Debates of Oct. 20th, 2003

Canadian Forces Superannuation Act

[An hon. member]

Unbelievable.

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

One of my colleagues said, “unbelievable”. I cannot think of a better word.

I used to farm out in the real world before I became a federal politician. I farmed for some 20 years. My brother and I, when we were farming our 3,000 acres in the Peace country, recognized that to do the job we had to constantly upgrade our equipment if we were to have any hope of being able to get the crop in on time and get it off on time in the fall. All the armed forces is asking is for something similar.

If we were to have run our farm the way the government runs the Canadian armed forces, we would have been farming with 40 year old little tractors held together with duct tape, binder twine and baling wire. However we did not. We recognized a cost to doing business and we upgraded continually.

A few weeks ago it came to light that the equipment problems of our air force had compromised its ability to carry out the primary function of a maritime border patrol. The Minister of National Defence has resorted to looking to private companies to conduct patrols of our maritime borders because of a lack of money and equipment resources to carry out this function. The most disturbing part of it all was the admission by the defence minister that his department was actually doing this.

Perhaps now is as good a time as any to remind the government of its chronic bad luck when dealing with contractors. I believe it was not too long ago a former minister of defence had to send out a military crew to forcefully board and seize an ocean freighter on the high seas that refused to return Canadian military equipment to port.

For our current defence minister to see no problem with a contractor carrying out a primary national security function, I find deeply disturbing.

The last piece of equipment I will mention today has received quite a bit of media attention in recent days. I am referring to the Iltus scout car, which in its own right has garnered a lengthy history of political interference up until the very end, leading to the delay of its replacement.

Almost 20 years ago the Liberal government of the day decided to purchase the Iltus, despite concerns raised about the vehicle by the army at the time. These jeeps were originally to be built by the supplier in Germany at a cost of $26,500 each. The only problem with this was no jobs were to be created in Canada. At a 250% premium, the government decided to have the Iltus built in Canada by Bombardier at a cost of $84,000 per vehicle. For that much money, we could have purchased the larger armoured Humvees the army wanted, but instead we received a vehicle with no armour protection and a canvas cover and doors.

I am dismayed to say that I and others have been remiss in referring to these vehicles as jeeps. I have been contacted by DaimlerChrysler and told it resents that, and justifiably so. These are not Jeeps. Jeep is a trademark of that company. I am a proud owner of two Jeeps. I have a Grand Cherokee Jeep in the riding and a TJ Jeep here in Ottawa, so I do not want to demean the good reputation and name of Jeep by referring to the Iltus as a jeep.

The Iltus has been slated for replacement since the mid-1990s, yet today we still find them in use within an active theatre of operations. At the outset of this procurement project, four reputable suppliers were interested in furnishing our land forces with new vehicles. However true to form, the Liberal government once again interfered in the procurement process to ensure there were political gains to be made. As a result, there is only one supplier remaining, which will probably be awarded the contract by default.

The remaining suppliers withdrew their bids on the project because of the unacceptable political interference. The most troubling legacy from this interference is that we are no longer afforded the luxury of choosing the best vehicle from a selection of choices. We only have one supplier willing to put up with the government's nonsense.

If the government truly wishes to end its reputation of neglecting our Canadian forces, it needs to demonstrate a true commitment to our military on a variety of fronts. This commitment must be principled and has to be backed up with action and financial resources. With a strong military, Canada can take its rightful place on the international stage once again as a peaceful nation willing to step forward to not only help those in need, but to promote and defend the democratic principles we all too often unfortunately take for granted here at home.

Currently, this is not the case. Canadians have been witness to their nation's declining reputation on the international stage. Canada is no longer a world leader in peacekeeping. We now rank behind more than 30 other countries in the world on the UN list. Due to the overextension of our Canadian forces, Canada is forced to hastily withdraw forces from Bosnia and the Golan Heights in order to meet our commitments in Afghanistan.

At home, Canadians are watching their federal government remain absolutely silent on one of the most important developments affecting our homeland security with the American's implementation of the ballistic missile defence program. The member for LaSalle—Émard, who is patiently waiting to take the keys for 24 Sussex, refuses to indicate his support or opposition to the program, unless the minister can inform me otherwise today. The ballistic missile defence program is set to begin the initial phases of implementation as early as next year.

