Debates of Oct. 20th, 2003

Canadian Forces Superannuation Act

[Grant McNally, Canadian Alliance, Dewdney—Alouette, BC]

Mr. Speaker, our military personnel do an outstanding job defending freedom around the world. Our military has done an outstanding job here at home, especially when called on during emergency situations as we saw most recently with the fires that happened in Kelowna, British Columbia.

We know that the Liberals have underfunded the military for 10 years. The military needs the resources. It needs the funding in order to do the job properly. That funding needs to be increased obviously. The Alliance has called for increased funding for a long time and the government has ignored that.

I ask my colleague to comment on the funding aspect of the military and what the Liberals have done by neglecting their responsibility to adequately fund the military.

[Rahim Jaffer, Canadian Alliance, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague from Dewdney—Alouette for his most appropriate question. The debate we are having today is about the condition of our armed forces and especially the condition of our soldiers when it comes to their pension requirements and especially when it comes to the problems of funding that we find ourselves in because of the lack of commitment from government members over the last 10 years.

I talked in my speech about the funding cuts that we have seen, unfortunately. The government has been scrambling over the years to try to increase some of the funding in certain areas that have been hit so hard. When it comes to the way the military men and women can do their jobs, in spite of the government, they still do a great job.

Specifically when we look at the record of the soon to be prime minister who was the former finance minister during the time of the majority of the cuts to defence, close to $20 billion which I identified in my speech were taken out of the military budget. That is incredible. How can we expect the military that is so revered around the world to meet the commitments on a daily basis, let alone on an international basis with our commitments with our allies, with the incredible cut to that particular funding?

Now we are seeing a complete flip-flop by the soon to be prime minister saying that he has a strong commitment to the military and he is going to make that a priority. Where was he over the last 10 years when he was in charge of signing those cheques? He was absent as he is usually in some of the debates that we are having.

Clearly, if the government is going to talk about the military and talk about its commitment to defence, my hon. colleague has it right. The government sure has not demonstrated it over the last 10 years. I question the new prime minister's motives when he talks about the idea of committing to the military. How in fact can we trust him to do that? He has talked the talk before but he sure did not walk the walk.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is important to recognize the lack of resources that have gone into the military over the last several years. This is all about choices. Decisions have to be made about where we want to spend money. A good example is the well noted $20 billion shortfall and that is one-twentieth of the long gun registry.

What choices would my colleague suggest be made to allow those resources to go to the military? For example, we are in the stage of tax cuts of $50 billion or $100 billion. What other suggestions does he have for getting those resources to our military personnel and also the equipment that they need?

[Rahim Jaffer, Canadian Alliance, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague from Windsor West for his most appropriate question. I would like to congratulate him for his diligence in fighting for customs agents in and around the Windsor area and security at our borders. We have worked together on a couple of other issues as well.

He hit the nail on the head when he talked about priorities. Let us talk about the government's priorities and how it has spent Canadians' money.

We can identify a number of what we on this side of the House call boondoggles when it comes to how the government spent Canadians' money. It could do so much more good if its priorities were set straight. If the Liberals' priorities are vote buying, clearly that is something they are masters of and they have done very well. We can talk about things like the gun registry and things like corporate welfare where the Liberals have given millions of dollars to their friends in various companies depending on who they are. We can talk about sponsorship grants. How much abuse do taxpayers have to take before they wake up and tell the government to be accountable for what it is doing?

The hon. member mentioned the gun registry. If we took those resources and put them into something that Canadians feel strongly about, our military for example, there would be overwhelming support to do that over some of the government's shameful priorities.

[Serge Marcil, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Industry]

Mr. Speaker, I do not exactly have a question; it is more of a comment.

First, I am very pleased to see that the hon. members of the opposition will be supporting this bill. In my opinion, this is a positive gesture toward the people who represent us in so many corners of the world.

But their speeches are a bit beyond me. To listen to the hon. members, one would think we needed three more submarines here, four more ships there, 20 CF-18s somewhere else, and so on.

I think they are completely out of touch with Canada. Canadians are not known as a nation of warriors. Canada is a country that uses its defence and military capabilities for peace throughout the world.

Perhaps the hon. members should consider the role we wish to give our soldiers. They should not limit themselves to the rhetoric of “warriors”—the word is a bit stronger than I would like—people who would like Canadians to be equipped with the same highly developed weapons as the Americans, which would fit neatly into the American military, because their goal is more one of military intervention. We have a different goal.

