House of Commons Hansard #21 of the 37th Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was budget.

Topics

SupplyGovernment Orders

4:45 p.m.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair)

The hon. member for Edmonton North.

SupplyGovernment Orders

4:45 p.m.

Canadian Alliance

Deborah Grey Canadian Alliance Edmonton North, AB

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the interlude from the parliamentary secretary. I stated earlier something that the defence committee chairman mentioned, and I should have referred to him as the chairman of that committee.

I appreciate that someone from small town Ontario trained at Cold Lake and ended up being the best. That is good news. I congratulate the fellow who won the contest. I spent an hour in a CF-18 in June 1993 with an excellent pilot. There are fabulous people in the military.

The point that the parliamentary secretary and the entire government needs to understand is that these people are terrific in spite of the government, not because of it. Think how much better they could be if they were not nervous about flying, sailing or driving in some of this overly elderly equipment.

The member talked about writing up a completely new, watered down version of a self-congratulating motion saying we are wonderful. There are serious problems with that. The motion brought forward today is not a recommendation to give ourselves a pat on the back and see what else we can do. It is a strong condemnation or sense of concern about what in the world the government is doing. To say that someone talked to two military people and everything is tickety-boo is simply not the case. Members on the government side have bases in their ridings and they know what an unbelievable frustration this is for military personnel.

There are 58,000 people in the military right now and it is hopelessly undermanned. The Grey Cup will be held in Edmonton at Commonwealth Stadium on Sunday, November 24. The entire military could fit in Commonwealth Stadium leaving thousands of empty seats. There is seating there for about 63,000 people. With our land mass and our shoreline that needs to be protected, and our sovereignty that we talk about, our military would fit inside Commonwealth Stadium. Using that analogy alone tells me that our military is not big enough.

This member should realize that the government should not be patting itself on the back with this kind of amendment it wants to put forward to replace today's opposition motion. When we are that seriously undermanned, underfunded, overdeployed, and have increasing numbers of missions and decreasing amounts of money, then something is seriously wrong. I recommend that the parliamentary secretary go back to the drawing board and see if he can come up with something that is not quite so self-congratulatory.

SupplyGovernment Orders

4:50 p.m.

Canadian Alliance

Keith Martin Canadian Alliance Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to speak to the motion today. This issue is exceedingly important for my riding of Esquimalt--Juan de Fuca because CFB Esquimalt is in my riding.

Some would say that to invest in our military is passé, that it is obsolete, that it is something we do not need because we as a country are firmly in favour of peace and security. Some would say that we should be investing that money in a so-called peace dividend, to invest in economic rehabilitation and the improvement and security of peace in countries far away.

The fact is that sometimes a military is absolutely needed in order to secure peace. Those who would believe that we do not need a military somehow believe in the fantasy that the milk of human kindness flows through the veins of people throughout the world. Those who believe that are ignoring history for there are some very nasty despots around the world who would kill and maim innocent civilians, and indeed would attack Canadians if they had the chance.

Those who believe we are not in danger or that there is not a threat to Canadians because we are “not Americans”, are hopelessly naive. The bombing in Bali is ample evidence to show that these days the world is a more dangerous place than what existed during the cold war. Many of the potential conflicts were being held in a pressure cooker but with the termination of the cold war, the lid is off and the conflicts are happening.

We see terrorism in the Philippines, through the Indonesian archipelago, the Indian subcontinent, through Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia, which in my view is the most unstable area of the Middle East with the exception of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, right through to North Africa. There is a very unstable arch going around more than half the globe which can threaten us here at home. We saw what happened in the United States. Two individuals with one rifle wreaked havoc in the centre of power of the greatest country on the planet.

Our military is an institution of which we can all be very proud for what it has done and what it will do in the future. It is also essential for the security of all Canadians at home and abroad. Our respect and ability to negotiate on issues, whether they are economic, security or defence issues, are rooted in part in our ability to have a strong, functional, well-trained military that is able to do its part in the complex threats posed around the world.

We also need a military that is able to deal with domestic problems. My colleague from Edmonton and others in the House have eloquently mentioned the problems faced by our armed forces but more discussion is needed on some things that need to be recognized.

Among our NATO partners the average spending is about 2.2% of GDP. We spend 1.1%. That puts us second to the bottom of all our NATO partners. The government would have us believe it is reinvesting in our military and it is, but how much is it investing? How much of it is going to get the military up to speed so that its personnel are well-trained, highly committed and dedicated individuals? They are having a very difficult time doing job that they have been asked to do. They need the financial support, the tools and the training to do the job and they have not been getting that from the government since it was elected in 1993.

The proof of the pudding is quite stark. It is something about which we should all be concerned and embarrassed.

When the government was elected in 1993 there were 88,000 personnel in our armed forces. Now there are 57,000, even less than what it believes is the basic minimum of 60,000. Our party believes that the number should go up to a minimum of 67,000.

As my colleague from Edmonton eloquently said, we cannot keep our armed forces personnel, particularly those in the army and navy, going around and around in the cycle without an opportunity for them to rest and spend time with their families. They have been cycled so rapidly it is having a very devastating effect on their families, on their own personal lives and on their psyches. They are strained beyond the maximum.

In her report the Auditor General said that capital expenditures for the military will have a shortfall of $46 billion over the next five to 10 years and up to a massive $11 billion in the next 15 years. That is a huge amount of money. The government said it is putting in $5.1 billion which is true, but that is spread over five years. In the end when we analyze it, only about $750 million, almost nothing, will go toward supplies, equipment and training. Supplies, equipment and training are essential.

The public would be shocked to learn that we cannot meet our domestic obligations if there is a threat, a problem or a domestic emergency in Canada. We do not have the basic personnel to meet a domestic emergency, such as an earthquake on the west coast. We cannot allow that to continue. We cannot allow the government to maintain the fantasy and pull the wool over the eyes of the Canadian public by somehow saying that Canadians are secure because our military has the personnel, the tools, the equipment and the training to do the job. It cannot.