I just came back from Cheyenne Mountain in Colorado Springs where I had some great briefings with Norad. I can tell members that Norad is in jeopardy if we do not opt into this thing wholeheartedly and work with the Americans to provide continental security through the missile defence program.

My time is over. I would like to conclude by reiterating our support for Bill C-37. However, as I have touched upon, much more needs to be done on many other fronts to improve our Canadian armed forces.

[John McCallum, Liberal, Minister of National Defence]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member raised many issues and asked for my response. Could I ask how much time I have?

[The Deputy Speaker]

If the Chair interpreted the number of members indicating they wanted to ask questions, the Chair, if I may use the term in a non-partisan fashion, will be liberal with its time with the clock. I will divide the time evenly. There is a 10 minute period for questions or comments, so let us start with five minutes for the Minister of National Defence, if he should use up all that five minutes.

[John McCallum, Liberal, Markham, ON]

Mr. Speaker, five minutes will be plenty. I would like to respond to two aspects of the member's speech. He covers a broad range of topics, much of which, quite naturally, I would disagree with.

For example, on ballistic missile defence, the talks with the Americans have been ongoing through the summer. I am told these talks are progressing well, so this is on stream. However, in my very brief minutes I want to address two of the themes he raised. The first of these themes is the tools to do the job and the second is the human dimension.

No one believes more strongly than I do that we must, as a government, provide our soldiers with the tools to do the job when we put them in harm's way. With regard to Afghanistan, that is why from the very start I have made absolutely certain that everything requested in terms of equipment was delivered on time. This will also be true with the request for additional armoured vehicles, which was made last week. Those will be delivered exactly as requested and on time.

More generally, we received an $800 million increase in our base budget in the last budget and $160 million of this I have devoted to our capital program. So our capital program is larger; moreover, it is more stable. Whereas in the past, with an unsustainable budget, we had to dip into the capital budget to finance current operations, this is no longer the case. For the first time in many years, the department has engaged in a long term capital planning project with greater stability in the budget and greater dollars. I have been participating actively in this.

I will just refer very briefly to two issues the hon. member raises. One is the replacement of the helicopter. Clearly, as I have said in the House many times, it is a very high priority for me to replace that helicopter as fast as possible. To that end, early in my time as defence minister I changed from a two contract system to a one contract system. All the stakeholders agree that this move increased the speed of delivery while at the same time it reduced risk. I have made it a top priority. I have told the department this: that in the short run, we must increase the serviceability of the Hercules and, in the medium term, the capacity. Progress has been made and we are working on this matter.

On the second theme, the human condition, when I first became defence minister I had limited experience with the military. It did not take me long to discover from first-hand observation and conversations that these wonderful people do a fantastic job for our country and put their lives on the line for us, as we have seen so sadly in recent times, and I wish to do what I can within my power to improve the living conditions of the military and their families.

I might say, and here I give some praise to my predecessor, that much has been done over the last five to ten years to improve those living conditions. Salaries have been increased substantially. The health care system has been improved. Family resource centres have been increased in number and in quality. Yes, there remains more to be done. There always does. But we as a government have put the people first over the last five to ten years, and I think a dispassionate observer would agree that the quality of life of our men and women in the Canadian Forces has improved in a significant way. This bill we are about to pass will move in that direction.

Finally, the hon. member mentioned Major Bruce Henwood. This was a personal initiative of mine. When I discovered that Major Bruce Henwood was denied his $200,000 or $300,000 in compensation for losing his legs, because he was a major rather than a colonel, I thought that made no sense. I spent quite a few months, while facing quite a lot of resistance in the bureaucracy, to change that anomaly, so that from now on anyone in the Canadian Forces, whether a private, a corporal, a colonel or a general, who loses his or her legs in a military situation would receive this compensation. I felt very strongly myself that this was absolutely wrong. It had to be changed. The opposition agreed with me, for which I am thankful, and we got that changed. As of now, both retroactively and going into the future, a person who loses his or her legs will receive that settlement irrespective of rank.