They should perhaps tone down the rhetoric.

[Rahim Jaffer, Canadian Alliance, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is missing the point when it comes to resourcing our military. We are not talking about building up an arms race or trying to compete with other countries that are obviously positioned in a superpower status. We are talking about what Canada can do well in its role as a middle power and one that has been respected around the world, especially when it comes to peacekeeping and when it comes to being prepared in combat ready situations to help our allies. That is what we are talking about.

Even in doing what the armed forces have done so well over the years, the government has failed in resourcing our armed forces. The hon. member should take some responsibility for that because that is what we are debating today. Even though the government has taken a small step with Bill C-37, ultimately we still have a host of issues that are affecting our military. Those issues need to be addressed by the government. I do not know whether it will do that leading into the next election. It has failed the military up until now and I do not expect it to turn any new corner to help it out in the future.

[Val Meredith, Canadian Alliance, South Surrey—White Rock—Langley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I will not take much time. I would be remiss if I did not put some comments on the record.

I have listened with interest to not only what my colleagues have said, but also to the questions or comments coming from across the floor. I think Canadians need to understand that Bill C-37 is just one small attempt to rectify one small problem in a very large issue; that is the government's lack of support for the Canadian military.

This is not something new. I think if Canadians put their minds back to Liberal governments over the past, it has been a consistent ploy of Liberal governments, present and past, to undermine and underfund the Canadian military. It seems to me it was a Liberal cabinet minister who at one time thought he would put all the divisions of the military under one umbrella and take away the pride in being navy, air force or army. That did not bode well.

The problem in the past with the Liberal government is that it does it without any kind of understanding of what the armed forces are, any debate with Canadians as to what Canadians want and it does it for political purposes, not for logical and reasonable purposes.

Decisions that have made with the present Liberal government have only shown that things have not changed and are not likely to change.

I come from a constituency in British Columbia, the province which is most likely to have an earthquake. It is the province that had forest fires during the summer because of our large forested areas, and it suffers from these fires. B.C. has mountains and rivers and is often subject to floods. There is a real need, not only in British Columbia, but in Quebec, in Atlantic Canada and in Canada's north for a strong military support for domestic reasons. It does not always have to be international concerns. However for domestic concerns and events, it would be a great thing to have a strong military presence.

The land forces base in the lower mainland was closed, not for logical reasons but for political reasons. I talked with a gentleman who sat on the committee when it was reviewing the military bases across Canada. He told me that Chilliwack was not even on the list. It was not even recommended that it be closed. However that decision was made between Quebec City and Ottawa. It was a political decision, with no logical background. That is reality.

The Liberal government may be concerned that Canadians will find out why these decisions were made. However, the point is the Chilliwack base was closed. If there were a major earthquake, the airport would not be usable because it happens to be in a part of Richmond that would probably be soup, if it existed at all. How in heaven's name is any military presence going to get to where it is most needed?

I want to suggest that it is time for the next government to really focuses on what Canadians want from their military. Canadians do want our Canadian military to do a peacekeeping role, but they want much more than that.

Canadians want our Canadian military to provide protection for their own country. They want the Canadian military to have the resources to provide domestic responses. I would suggest that Canadians would like to see our military be a place where our young people could find not only employment, but service to their country. As a result of finding service to their country, of giving some of themselves to Canada, in return they would get training which they could use when they left the military.

The federal government should be doing something to help our young people with education. It should not be giving away millions and millions of dollars for an elite few. It should be providing a training ground for many young people who cannot get into the university system. That is a role the Canadian government can play and should play through our military resources.

I am another voice that says the government has neglected our Canadian military. When it wants to cut its budget, where is the first place it goes? It is increasing rents to our military personnel who are serving their country. It is reducing the budget for materials and training that they need. The Canadian military is the first place the Liberal government goes to cut its budget; that and health care. It is time for Canadians to stand up and indicate that this is not good enough and is not acceptable.

[David Collenette, Liberal, Minister of Transport]

Mr. Speaker, I hate to sit here on a Monday afternoon and have my colleague across the way subject the House to some misinformation. The fact is the Reform Party at the time was fully in agreement with the major budgetary cuts the government made in 1994-95.