For example, our army has not trained since the early 1990s at its minimum amount, which is one battalion strength. There has not been one full training operation in the last 10 years for our military. Not only is that appalling, it is absolutely dangerous.

I represent a naval base in my riding. We desperately need six destroyers over the next five to 10 years. There are no plans to replace the destroyers. This dramatically affects our ability to send our forces abroad and as important, it affects our ability to meet our requirements with our international partners in NATO. It also weakens our ability to negotiate with our colleagues south of the border, which we Canadians should never allow to deteriorate.

With respect to our navy, for the last nine years we have been asking where are the helicopters? Without the helicopters our frigates cannot do the job they have been tasked to do. Their operational effectiveness has been severely hampered.

With respect to our air force, our CF-18s urgently need updates to their weaponry and their communications capabilities. That has not happened.

On a related issue, how has the government treated our armed forces? It gave our armed forces personnel a raise, but what it did not tell the Canadian public is that it ripped that raise away by raising the rents on the private married quarters. That is disgusting. Imagine sending our troops out to war then taking money away from them. The amount is $69 a month, about $840 a year. That may not seem like a lot of money to some people, but for someone making $35,000 a year, it is an awful lot.

In my riding families spend between $750 to $1,800 per month for the rent on their private married quarters. The government wants to raise the rents even more. It is doing this with the ludicrous notion of equating the private married quarters to what exists on the outside. That argument is flawed on two grounds. One, our personnel are not paid the same as the public sector and two, there is no equivalence of homes.

In closing, if the government does not reinvest in our military now and acutely invest $1.5 billion to $2 billion per year over the next two years, it will be doing a huge disservice to our men and women in uniform who try so very hard to do their job professionally. It will also do a huge disservice to the security of Canada. It will also gut our ability to negotiate with our partners internationally. If we go to the table without paying the piper, we will not have the credibility, whether it is on economic issues, military issues, defence issues or security issues.

Wake up Government of Canada, smell the roses, invest in the Canadian military because it is here for all of us. We owe that to the military at the very least.

SupplyGovernment Orders

5 p.m.

Haliburton—Victoria—Brock Ontario

Liberal

John O'Reilly LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence

Mr. Speaker, I was in the riding of the member for Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca on Thanksgiving Day to welcome back the HMCS Algonquin . The week before I was in Halifax to say goodbye to the HMCS Montreal . Believe me, it is quite a different scene when they are coming back from when they are going out.

To a person, I found very proud, very bright people who had served their country for over six months at sea and were coming back from Operation Apollo. They had been the first ones to capture al-Qaeda. They showed that Canada is playing in the big leagues, making a major contribution in trying to put out the terrorist movement. In fact they had 19 such hails, as they call them, and did a terrific job.

I was disappointed that the member was somewhere else at the time. He and the member for Saanich--Gulf Islands probably should have been there to see how happy people were who were coming into their ridings. I will say that the people out there spoke very highly of the member and said that he generally is at the events and does represent them, so I did not mean that as a slight. It was quite a scene to see people coming back to the beautiful area of Esquimalt--Juan de Fuca and seeing their happiness and pride in what they have done. I know the member can comment on the pride that is felt because he represents the base.

SupplyGovernment Orders

5 p.m.

Canadian Alliance

Keith Martin Canadian Alliance Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC

Mr. Speaker, there is no question of the pride and the professionalism of the men and women in our military. It is fair to say that the members of our armed forces and their families have given more to Canada than what Canada has given to them, or more specifically, what the government has given to them. That is why we are here today debating the motion put forward by the Progressive Conservative Party. We strongly support the motion, the essence and material of which we have been fighting for since we got here in 1993.

My hon. friend from the government correctly mentioned that I am at most of the events in my riding, including when ships arrive or leave. The message that is continually made time and time again is, “Give us the tools to do the job we are being asked to do”. For a long time the Prime Minister has been making foreign policy obligations without funding our forces to do the job.

We need a combined foreign affairs and defence white paper, done in unison along the lines of what the Australians did. To do a foreign policy white paper and a defence white paper in isolation would be utterly absurd. They have to be done in lockstep so that our military has the tools, finances and the personnel to do the job they are asked to do based upon our foreign policy dictates.

I would ask the hon. government member to tell that to his foreign affairs minister, and more important, the Prime Minister. The government has to get with the program and fund the shortfall beyond what the military needs today, which is $1.5 billion to $2 billion every year for the next five years. That will enable members of the forces to do the jobs they are being asked to do, and will enable them to be secure in those dangerous tasks abroad.

SupplyGovernment Orders

5:05 p.m.

Canadian Alliance

Larry Spencer Canadian Alliance Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, SK

Mr. Speaker, very recently I talked to Captain Truelove of the HMCS Regina , which I believe is now docked in Esquimalt--Juan de Fuca preparing to leave for the gulf area very shortly. I said to him, “I understand from the Liberal government that your naval operations are very well funded”. He immediately let me know that he had a lot to say about that, and that it was not true.

The Liberal government continually criticizes the Alliance for promoting cooperation with the United States and for seeking greater and stronger funding for the military, yet it talks about us, in reference to the U.S., weakening our sovereignty. Sovereignty requires a certain ability to guard and protect one's own borders.

Does the member think that a strong military will support, strengthen or weaken our own sovereignty? Is it important to sovereignty?

SupplyGovernment Orders

5:05 p.m.

Canadian Alliance

Keith Martin Canadian Alliance Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC

Mr. Speaker, obviously having a strong defence force is absolutely congruent and essential for maintaining our sovereignty. The three areas, the navy, the army and the air force have to have the funds to do the job. In fact, Jane's Defence Weekly , the Auditor General, the Senate report, the Canadian Alliance, virtually all opposition parties and even the government's own defence minister as well as the chair of the defence committee on the government side have said that we need to fund our military urgently and acutely. If we do that, we will secure our sovereignty in a better way. If we do not, our sovereignty will be deeply compromised, as it is today.