In conclusion, I think that both my predecessor and now I myself did and do take the human condition of the men and women of the Canadian Forces very seriously and, while there is always work to do, we have made significant progress over the last ten years. This bill we are about to pass is one further piece of evidence of that commitment and that progress we continue to make.

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

Mr. Speaker, I first want to say, and I mean this sincerely, I appreciate that the Minister of National Defence remained in the House, listened to my remarks and obviously took them to heart. Even though he said, by his own admission, that he disagrees with much of what I said, that does not detract from the fact that I, as a member of the opposition, appreciate that he remained in the House and addressed my concerns. I only wish that more ministers would learn from that, would make themselves available to the opposition during debate in the House of Commons and respond in a good way to the questions, and would put forward the opposite arguments where they are to be put forward.

Very quickly, I want to try to address a few of the points the minister raised.

On missile defence, the minister states that it is on stream. On stream? This has been 20 years in the making. I support the fact that at least we are talking about it and I commend the minister for at least moving the ball that far, but I think we should have public statements made on where we stand, and certainly the member for LaSalle—Émard, as the incoming leader of the Liberal government, should be making public statements on where he stands on that issue. Surely after 20 years he has decided where he stands on it if he wants to be the prime minister of the country.

Next is the request for additional armoured vehicles. One of the reasons I raised the issue of the Iltis, not only in my speech but over the past number of weeks since that unfortunate tragedy, is that the fact remains: if the government had replaced them when they were due to be replaced four or five years ago, and in fact even then they were overdue to be replaced, they would not be in theatre in Afghanistan. We would not have those vehicles there. We would have something better than those vehicles: something more dependable and safer.

As I said, and as the minister admitted, the investigation is still ongoing into that unfortunate tragedy. We do not yet know all the ramifications of that particular incident. Maybe it will be shown that it would not have mattered what those two soldiers were riding in on that particular day; maybe, unfortunately and tragically, they would have been killed anyway. But we do know that in that particular vehicle, they had no chance, none. My argument, and it remains valid, I believe, is that had we replaced those vehicles, had we moved as a nation and, in his defence, before this minister was minister, and had the government moved as a government and replaced those vehicles with something like the armoured Humvees the Americans use, their chances of survival would have been much higher. I stand by that.

Yes, we saw an improvement last year with some $800 million in the defence budget. We on this side lauded that. We recognized, though, that it was insufficient. I think even the minister recognized that. He would have liked to have had more. Much more needs to be done on this. We have to allocate more resources for our Canadian armed forces. He referred to $160 million in the capital expenditure budget; it is simply not enough. I think the minister himself would admit that it is not enough. There are too many items in our inventory that are long overdue for replacement.

Referring to the helicopters, I wrote down what the minister said. Basically, he said as fast as it can be accomplished. He is trying to move expeditiously and it remains a number one priority. There again, similar to missile defence, it was ten years ago that this Prime Minister, this outgoing Prime Minister, with a single stroke of his pen, cancelled those helicopters, the EH-101s. Since then, for ten years the government has been trying to rig the procurement process so that the EH-101 and the models that have replaced it do not qualify. It has been reducing the requirements and reducing the criteria to try, for political reasons, to get other helicopters to meet the requirements, so that the government and the Prime Minister do not have to be embarrassed by ten years later buying virtually the same helicopter with the improved avionics, which we should have had ten years ago.

The last thing: put the people first. I would argue that sadly there are far too many examples which show that much more needs to be done. Yes, improvements have been made, and I concede that to the minister, but much more needs to be done. I used one example, that of the upcoming rent increases for many of our Canadian armed forces families. These are young families. At a time when we are at war on terror, many of these people are deployed overseas. They are under an incredible amount of stress and anxiety and, at this very time, the government is going to increase the rent on their houses. They are not even sure if mom or dad is going to come home. Something is wrong here, and then the minister turns around and says the government is putting people first. I do not think so.

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

Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the Bloc Quebecois, I am pleased to speak to Bill C-37 today. I will start by saying that I will try to devote most of my speech to the pension fund. I think that is the issue today, not necessarily equipment, although I think that is part of it. Indeed, quality of life for the Canadian Forces also depends a great deal on their equipment, government decisions and especially the perception that Quebeckers and Canadians have of the Canadian Forces.