Canadian Forces base Chilliwack was one that was certainly a candidate for closure. She states that because Chilliwack is no longer operational, in the case of disaster this will be awful for British Columbia. We just went through a disaster with the forest fires and the fact is 2,000 defence personnel participated in fighting those fires. They had no problem getting into the interior of British Columbia and many of them came from the naval base at Esquimalt.

Also, there are thousands of troops, as the hon. member from Edmonton just stated, based in Edmonton. The hon. member should know that in this day and age we can quickly transport troops by helicopter or by plane to various parts of Canada when there are dire emergencies. Whether it was the floods in the Saguenay, or the floods in the Red River, or the forest fires this year or, as the Minister of National Defence said this afternoon, in the case of any requirement being made by the government of British Columbia for the current flooding in B.C., the Canadian military is there and will be able to get on the job.

[Val Meredith, Canadian Alliance, South Surrey—White Rock—Langley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I assume that was a statement as opposed to a question because I did not hear a question. My response to that is this. I talked to an individual who said that he sat on the committee that was recommending those selections. I have to say that there was no reason that he would misinform me or that he would lead me astray. I have no reason to doubt that information was accurate.

If the minister is not aware of what happened when he was defence minister, that is not my problem. That is his problem.

As far as--

[David Collenette, Liberal, Don Valley East, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The hon. member has questioned what I have just said. I was the minister at the time and I knew what was happening. I knew which bases were on the list. That is why we made the information--

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair)]

That is not really a point of order. It is debate. Let us give an opportunity for the hon. member for South Surrey—White Rock—Langley to answer the comment.

[Val Meredith, Canadian Alliance, South Surrey—White Rock—Langley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to continue by saying there have been many occasions when the roads have been closed between Alberta and British Columbia. Unless the minister has not been out there lately, there are many mountain ranges between Edmonton and Vancouver. There are many times when if it is not avalanches, it is mud slides or rock slides that close those areas to land transportation.

I repeat that if there were a major event in the lower mainland because of an earthquake and the airport was underground, they would be hard pressed to get any help there.

It is also a situation where there are many marine incidents and the U.S. coast guard comes to the aid of Canadians in distress because our Canadian navy does not have the response vessel. Because the Coast Guard is underfunded as well, the American coast guard is called upon to help Canadians in distress in our area.

I think the government shows a real lack of knowledge and a lack of respect of the Canadian armed forces when it is trying to convince Canadians that all is well. All is not well and it is time the government acknowledged it.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, one of the underlying themes that we have been discussing, and I would like to get the hon. member's opinion on this, is we have a number of different issues stacking up in the military, be it helicopters, ships, planes or jeeps. Not only am I concerned with this issue, but I am concerned with the history of the government over the last 10 years on other hard infrastructure, whether it be bridges, roads, water treatment plants or other infrastructure issues, which have been left to derelict for so long. I am concerned that young Canadians who enter the workforce later in life, who have a more difficult time securing full time employment and saving for the future will have to pay for this with limited resources.

How does she feels about this situation?

[Val Meredith, Canadian Alliance, South Surrey—White Rock—Langley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for giving me an opportunity to expound my feelings on infrastructure. I have long let it be known how I feel about the government taking gasoline taxes from provinces and not returning them by putting them back into transportation infrastructure. I would suggest that the government is reneging on its responsibilities by taxing Canadians.

A number of years ago the former finance minister added 3% taxation on gasoline to bring the debt under control and to balance the budget. However that 3% is still there and it is not being used for infrastructure.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair)]

I remind the hon. member that we are dealing with veterans' pensions.

[Jay Hill, Canadian Alliance, Prince George—Peace River, BC]

Mr. Speaker, given the comments and the heckling from the Minister of Transport today, no wonder the Liberals do so poorly in every election in British Columbia.

For him to heckle, as we heard earlier, and for him to brag that he made the decision to kill the base in Chilliwack for cost efficiency, which provided no land base regular force presence in mainland British Columbia, is absolutely unbelievable. However it does show, perhaps, why one of the decisions of the soon to be former prime minister to remove the member as the minister of national defence during the Somali debacle, to demote him and eventually give him the crumb of Minister of Transport was probably--

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair)]

I am sorry to interrupt but the member is really going on a slide.

If the hon. member for South Surrey—White Rock—Langley wants to add anything, there is about a minute and a half left, but on the matter that preoccupies us, please.

[Val Meredith, Canadian Alliance, South Surrey—White Rock—Langley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the issues being raised are the reasons why Canadians in western Canada are hesitant to put their support behind a Liberal government. There is a lack of response and understanding of our concerns.