SupplyGovernment Orders

5:05 p.m.

Haliburton—Victoria—Brock Ontario

Liberal

John O'Reilly LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence

Mr. Speaker, I want to take this opportunity to thank the member for Saint John who brought forward this motion. I am sorry that the opposition cannot get together and support a motion for which every one of us could vote. It sounds like it is one word from “condemn” to “encourage”, but I guess we will have to live with that.

I welcome the opportunity to discuss the Canadian Forces. As members of the House will know, the Minister of National Defence has worked over the last five months to foster a public dialogue on defence issues. He has been very frank about the challenges, including the financial challenges, facing our military.

These issues need to be part of the public discussion. They are too important to ignore. That is why I am pleased to take part in the debate.

At the same time, it is important that any discussion of the sustainability of the Canadian Forces also recognizes its many achievements, both in Canada and internationally. I have nothing but the highest respect for the Canadian Forces. I have seen it in action both at home and abroad. I have seen it in Kosovo with you, Mr. Speaker, in Bosnia and in Macedonia and have witnessed it tremendous dedication. Our men and women in uniform have shown commitment and determination in the face of many dangers and under very difficult circumstances. They deserve the respect of all Canadians.

Right now a substantial number of Canadian personnel are serving in and around Afghanistan, as part of Operation Apollo. They have received glowing praises from their allies, including American military leaders, who recognize their professionalism, skills and their experience.

Recently the government decided not to rotate more ground troops in Afghanistan. In my opinion, the decision is a good one. It helps reduce the overstretching of the Canadian Forces and it gives some of our men and women in uniform a chance for a much deserved leave and to focus on essential training requirements.

Despite the departure of the Canadian battle group, Canada is still making a significant contribution to the campaign against terrorism. Our naval and air force personnel continue to play an important role in the campaign. The men and women who are serving on this mission have shown us that their resolve has not faltered. They remain committed to combating terrorism. If we think about our peacekeeping role, and sometimes it is peace making, we have a sizeable number of troops in Bosnia as part of Operation Palladium.

Last year I had the opportunity to visit the troops in the Balkans and I can state they are doing an excellent job. They are helping to create a safe environment so that people of Bosnia can return to their homes and begin rebuilding their lives.

As my hon. colleague has mentioned, the work of the Canadian Forces is not limited to international operations. On the domestic front, Canadian Forces have helped to ensure continental security, through Norad, and the expanded anti-terrorism unit, the JTF2, is helping Canada to meet its commitment to fighting terrorism at home and abroad.

The government has a strong commitment to the men and women who serve Canada. Putting people first has been a key phrase for defence and a great deal of progress has been made in this area in recent years.

I am proud to be a member of the Standing Committee on National Defence and Veterans Affairs and to have played a role in framing the committee's 1999 quality of life report. I am also pleased to see that the government has put most of the committee's recommendations into action. I salute the member for York Centre, the former minister of national defence, for having the strength of character to do that.

Other recommendations are in progress and some are in the process of being implemented. They include improved housing, health care and benefits. In fact more than $100 million has been invested in upgrading military housing alone.

Defence has recognized the need to support members in the face of an increased number of deployments. As the minister noted, there have been many new initiatives to help members of the Canadian Forces and their families deal with stress related challenges.

Pay increases are another component of the department's effort to put people first. Just a few months ago, the government announced pay increases of 4% for non-commissioned members and 4.5% for general service officers, pilots, medical and dental staff. Qualify of life will remain a key priority for defence, and rightly so. Our men and women in uniform deserve nothing less.

The motion before the House talks about military spending. As the minister said, increases in defence spending between fiscal years 2001-02 and 2006-07 will total more than $5 billion. These increases include those in the December budget, which allocated $7.7 billion across departments over five years to fight terrorism and reinforce public security.

Defence has made some key investments in sophisticated new equipment. A fine example is Canada's new search and rescue helicopter. The Cormorant is a powerful craft with long range capabilities and a large load carrying capacity. It will help make the Canadian Forces one of the most effective air search and rescue organizations in the world. Yes, I have flown in one. It is a very quiet and efficient vehicle which I found to be very state of the art. The people training on the Cormorants right now are highly efficient.

The LAV III light armoured vehicles and our Coyote reconnaissance vehicles are two further examples of impressive new equipment made in London, Ontario. The department is also upgrading existing equipment. The modernization program for the CF-18 aircraft involves 17 individual upgrades, including the installation of state of the art mission computers. This cost is approximately $2.5 billion. Similarly, the incremental modernization project for the Aurora will replace its radar and the other on-board systems with the latest technology at a cost of approximately $1.4 billion.

Finally, defence is also in the process of modifying two of its Airbus aircraft to be strategic air to air refuellers. Once this work is done, they will be able to deploy anywhere in the world to refuel our fighter aircraft. That is an impressive list of equipment purchase and upgrades. Obviously in the current security environment the focus will have to remain on modernization.

It is important to recognize that the future sustainability of the Canadian Forces depends not just on government funding but also on the structure of the forces themselves. It is important to provide strategic investments where they are most needed and at the same time identify areas within the existing structure where changes can be made to improve efficiency and free up resources. The motion before us today does not recognize this point.

The minister has made it clear that he is looking for efficiencies in the system. As the minister himself has acknowledged, he has been asking tough questions, such as whether certain capabilities are still required. The Department of National Defence had adopted modern resource management techniques. The government's goal is to ensure that Canadian taxpayers have good value for their money. Through the government's efforts, the Canadian Forces has remained multi-purpose, combat capable and able to meet the challenges of an increasing complex security environment. More money will be needed in the future. Of that there can be no doubt.