Unfortunately, I am among those who say that the true worth of the Canadian Forces is not being recognized. The debate is often on the wrong track and centres on equipment or money. Yet, goodness knows, for a few years now we have been pushing for the adoption of a new national defence policy that would set out the challenges, guidelines and parameters for government funding. This could influence the purchase of equipment and change our behaviour on the international stage.

I think this is all closely linked. As I was saying, the true worth of the Canadian Forces is not recognized. I know this first hand. I had the opportunity to train with the Royal 22

e

Régiment in Valcartier; the soldiers were being sent to Bosnia on relief. One's view depends on whether one is inside or outside the ranks.

I had a rather full week: the troops got up at sunrise, and went to bed very late in the evening after all the physical and psychological training that comes with preparing for a dangerous mission. Spending a day with the Royal 22

e

Régiment preparing for an international peace mission makes one realize this is not fun and games.

I have also seen the PPCLI at work in my riding, during the ice storm. They did not come as tourists. These men and women spent their time clearing roads and chopping wood for those without power. They worked from sunup to sundown. When they left, I told the PPCLI soldiers that we would never forget them. That is why, from time to time in my speeches, I talk about the PPCLI to express my admiration for these individuals.

Training is one thing, but taking part in operations is completely different. I took part in two. As I just mentioned, I accompanied the ninth rotation to Bosnia. So, there had been other rotations before I went. Some of the people taking part in the ninth rotation had already taken part in the fourth and fifth rotation.

Over there, we can see the magnitude of what happened during the war between the Croatians and the Bosnians. One out of every three houses has no roof; there were huge losses of life. The soldiers spoke about the Canadian camps being shelled. Once, they were called to go get children at a school and take them back to the camp so they would be under military protection, but then they were informed that the children were not allowed in the camp. When the soldiers went back out after the bombing, the children had all died outside the walls to the Canadian camp.

There are not just physical dangers, but also enormous emotional stress. That is why, now, it has been determined that post-traumatic stress disorder is a direct result of this kind of situation.

I also accompanied the minister to Eritrea and Ethiopia where the two camps were separated by an international boundary. I saw dead bodies lying amidst mine fields, left there because apparently there was no time to recover the bodies and the whole area needed to be demined to do it. This creates a great deal of insecurity within the Canadian Forces.

We often think that they are tough people, but they are human beings, too. We need only observe their friendship with the local population as they offer a little solace for the horrors these people live through day by day.

Therefore we think that debating this bill to improve the retirement conditions for Canadian Forces pensioners is a step in the right direction. Recruitment is not the only thing that counts. I believe that the current problem is that young people thinking of enlisting have a choice between private enterprise or the Canadian Forces, a federal institution.

They often decide to enlist in the forces for adventure. Nevertheless, some basic conditions must be met: the salary must be good enough and the pension plan as well. I think that the bill before us will improve the situation in many ways.

I think the government has been rather slow in dealing with the reservists. But, as the saying goes, “better late than never.” In its 1998 report on quality of life in the Canadian Forces, the Standing Committee on National Defence and Veterans Affairs recommended “that the Department of National Defence pursue initiatives to put in place a real pension plan for the Reserves,” because they were not previously eligible for pensions.

Consequently, special attention is being given to creation of a pension plan for reservists. Clearly, reservists may have other jobs. Now, if they want to re-enlist, the time they spent in the militia or reserve will count towards a pension at the end of their career, which is very good. I would like to point out how important reservists are, and will be in future, because people wanting to make a career in the Armed Forces are not exactly beating down the doors of recruiting offices.

I know that considerable efforts are under way at the present time to recruit people. In fact, there is a Canadian Forces recruiting centre is in my riding and it is always busy. This is interesting, but when people enlist they need to know what to expect when they retire 10, 15, 20 or 25 years down the line. This is, in my opinion, important.

Now reservists will have the possibility of accumulating pensionable time, so that when they end their career, be it in the Armed Forces or elsewhere, they will have a slightly better pension plan than before, as they would in the federal public service.

Speaking of the importance of reservists, I again think of Valcartier. Several battalions were deployed to Bosnia during my rotation. One of these was wholly comprised of members of the reserve who had been given leave from their jobs and had signed on for a specific length of time for a mission in Bosnia.