The government cannot understand that British Columbians have this thing hanging over their heads called earthquake alley. We are concerned about the ability of emergency services to respond to a serious earthquake in the lower mainland, where millions of people live. That is not an unrealistic concern.

The fact is we know from past experience that the mountains cause a barrier. As good as the base might be in Edmonton and as good as the people are, we are concerned they may not be able to get to us. That is a very real concern. The fact that the government does not understand and refuses to understand should concern all western Canadians.

[Grant McNally, Canadian Alliance, Dewdney—Alouette, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I too must add a few comments in this debate given where we have just gone and where we need to go yet on this topic. I will not promise to take a long time, because we do not know how this debate will evolve a little later.

I do want to add my comments of support for the military. I think it is a good thing that we are moving forward with this bill. I am the son of a veteran. My father was in the forces during World War II as a member of the navy. I saw first-hand from him the commitment that he made during that period of time and, something I have mentioned in the House before and will mention again, I saw the scars he lived with as a result of making the decision to contribute to the freedom not only of our country but of the world at that time. It is a price one pays that can really never be measured. We need to uphold and support our veterans and we need to give adequate resources to our current personnel in all the tasks they are undertaking, whether here at home or abroad.

I want to mention Chilliwack because it did come up in debate. I have to point out to the minister that Chilliwack is not far from my own riding. It is about a 45 minute drive from my own hometown. I have to point out the geography of the lower mainland and elaborate on my colleague's point, because we do have some serious concerns in British Columbia. Should there be a major earthquake in that area, we have limited heavy lift capability within our forces. If there is a major earthquake, even if the equipment could be brought over from Edmonton, where are those planes going to land?

On this question, I am astounded that this was brought up by the minister as well. My colleague, our critic for defence, brought up the point that the minister was bragging about closing down Chilliwack. That has had a serious impact on people's concerns about what would happen should there be a major disaster such as an earthquake in the lower mainland or in B.C. It is a question that simply has not been answered, which points out and highlights the fact that the Liberals have starved our military of adequate resources and funding for the past 10 years during which they have been in power.

Military spending needs to be increased. There was no commitment from the former finance minister when he was in cabinet for 10 years. As my colleague from Edmonton mentioned earlier, how can we possibly trust him to follow through as the next prime minister on commitments he is talking about now in regard to increasing military spending? I would say to Canadians that we cannot. I would say to look at the previous record; it will indicate future performance. On that point, the next leader of the Liberal Party fails woefully because of his record in that regard.

I simply want to point out again that in this debate we appreciate the opportunity to talk about our military personnel and we want to commend them for the job they do, often under very difficult circumstances and with limited resources. They do an outstanding job and we are proud of our Canadian Forces personnel. We are not proud of our government and the way that it has cut the military's funding for 10 years and made its job tougher and tougher to do. It has extended the military in so many ways and in so many different places without giving it the resources that are required to do the job properly.

[Darrel Stinson, Canadian Alliance, Okanagan—Shuswap, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the member has raised a number of concerns. With regard to what he was saying about Canadian Forces Base Chilliwack in British Columbia being closed down, I believe that was the last land base in British Columbia for the armed forces.

Scientists have proven that sooner or later there will be a major earthquake in the Hope region, possibly between Hope and Chilliwack or maybe just a bit above Hope, which is not very far from Vancouver. We have seen the devastation of the fires this summer and now we see the devastation of the floods, yet we have no emergency response team from the forces. We no longer have a land base out there.

With all these cutbacks, I must say that I find it very worrisome that the Government of Canada would totally disregard the fact that a province the size of British Columbia has no emergency response team or actually no help there. The nearest help would have to come from Edmonton. In some cases, we would be looking at 24 to 48 hours. Anyone who has been in a flood or a fire or who has ever witnessed an earthquake knows that is a long time. What does the hon. member think about that situation?

[Grant McNally, Canadian Alliance, Dewdney—Alouette, BC]

Mr. Speaker, obviously the closure of Chilliwack has caused grave concern throughout British Columbia and the Vancouver region, where millions of people live. I will make the point again that there is heavy equipment in Edmonton, yes, but should there be an earthquake it is going to be awfully tough to transport that equipment through mountains if the roads are blocked or wiped out. The airports where those planes would land, should we be able to get them in, possibly also are going to be damaged by any earthquake.