The motion before the House does not recognize the important steps that the government has taken to improve the quality of life for the Canadian Forces. It does not recognize the government's continuing efforts to modernize our military equipment so that Canadian Forces has the tools it needs to get the job done. It also does not recognize the importance of internal restructuring and the government's efforts to make the Canadian Forces sustainable in the future.

When I travelled with the military I had a great experience. I was a former cadet and a former member of the reserves, which gives me no expertise whatsoever in military affairs but it did provide me with a couple of boot camp experiences and some idea of what happens to the men and women of the forces. Both units that I trained with and operated at many years ago were in the reserve area, so they left our area quite a while ago.

I managed to deal with the awards banquet in Halifax recently for the search and rescue people. That involves many people right across Canada from all areas of search and rescue, not just the military. The winner was Irish and I presented an award to him. He has been with search and rescue through the military side of it for many years and has contributed greatly.

I think it was with great pride that the Ontario Provincial Police were there. The competition is returning to Ontario and next year it will be held in Kingston. Everyone here should take advantage of that. They put on visual displays and certainly show a different side of a branch of the military that we do not recognize.

The next weekend I was back in Halifax to watch the departure of the HMCS Montreal which has become our flagship in the Arabian Sea. Although families were upset to see their loved ones going away, there was a great pride that they were doing something to address terrorism and to make sure Canada played its part on the national scene. I saw the same pride two weekends later when I, on behalf of the minister, welcomed back the HMCS Algonquin to the port of Juan de Fuca on Thanksgiving Day. I must tell the House that it was a different atmosphere. As one sailor said to me “I am a sailor and when I am on the boat I want to get away from the docks so I can sail. And when my mission is finished I want to come back to the dock and spend time with my family”.

Our reduction in our policy, not our government's policy, but certainly a recommendation of the military, was that we not rotate troops back into Afghanistan as a battle group. The reason for that could be argued over many vinyl tables and in many Legions. The fact of the matter is that they felt it was too long a stretch. When people are on their tenth rotation in places like Bosnia, when we look at the number of people who are being deployed on a regular basis to different places in the world on behalf of Canada and on behalf of peacekeeping and peacemaking, I think it was the right decision.

There was a battle group ready to go but, as some people know, they were disappointed not to be going. Not all the men and women were disappointed. Certainly some of them preferred to stay at home, but they are soldiers and they want to serve. They are air people and they want to fly. They are navy people and they want to sail. They joined the military to do that.

It is that pride, that esprit de corps that exists. People will overlook some things but they will not overlook the major things. I encourage all parties to ask for more money. Do not walk by the Minister of Finance without bumping into him and telling him that the military needs more money. We did that with the previous minister and it worked three times. We will certainly do it as part of the defence committee and as part of my job as parliamentary secretary to make sure that the military gets the necessary money it needs to operate efficiently, effectively and to maintain that pride and that spirit.

When we look at the equipment that is being replaced, the government has certainly done a few things right. It purchased 15 search and rescue helicopters, as was mentioned earlier. They are now coming on stream and doing a very efficient job. Some of them are still experiencing the odd bit of technical difficulty which can happen with any new vehicle. I bought a new car once and had it towed into the garage three times the first week. I know what happens when the computers do not work or something minor happens. Now I only buy used cars.

The government purchased 651 high tech armoured personnel carriers. We have seen these personnel carriers in action and they are state of the art. They all have night vision equipment on them. They have the ability to go places where other vehicles cannot. They usually are six wheeled and not the old tracked type vehicles. They tend to run in difficult areas and can even survive certain landmines. In Bosnia one of them drove over a landmine and one wheel was blown off. Someone put up with a lot of loud noise and some damage to their eardrums but they were not killed. The vehicles are state of the art and they are not square. They have tapered sides so that glass is scattered in different ways. They do have a much more rapid deployment and more capabilities than the vehicles we used before.

We also have 203 state of the art Coyote armoured reconnaissance vehicles which can get places in a hurry. In fact when one of the American helicopters went down in Afghanistan the only vehicle that could get there to protect it from being raided was one of our vehicles. These are things we do not talk about, but we do have professional, well trained people with good equipment.

I received letters from Americans who served in Afghanistan thanking me for the professionalism of Canadians. The Americans indicated that they were not that well trained and that a lot of them were very new. They go into the American army, stay for a short period of time because they have to or want to, and then they go right out of it again. A lot of them are not very well trained and they recognize the professionalism of the Canadian military.

The new project improved the kit of the soldier. The state of the art uniforms that were issued have a different type of reflective material that causes a pattern disruption, are very hard to identify at night and certainly very hard to identify on radar so that they are less of a target than others. They have better communications systems. That particular program is very successful within the military.

The modernization of the CF-18 is a huge undertaking. It changes the face of the CF-18s. It makes them superior to the American CF-18s. A lot of the American CF-18s, such as the Hornet aircraft, fly off aircraft carriers. Their wings fold up and that sort of thing. Ours are fixed wing, state of the art and very fast. Now that they have detection devices which are compatible with the Americans, they are superior to the Americans in most areas.

Not too much can be said about the Aurora maritime patrol aircraft. Once again it is an upgrade that makes it capable of flying farther and detecting better. It can operate 24 hours a day, seven days a week in protecting our coastlines, which are considerably lengthy.

The acquisition process was just signed to replace the 663 light utility vehicles, the small Jeep-type vehicles that have passed their time. They are 17 years old and were due to be replaced. The minister has made some moves that way and I think they have been the right moves. I want to reiterate that in the budgets of 1999, 2000 and 2001 there were significant increases in defence spending. I recognize that it is never enough, as everyone has said today, but we want to make sure, as a government and as members of Parliament, whether in opposition or on the government side, that we live up to the promises made to the over 3,000 men and women who are deployed abroad right now proudly fulfilling Canada's commitment to global peace and security.