They deserve much credit for this, because they sometimes run into problems getting their jobs back. Employers are more or less obliged to let them go, but when they come back, they sometimes find out someone has taken their place. To improve the reform we have before us, far more attention would have to be paid to members of the reserve, because they will become more and more necessary if we accept the fact that there will be fewer and fewer career soldiers.

Consequently, any improvement that can be made to the situation for the reserve strikes us as very important, and Bill C-37 does so by improving their pension possibilities.

There were other difficulties. For instance, the vesting period, which will be shorter. Members had to serve for 10 years to qualify for a pension. The minimum period for qualifying will now be two years. This encourages people to say, “I will give it a try and, if it does not work, I will at least qualify for a pension after two years”.

Previously, members who became disheartened or left lost their pension entitlement. They needed 10 years of accumulated service to qualify. Sometimes these individuals spoke of the forces in less than complimentary terms to those around them, which might have discouraged others from joining the Canadian Forces.

I think there is real improvement. As far as pension portability is concerned, this legal sounding term refers to the ability members of the armed forces now have to transfer their pensions into their registered retirement savings plans. They could not do that before, but now they can.

This is encouraging to people, who think, “Should I ever leave the forces and be entitled to a pension, I will transfer this money into another retirement plan. This way, I will not lose it”. I feel this is one of the strengths of this bill.

Also, with respect to pension eligibility no longer being tied to service, this will apply to reservists as well as to members of the regular force.

Until now, a member who enlisted for five years and later decided not to re-enlist—as I said earlier, there was a provision requiring that they serve 10 years—lost his or her pension. The same was true for reservists. Those who left the forces, saying they had had enough, lost their entitlement. Today, eligibility is no longer tied to a period of service. A reservist will be able to say, “I have had it with the Canadian Forces. I will take a break for a year or two. I have other obligations right now, but I would like to come back later”. Even if the period of service is not continuous, it will be possible to continue accumulating pensionable service, picking up where he or she left off.

This is an idea that would definitely be of interest to people, because it is much more flexible. This way, they would not be saying, after 5 or 10 years of service, “I have no pension rights. That is it. If I re-enlist, I start at zero again.”

In my opinion, this eliminates a problem that goes beyond recruitment. Of course, the federal government cut back funding to the army in the early 1990s, so that we have dropped from an army numbering 80,000 to one numbering around 50,000. As a consequence, we must now emphasize recruitment. What good does it do to plunge into recruiting while people are leaving by the back door, and we have no retention measures? These measures before us today are retention measures, to encourage people to stay in the forces.

Now, as for the pension, new people can be eligible after 25 years of service. That is another retention measure. It did raise a few questions when we read the bill for the first time. I had an excellent briefing by the Canadian Forces on the subject. Their people came to my office to explain what happens to those now covered by the plan, that is, those who have been in for 18 or 19 years and who were planning to leave in a year or two, that is, after 20 years, which is the current minimum. The question had come up: “Are we going to tell these people, 'You cannot leave after all. You cannot leave in a year or two because we have changed the law. From now on, it will be 25 years.'” So, they told us that it would be optional for those people. That is very interesting, because there are people who have served 18 or 19 years in the army, and I know very well that they are keen to retire. They know that after 20 years they are entitled to a full pension.

They have told me: “We are against this Mr. Bachand. You cannot expect us to put off our retirement for five years. We have made plans: we were going to leave the Canadian Forces in a year or two”. The bill makes this optional. Current members will have the choice of retiring after 20 or 25 years. It will be their choice and there will be no penalty.

Nonetheless, a newcomer to the Canadian Forces will certainly know from the outset that he has to serve in the forces for 25 years. This is not a double standard. People have said to me, “Claude, be careful. It is like a grandfather clause. Some will have more benefits than others”. That is not the case here. Those who are already in the army can leave after 20 years of service or, if they wish, they can serve five additional years under the legislation. However, new arrivals know that it is 25 years of service. Consequently, when they sign their contract, they do so with full knowledge of the facts. It is no different than those who signed a contract 20 years ago. They knew at the time that in 20 years they could retire. Those who sign a contract today know they can retire after 25 years.