I think it was simply a wrong-headed decision to close Chilliwack. It showed a lack of foresight. It showed a lack of looking at the big picture for the entire country, respecting all regions of the country and looking at what was required for the province of British Columbia.

We hate to say “we told you so” after the fact, because damage that could be done to property and lives is something from which there could never be a recovery. We hope and pray that the situation will not occur, but a decision was taken by the government and, should something happen, it will be responsible for that decision. It would be unfortunate, but being in government means making decisions and having to live with the decisions that are made. This is one decision which the government should admit was wrong, rather than continuing to try to defend it all these years later.

It has done the same thing with the Sea Kings, as has been mentioned today, helicopters that are as old as I am. They are 41 years old; I guess I am giving away my age. Again, this government has defended cancelling a contract 10 years ago, a contract that would have seen those helicopters replaced, rather than admitting it made a mistake and that it needs to get on with ordering the appropriate equipment. The government will not do that, just like it will not do that with the decision it made about Chilliwack.

That is unfortunate. What are Canadians left with? Let us look at another alternative. Let us look at replacing this group that refuses to admit it has made mistakes and bad decisions that have affected all Canadians.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair)]

On veterans' pensions? The hon. member for Prince George—Peace River.

[Jay Hill, Canadian Alliance, Prince George—Peace River, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am not sure whether it is appropriate for the Speaker to call relevance. I think that normally it is left to other members to make that assessment and bring the Speaker's attention to it.

The fact of the matter is that part of Bill C-37 deals with changes to the superannuation act governing not only our regular forces now, but with the changes to the reserves, and it deals with quality of life issues. I referred to that during my remarks, as did the Minister of National Defence. I note that this is at the bottom of some of the comments being made by my colleague from Dewdney—Alouette.

Unfortunately, what we have seen from this Liberal government over the past decade is a decline in the quality of life of the people who serve and are willing to put their lives on the line for us, not only overseas but in meeting domestic emergencies here as well.

During question period today, I asked the government a question that really drives home this point. At a time like this, when our men and women are fully engaged in the war on terror, many either going to or returning from deployment overseas, there is great anxiety and worry about loved ones, about whether they will even return and what they will be subjected to while they are overseas. When all of this is going on in the lives of these young families, they are being subjected as of November 1 to yet another rent increase for housing on bases across the nation. In many cases, this housing is in deplorable condition; it is substandard and well below what we would assess as appropriate.

I wonder if my colleague would comment, because he referred to the fact that all of these changes happened under the watch of the member for LaSalle—Émard, the former finance minister. These cuts were made by him. They affected the quality of life of every man, woman and child in our Canadian armed forces families and they continue to affect them adversely. I, like the member for Dewdney—Alouette, am greatly concerned about the hypocrisy of that member at this point.

[Grant McNally, Canadian Alliance, Dewdney—Alouette, BC]

Mr. Speaker, Bill C-37 does talk about quality of life issues. My colleague asks a question about the next leader of the Liberal Party, the former finance minister. In essence, he asks how the former minister can be trusted to ensure that the quality of life issues for our military are improved under his watch when he has been responsible, in large part, for the quality of life problems facing our military personnel right now. I have said before, and I will say it again, that his past record should be an indicator to people about future performance. Given his past record I would say that his future performance will be very poor in this regard and that Canadians should not trust everything he says, which is that he has all the solutions to all problems, because it is simply untrue.

Our military needs to know that should the Alliance have the honour of governing this country, not only have we continued to say that the military will be a priority, but we will make the military a priority in the ways that we have laid out. We will be committed to that because it is the right thing to do.

[Myron Thompson, Canadian Alliance, Wild Rose, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I want to make an observation about something I am familiar with, because I have a son in the military service. Although that military is the United States military, I want to let the member know that I have made some comparisons because I have had other opportunities to visit the military throughout Canada.

My son has been in the military for approximately 10 years. He was at different bases throughout the United States during his training. He is at present in Iraq. His family is living in housing at a military base in Germany.

At all times during his years when he had his family, they had housing. He had two children and a wife in Fort Stewart and Fort Lewis, Washington. His mother and I managed to visit him on a number of occasions. The housing was excellent. If it was on a base, it was free. If it was off base, it was subsidized. He was given a supplement to help pay for their needs. All these things were well looked after. It provides parents some comfort when they know that their child--