Maybe in some of that discussion, we should take a hard look at our peacekeeping role, our peacemaking role and our going to war role. The Minister of National Defence is not afraid to ask questions. I think he may have opened a hornet's nest when he asked someone in discussing the cost of tanks why we needed tanks. There was a bit of a stir throughout the defence community because it caused people to ask questions. I think the minister will be asking a lot more questions.

He was pretty bold in his speech. I must say that his speech was well timed. The title was “A Time for Choices”. We, as a government, are at a time for choices. People here who represent their constituents, particularly people who have bases in their areas, should think about those choices and make sure they work in the best interests of the Canadian Forces.

I do not want anyone to think that I am satisfied with the money in the budget for the Canadian Forces to perform its duty. I am not. I would like to see more.

SupplyGovernment Orders

5:25 p.m.

Canadian Alliance

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

Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest to the parliamentary secretary and I have listened on and off all day to the various members.

Would the hon. member not concede that training is required today for the armed forces, particularly with what we expect in the way of long, drawn out terrorist attacks around the world? What are we doing to combat that type of warfare? I know it is very difficult but is there any special emphasis now on the Canadian armed forces to deal with terrorism as such?

SupplyGovernment Orders

5:25 p.m.

Liberal

John O'Reilly Liberal Haliburton—Victoria—Brock, ON

Mr. Speaker, the emphasis in the last budget after the events of September 11, of course, caused all of us to look at the expansion of the Office of Critical Infrastructure Protection and Emergency Preparedness and at HazMat training for firefighters.

I was formerly a firefighter. The member for Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke indicated that the college at Arnprior would be closing but that decision had not been made yet. However in the area of colleges and facilities that train for the defence of terrorism, for chemical warfare and for all the things we have on our mind now after the events in New York City and the continuing events, the budget has been expanded and is being looked at in all areas of defence.

In the area of transportation and industry, all ministers must look now at what defences we have to deal with terrorist attacks.

Joint planning with the Americans is going on as we talk about defending ourselves against bio-terrorism, bio-chemical attacks and the various problems that exist in fighting terrorists. We also have to, in that light, deal with the problems of the countries which have had their economies destroyed. We have to look at that rebuilding process also. We have to deal with systemic problems but we also have to deal with the safety of Canadians.

SupplyGovernment Orders

5:30 p.m.

Progressive Conservative

Peter MacKay Progressive Conservative Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, NS

Mr. Speaker, I certainly agree with the concept behind what the parliamentary secretary is saying. There is a need to reinvest and to reinvigorate our military in terms of spending and in terms of priorities.

I have many constituents in Pictou--Antigonish--Guysborough who take an active role in the military, either through the reserve or through the regular forces. Constable Howie Dunbar of the Westport policing force is a very active member of the reserve who just received the Governor General's Award for his commitment.

However the parliamentary secretary has to be intellectually honest about the amount of reinvestment that will be necessary. To do so, there has to be an acknowledgement that severe cuts were made; $7 billion over a period of time, 23% of defence spending.

He talks about the future and how we should not walk by the Minister of National Defence or the Minister of Finance without reminding them of that, but is it whistling by the graveyard if he is not listening?

Let us be intellectually honest about the record of the government. It is fine to say that now the polls are telling us and now because of September 11 we will make that commitment, but the hon. member has to admit that his government made a decision to cancel the EH-101 program and yet made no decision replace it.

His future leader, the member for LaSalle—Émard, had this to say in Hansard on April 24, 1996:

On page 111 of the red book we called for the cancellation of the helicopter program. Done. We called for cuts to national defence. Done.

Severe damage to the armed forces. Done. That is what happened

Does the hon. member admit that now is the time to repair some of that damage and now is the time to be intellectually honest about what was done and get on with the job of rebuilding, reinforcing and helping to enhance our Canadian Forces?

SupplyGovernment Orders

5:30 p.m.

Liberal

John O'Reilly Liberal Haliburton—Victoria—Brock, ON

Mr. Speaker, the member indicated I was not very honest with him and yet his greatest fear is that he will end up as the leader of the Conservative Party, because no one else wants it, and that he then will be wiped out by the next leader of the Liberal Party. I understand his fear of the member for LaSalle—Émard, and I do not blame him for it. However the member keeps moving back in time and keeps reflecting on his family politics. I wonder if he is being what he is accusing me of not being.

Let us talk about spending. The member wants to know about spending. Turkey spends $7.7 billion, Greece spends less and we spend $12 billion. This is the largest government budget of any department in Ottawa, at $12 billion. It is a target for every other minister with a department that would love to have a budget that big. It is something we have to work at and increase. We have all agreed with that.

Although he will not admit it, when the member's party was around we had $42 billion in deficit spending every year to deal with and the debt--

SupplyGovernment Orders

5:30 p.m.

Progressive Conservative

Peter MacKay Progressive Conservative Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, NS

And the $38 billion left by the Trudeau government.

Maybe we could go back to the time of Sir John A. Macdonald when he borrowed money to build a railroad. If we want to talk about deficit spending, maybe it is Sir John A. Macdonald's fault. Let us keep going back. We can go back in history and say that Sir Robert Borden should not have borrowed money to fight a war. There is lots of history we could get here, but it seems that if we say “Trudeau, Trudeau, Trudeau” they all go rabid over there.

I am not sure if they are dealing with the same thing that I am trying to deal with, and that is to ensure increased spending on the military in the next budget. I have looked at the last three budgets on having an increase on military spending. I am pleased that we have recognized that. We recognized the men and women of the Canadian armed forces when the member for York Centre had the gumption and fortitude to bring in the quality of life report. Of the 84 items that were recommended, all of them are being acted on or have been brought in. There was a raise last week to the people of 4% and 4.5%.

The member does not want to recognize the fact that the government does good things. It is doing a lot of good things and I know it bothers the person who may think he wants to lead the fifth party. I guess if one is the last wagon in the wagon train, one would want to lead anything.