This is also a retention measure because there are people who have served in the army for 19 or 20 years who would like to continue. Letting them accumulate more years of pensionable service, because they would be able to serve for five more years, would be very good because it would build up the pension fund.

Some people like being in the army, while others like it less. In general, however, this ensures that everyone can be satisfied to some extent. This will also satisfy the fundamental needs of the Canadian Forces.

Now, I must warn the government, because terrible things have happened with regard to this veterans' bill. The minister said that he supported the adoption of amendments to the legislation and the regulations. Since there was not enough money, he decided to set aside measures that must be approved, debated and voted on in the House.

In terms of veterans, the government decided to proceed through regulations. This means that the governor in council or cabinet will define the parameters. Also this bill leaves the way open for regulations. The government should be extremely careful here. When regulations are used to bypass parliamentarians, democracy is weakened.

As MPs, we receive representations from all sorts of people, especially when they know we are our party's critic for a given portfolio. Since there is a strong military presence in my riding, many service members come to seen me about issues concerning Bill C-37 before us, and veterans affairs as well. When they hear that people are treated differently because regulatory measures were taken instead of parliamentary or legislative measures, some of them take offence.

A case in point concerns veterans. Ten thousand widows were told they would be getting a substantial benefit in the form of a veterans allowance, the veterans being their husbands who are now deceased, to allow them to keep their homes. They will receive money for housekeeping and groundkeeping. We are talking about 10,000 widows who were told that from now on and for as long as they live in their home, they will be getting this allowance, but the widows of other veterans will not.

There is a major problem when 10,000 women are entitled to assistance and 23,000 others are not. I do hope this situation will be corrected. We in the Bloc Quebecois are working on an action plan to ensure that the 66% of women who are widows of veterans are not discriminated against.

A measure that does not help people who need to stay in their homes looks a bit unfair to me. And that is not even counting the fact that when they leave because they are no longer able to keep up their homes, they often end up in long term care. From then on, looking after these people is the province's responsibility, not the federal government's. And yet it is a federal jurisdiction. For once, when the federal government has jurisdiction, perhaps it could look after it properly instead of trying to interfere in all sorts of jurisdictions in Quebec.

Thus, we must warn the government. If there are amendments to this bill, or if, in the future, there are amendments with regard to amounts of money, eligibility, or qualifying periods, they must be brought before the House in the form of a legislative amendment so that the members of Parliament can discuss them. That way, when we get questions from our constituents, we will be able to give them answers and we will not be at a loss.

It was our distinct impression that all widows were going to get help, because the minister had announced on May 12 that he would be ensuring that all widows would benefit from changes for the better, but that was not so. Over the summer they likely realized that the bill would be a bit steep, so they settled on a figure of $69 million, a reallocation, rather than the total measure, which would have included all spouses and likely would have come to $200 million. The government did not have that kind of money.

We appealed to the minister to ensure that the next budget would include enough money to provide this coverage to everyone. There is one condition, however: that something as important as this not be done by regulation, but rather by legislation.

As for the bill as a whole which we have before us today, we are very pleased to see that the conditions and quality of life of those who will be retiring from the army will be improved. That, I think, was important. Not only important, but helpful for retaining people in the Forces. Not only will they be more interested in enlisting, but they will be more interested in making a career in the Canadian Forces because of all these measures.

[Gary Schellenberger, Progressive Conservative, Perth—Middlesex, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour and a privilege to speak today to a matter of great importance to the men and women of the Canadian armed forces and the Canadian armed forces reserve.

The legislation has the support of members on both sides of the House precisely because it improves the standard of living of our men and women in uniform.

I have great personal respect for the Canadian armed forces and the Canadian armed forces reserve, as I believe their personnel are national heroes. They undertake the defence of our freedom and the protection of our borders without concern for the obvious risks involved.

In return, I believe we owe them the best possible heroes' reward. Part of that reward is to ensure we provide them with the type and kind of equipment they need to complete their missions. We have an obligation to guarantee that they have the resources they need, not only to discharge their duty but to return home safely.

That is why so many of my colleagues in the House insist that we must increase the defence budget. My colleague, the member for Saint John, has done everything in her power to ensure that our military is properly equipped. She is not alone, and I want to praise the work of the Standing Committee on National Defence and Veterans Affairs for all the work it has done.

