from Shearwater, who will be asking for the landing strip there to be maintained.

That is why I am insisting this needs to be taken beyond the House of Commons. That is why the voters need to have a chance to say “Here is what we want”. Then we will move on from there. It has nothing to do with the personal and political interests of individual members of this House.

[Cheryl Gallant, Canadian Alliance, Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank our hon. colleague from the Bloc. He has been consistent in the Standing Committee on National Defence and Veterans Affairs and I thank him for working together on that.

My question for the hon. member has to do with supply chain. I would be interested in hearing how our budget deliberations and what the minister has said recently fit into his position on the supply chain issue.