He should recognize that we are 7th in NATO in real dollars. He should recognize that Canada has a budget close to or larger than most other countries and that we require more pilots and are training them all the time. He does not want to recognize any of that. He only wants to deal with a leadership campaign that will go nowhere fast and that no one else wants. We can hardly wait to see it play out. Perhaps when it comes out, the way they are going, they will be able to rent a telephone booth and still be overcrowded for their convention.

SupplyGovernment Orders

5:35 p.m.

Progressive Conservative

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

Mr. Speaker, it is difficult to decide whether I should participate in the war effort or to let the gentlemen here settle it on the floor of the House of Commons. It is extremely interesting how today is revolving.

One of the things I want to address off the top is the misconception left in the House by the member for Nepean--Carleton. He mentioned that we were playing games with the motion put forward by my colleague from Saint John. The member for Saint John does not play games when it comes to our military. Every person in the military and every individual in the country knows very well where the member for Saint John stands in relation to our armed forces.

My party put forth a very strong motion today. It is actually not our motion. The motion is made up of the words uttered outside the House by none other than the minister responsible for our armed forces. I give him credit for having the courage to stand up in public and say what has to be said. Did he mean it? We saw evidence today that perhaps he did not when he was asked how strongly he felt about what he said and whether he had the courage to stand up for his utterances. He was asked if he had the honesty and the integrity to step aside if he did not get the money he needed or if he did not have the power, or the strength or the persuasiveness to get the money from his cabinet colleagues. He sulked away from responding to that question, which shows that perhaps he wants to remain in cabinet and is more concerned about a paycheque for himself than getting a paycheque for the military.

It is time that somebody over there stood up for the military. When we vote on the motion tomorrow, we will see who over there believes in doing something for our military. We will see if the minister responsible agrees with his own words because they are his words on which we are voting.

I now would like to get back to the remarks made by the member for Nepean--Carleton. He mentioned that the motion condemned the government. He said that it was a negative type of motion. Early this morning we were approached by the governing party and asked if we would consider softening the wording of the motion because many of those members wanted to support it for two reasons.

First, if they do not support this motion it will be very embarrassing for their own minister. Second, they want to support the motion because a lot of them are very honourable individuals who realize that the need of the military is great. They realize that we need to expend more resources to help our military, not just to maintain the status quo. We do not want to see our forces go through another exercise as they did in Afghanistan with all the embarrassments that came out of it.

I know that most people opposite like those of us on this side want to ensure that we support the minister when he says that more funding is needed. He did not say, as others in the past have said, that he could get along on what he already had. He said that more funding was needed and that the military was overstretched, I believe that was the word he used. More funding is all we are asking for, and we will see if the House agrees.

The member for Nepean--Carleton said that the word “condemn” was a harsh word, but if the motion were softer a number of those members would support it. We agreed to take out the word “condemn” and insert words such as “urge”, or “strongly urge” or “strongly recommend”, which somebody else suggested, and the member seemed pleased with it. We did not suggest to him what words to use. He suggested that words like these would be satisfactory.

He hustled back to his caucus room and undoubtedly talked to the House leader, from the reaction. I do not want to judge what happened. We waited and waited. I felt like I was a member of the military myself. I was waiting so long to get a response to a need. I still do not have an official answer. I got one indirectly from an NDP member, that the government would not go along not with our suggestion but with the suggestion that came from the member for Nepean—Carleton, who is a gentleman, who is extremely interested in the debate in the House today and who is a great chair of the committee, I am told. Consequently he realizes only too well that support is needed for the military.

It is quite clear. We are satisfied, and were satisfied, to eliminate the word “condemn”, if that is what the members want and if they do not want to stand and condemn their own government. We have no problem with that and we appreciate it. However it was inserted originally to stress how important the motion is in the House.

If they want, we will accept the change from condemn to something like strongly recommend or strongly urge. If that makes them feel happy, we will do it. What did they come back with? Was it wording to say that it would be okay as asked originally? No. They came back with an entirely different type of motion. They have came back with the type of question that the backbenchers would ask ministers every day. Why is the minister working so hard? Why has government been so generous? It is the same type of motion encouraging their government to keep on doing what it is doing. That is basically what it said.

We are not in the House to pat the back of the government. We would like to pat them somewhere a bit lower with a good boot. This is eventually what has to happen if we are to do something for the people in the country who need a proper government that considers all parts of the country, all groups in the country and in this particular case our military.

SupplyGovernment Orders

5:45 p.m.

Haliburton—Victoria—Brock Ontario

Liberal

John O'Reilly LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence

Mr. Speaker, I listened with great interest and I am sure the member is suggesting that he will get the permission of his colleague from Saint John to amend the motion so that it is acceptable.

It is up to the opposition to amend the motion, not us. It is up to the mover of the motion to accept an amendment from her new House leader. If in fact that is the direction, then certainly we are all in favour of it. We do not have a problem with that at all. Until the mover of the motion agrees to an amendment from her party, then we have no choice but to deal with what is put in front of us.

SupplyGovernment Orders

5:45 p.m.

Progressive Conservative

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

Mr. Speaker, we watch people trying to wriggle around or wiggle around situations and we have just seen it here again. As with the motion that the Alliance has on the floor tomorrow evening in relation to the election of chairs, the Liberals are in a bind again this evening with this very motion.

The motion goes right to the heart of what is needed in the country as it relates to our military. It is backing up what the minister himself has said publicly is needed. There is one word the Liberals were concerned with: “condemn”. They had the opportunity to amend the motion. They asked us if they could amend the motion. We told them to go ahead and do it, and we offered words that were acceptable, words they suggested themselves. I know that most of the members would have gone along with it, but it was the hierarchy in the back rooms that said “No, we cannot agree to these words”.

It is not the words “strongly urge” or “strongly recommend” that they have concerns with. It is the rest of the motion that they have concerns with, which is made up of the very words right from the mouth of the minister. That is what they are concerned with. They are not ready or willing to support their own minister so we wonder what will happen to our poor people in the forces who are out there looking for assistance, which we see is perhaps not forthcoming. That is what we are concerned about.

SupplyGovernment Orders

5:50 p.m.

Progressive Conservative

Elsie Wayne Progressive Conservative Saint John, NB

Mr. Speaker, I want to say that the hon. member on the government side has been mentioned referring to my motion and that I had to agree to changes. I had already agreed to changes. I have been negotiating with the chairman of the defence committee, or he was negotiating with me. He said that the word “condemn” was the one. I could understand that in his position and the position of my colleagues on the government side, so I agreed to remove that. I agreed to remove the word “condemn” and put in “strongly encourage” the government. I agreed to all of that, but when I got a copy from the government side as to what it wanted, it had totally wiped out my motion altogether and it rewrote everything. What I did was just refer to what the hon. Minister of National Defence has stated publicly, as was stated by our House leader here today.

I would hope and trust that every member in the House of Commons on both sides of the House would agree to the amendment that I have agreed to put forward and that they would all vote in favour. All we are basically saying is, let us look after our military, let us put the money there for our military and let us do it now. If we were all to agree to that tomorrow, then everybody across this nation would look at both sides of the House in a positive way.

SupplyGovernment Orders

5:50 p.m.

Progressive Conservative

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

Mr. Speaker, I am not sure if there was a question in there, but certainly from what the hon. member said let me make just one point. Let us ask not the people in the House but the people of the country: When it comes to concern or interest or honesty as it relates to the military, who do they trust? Is it the member for Saint John, who is ready and willing to put forth a motion that can be accepted by everybody, or a government that has slunk away from its responsibilities and is trying to protect a minister who went out and shot his mouth off when he had no right to do it?

SupplyGovernment Orders

5:50 p.m.

The Deputy Speaker

Before resuming debate, I just want to take a moment to make a suggestion. Of late in our exchanges we have used various forms of the word “honest”. I have noticed it is beginning to cause some disorder. I would strongly urge members, or strongly recommend, which is another expression that has been used in a different context, to be very judicious, please.

SupplyGovernment Orders

5:50 p.m.

Progressive Conservative

Gerald Keddy Progressive Conservative South Shore, NS

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate your warning to the House on various phrases with and descriptions of the word honest. I am going to try to stay away from that. I almost was ready to go there, but I will stay away from that.

I have to tell the House that as I listened to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence he forever reminded me of when I was a kid and we would hear the rooster crowing in the morning. I would say “That is quite a rooster” to my father. He would say “Yes, he sure is, but look at what he is standing on”. He was standing on the manure pile. I can tell the House right now that he reminded me forever of that rooster, all puffed up, his feathers just a-shining, the bright sunlight in the morning hitting on him as the king of the manure pile.

I would advise the parliamentary secretary to go out and seek the consensus of Canadians as to what they would like our military to do and what they would like our military to be.

In the little community of New Ross, Nova Scotia, where I grew up, there are a hundred and some names on the cenotaph. It is a small community of less than 2,000 people. Every year on November 11, we read those names. Those names did not get there by accident. They were put there because those Canadian soldiers from all the forces, men and women, paid the ultimate sacrifice so that we might have the privileges we have today. This is not a question of political dialogue. This is not a question of debate.

It is a fact that we sent our forces to Afghanistan and did not have transport planes to send them in. That is a fact. We had to hire American military transports to transport our soldiers and gear. They went there with camouflage that would enable them to fight in a forest surrounding. Maybe we should have realized that there were not many forests in Afghanistan. To add insult to injury, the Americans offered our Canadian soldiers American uniforms with desert camouflage. Our military--and I am not talking about our generals, I am talking about the parliamentary secretary, the minister, and the government--refused to order off the shelf, ready to wear uniforms from the Yanks because it thought it would be better to have them made in Canada, and if they came eight months later that was just too bad.

Come on: Where is our responsibility to our men and women in uniform? What is the responsibility of Canadian parliamentarians? It surely is not to debate this on a partisan basis.

Our troops arrived in Afghanistan without uniforms. There were no uniforms readily available or provided. Our troops arrived in Afghanistan without provisions and without water. We had to depend upon the Americans for water. We could not even supply our troops with drinking water. Their rations had to be boiled. They did not have water to boil them in.

Hundreds of years ago, military generals figured out that troops in the field operate on their stomachs. We can give them the best ammunitions, the best munitions, better firepower, better rifles and good air cover, but they have to eat. They need water to drink. They need provisions. We sent our forces to a war zone. We did not send them on a picnic. We did not send them on manoeuvres with our NATO allies. We sent them to a war zone.

This is not about some type of an exercise held in Manitoba or New Brunswick. This is about the real thing. We sent our troops to Afghanistan and they were not prepared. We should be ashamed of ourselves. If there are any members of the House who are not ashamed, they should ask themselves the next question. The army performed excellently with the tools it was given but that does not take away the fact that it deserved to have better tools. This is not rocket science. Our troops need the best tools they can possibly have. They are in life and death situations.

On Saturday I attended the memorial service that added Private Ricky Green's name to the monument in the town of Chester. He was killed in action in Afghanistan. It was a tragedy for the Green family, for his fiancée, for his father and mother and for his uncles. It was a huge tragedy. That happens when people don the uniform of their country and go to war. We understand that. Our job as parliamentarians is to do everything in our power to make sure it does not happen or that it happens as little as possible.

We have a responsibility greater than our responsibility to partisan politics. This is not some debate about helicopters. We know we should have had helicopters. They were cancelled. Who cancelled them? The Liberal government cancelled them. We have taken a few of the EH-101s. The Cormorants have arrived. We had two arrive in Nova Scotia last week. The first ones that came were spirited away to British Columbia and up to Iqaluit because the government was embarrassed to see these new helicopters sitting on the tarmac anywhere else in the country.

This is no longer a question of whose fault it was. We need helicopters. It is going to take a minimum of three years from the date they are ordered to start taking delivery of them, so let us order them. The military has told us time and time again what they need. They have laid down their specifications on paper. The government has changed those specifications at least twice, and I think probably more than that.

They can crow all they want about what they have done for the military, but I can tell them that as a Canadian I have stood in front of the cenotaph in the little community I live in every November 11 for most of my adult life. As a matter of fact, when I was a Christmas tree grower we used to stop our crews at 11 in the morning on November 11 and take our moment of silence in the woods.

I do not need to listen to the shiny feathers standing on a manure pile. My grandfather was a veteran of World War I and World War II. He would be embarrassed if he were alive today. These men fought with distinction. My father and my uncles were in World War II. They fought for their country. They did not question it or try to make excuses for it. They recognized a need and they responded to it.

It is our job as members of Parliament to recognize the need and respond to it and that means giving our men and women in uniform the tools they deserve to do the job, the tools to give them a chance to do the jobs we delegate them to do.

With the responsibilities we as members of Parliament give them, they need to have every chance and every opportunity to do the best job they can do. They cannot do that with secondary weaponry, secondary uniforms and secondary helicopters. They cannot begin to do the job we ask them to do.

SupplyGovernment Orders

6 p.m.

Bloc

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to make a few comments on the speech made by my colleague, who is right in many respects, when he says that much of the equipment is obsolete.

The motion moved by the Progressive Conservative Party asks that defence spending be increased, but we in the Bloc Quebecois believe that it does not say clearly enough where and in what areas the budget needs strengthening. For this reason, we would have preferred that some sort of a plan of action be established, or specific directions.

For example, there have been changes at NATO. New countries have joined. And increasingly, groups within the European Council have spoken about asking contributing countries to specialize in one sector or another. This means that the situation has also changed. We are talking part in more peacekeeping missions.

I will close with this question. Would my colleague agree to have a debate, in committee or here in the House, on the direction of defence policy, a new defence policy adjusted to today's reality, rather than leaving it up to the current Minister of National Defence? As far as I am concerned, I do not have much faith in his judgment to determine the needs when it comes to matters of defence.

The member for Saint John, like me, believes that we should replace some of the equipment for transporting troops, for peacekeeping missions, for example, particularly the ships. Right now, the situation is disgraceful; that is a fact. Our troops are being transported by the Americans, or by private companies that at one point did not deliver the needed equipment because of payment problems.

Once again, I ask the member this question: would he agree to hold a debate on Canada's new defence policy, adjusted to today's reality, one that would have more support than if it were simply left to the judgment of the current Minister of National Defence?

SupplyGovernment Orders

6:05 p.m.

Progressive Conservative

Gerald Keddy Progressive Conservative South Shore, NS

Mr. Speaker, the quick answer is yes. The long answer is that there should be a thorough and informed debate. The defence committee should hear from witnesses across the country. Members of the military should appear. We should hear from experts on what is going on in the European Union, on NATO and on terrorism. It is not the same world that we used to live in. It is totally different. There are totally different responsibilities and totally different challenges.

The whole issue of the threat of terrorism is one we cannot begin to comprehend or know how to deal with. It has to be dealt with differently from what the military has done in the past. The issue of NATO and its responsibilities raises another group of questions. What is Canada's responsibility to the world? What is Canada's role in the short term on this planet, in the next five or 10 years? In the long term what is our responsibility?

While we are discussing those issues, we should also remember an important fact. When we look at the role played by our peacekeepers in the last 30 years and certainly since Korea, there were not just a few peacekeepers who have been killed in action. Hundreds of peacekeepers have been killed in action. We do not look at peacekeepers as being in a war zone, but they are. We have never accepted the responsibility for what we have put our peacekeepers under. We do not recognize the sacrifices they make.

We need to take another look at our defence policy. We need to analyze it, to commit real dollars to it and to understand where we are headed in the future.

What is the role of the military in domestic defence? Is there a role? Is there a role for the military when there is a flood in the Saguenay or in Winnipeg or when there is an ice storm? Sure, there is a role. Does our military do more than go to war and work as peacekeepers? Absolutely, the military does more than that.

We have to recognize the different challenges that our military faces in the 21st century. It is no longer the 20th century.

SupplyGovernment Orders

6:05 p.m.

Progressive Conservative

Elsie Wayne Progressive Conservative Saint John, NB

Mr. Speaker, I want to say to my hon. colleague that I think our friend and hon. colleague from the Bloc was referring to whether or not we should have our motion passed as it is today, or whether we should have a motion that calls for another white paper study.

What I am saying is, as the hon. member stated, yes, we have to look at another study. There is no question about that, but it would take about two years before it was completed. The committee would travel all across the nation before it brought in its report. In the meantime, as we all know and I am sure my hon. colleague from Nova Scotia knows, there has to be money put into the military right away. When the other study is finished it will call for more money once again.

Does my hon. colleague not agree with that? I am praying that the Bloc members will support us.

SupplyGovernment Orders

6:10 p.m.

Progressive Conservative

Gerald Keddy Progressive Conservative South Shore, NS

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the comment by the member for Saint John.

Certainly, there is a dual issue here. I was answering the question from the Bloc member with the understanding that we need to study, research and plan some type of long term strategy for our military. I absolutely believe we have to do that. In the meantime, do we need to give our men and women in the military the basic tools to do the job we have asked them to do? Absolutely. Without question, there is a short term demand and a long term strategy.

SupplyGovernment Orders

6:10 p.m.

The Deputy Speaker

Resuming debate. The hon. member for Portneuf. I wish to inform the hon. member that he has only three or four minutes left, because I must adjourn at 6:15 p.m.