The renovation of the military and reserve pension schemes is something that many would argue has been a long time coming. The Canadian armed forces and the Canadian armed forces reserve of the present day face many different challenges than those our military faced in the past.

Since the September 11 attacks, our military has changed both in terms of the missions it is given and the members it must recruit. Any effective pension plan must reflect these changes.

The military pension scheme must also reflect the fact that many of its recruits join up at a very young age, and that they are subjected to some of the most rigorous training imaginable. It is my understanding and belief that all these concerns, and more, are addressed in the legislation now under consideration by the House.

The legislation recognizes that our armed forces reserve is being called upon to take a greater role in our national security. As my colleagues have said, the backbone of our military is the militia. This fact has not been previously recognized in the military pension scheme. Under the legislation, those necessary changes will be made into law.

Many of the changes are administrative in nature but underscore the more important policy concerns that our military men and women have with the administration of their pensions. Clearing up this red tape will only help in making the Canadian armed forces a more attractive option for many young Canadians who might be considering a career in the military.

As the House already knows, our military is having a difficult time recruiting the necessary number of men and women needed to handle the burden of missions now upon us. The September 11 attacks and subsequent war on terror attacks have had a marked effect on recruitment efforts, as patriotic young Canadians have answered the call of their country. However, stories about how Canadian soldiers and veterans are forced to fight with this government for the benefits that they have so clearly earned, gives them pause.

The operational tempo, that is to say the ratio of time spent by Canadian Forces personnel in deployed missions, has increased dramatically in the same period that the number of CF personnel was in decline.

Any businessman will tell us that when demand exceeds supply, the end result is a shortage. When there is a shortage in our military, then the security of the country is weakened. Our ability to offer assistance to the world is limited. Our military ends up serving longer, with fewer rotations. With fewer rotations the men and women of our military have less time to train here at home and less time to be with their families.

We have just recently witnessed the very tragic and very dangerous aspect of military missions. Two Canadian soldiers in the prime of their lives were taken from us in Afghanistan. We can honour their memory and their service by improving the conditions of those they have left behind.

My colleague from Saint John has repeatedly said that when it comes to our military we cannot play politics. However I do not believe it would be political for me to say that we need to improve the state of our military in light of current events. It would not be political because so many of my colleagues on both sides of this chamber have said the same thing. It would not be political when an unbiased publication, Jane's Defence Weekly , has written that spending cuts to our defence budget have caused irreparable damage to our military.

We have to take action now. We need to ensure that the military has an increased budget that remains stable in years to come. Stable funding is the cornerstone of an effective military, just as a stable pension is the cornerstone of personal financial security for our military men and women.

Today I am proud to stand in support of making the changes necessary to improve the lives of those who risk their lives for us. Our military's strongest asset is flesh and blood, not steel. Whenever we speak of national defence, we must remember that we speak of sons and daughters, brothers and sisters, mothers and fathers.

Our goal here today is to improve the standard of living for our military personnel for years to come. I believe, given that task, there is no reason that we should not give it our unanimous support.

[Bill Blaikie, NDP, Winnipeg—Transcona, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak today, on behalf of the NDP, to Bill C-37, an act to amend the Canadian Forces Superannuation Act and to make consequential amendments to other acts.

I am also pleased to join with members of all parties by way of indicating our support for the bill. I hope the bill will proceed expeditiously and that the benefits, which will accrue to members of the armed forces as a result of the bill, will come into effect as soon as possible.

Many members have already gone into detail, including the minister, the critic for the official opposition and others, as to what all is contained in the bill, and I see no need to repeat that.

It is important I think to highlight at least one of the changes, and that has to do with providing pension benefits to full time reservists. This is something that has been advocated for a long time and I am glad to see that the minister has been able to make this happen, as, I might add, he has been able to make a number of things happen since he has become the minister. I do not agree with the minister on everything, particularly when it comes to national missile defence--and I might have more to say about that later--but we have had some legislation come forward during the time of his tenure, shall we say, in which things that were long overdue are finally happening, and Bill C-50 is one of those things.

There are still other things that could be done to make life easier for those who are concerned about our reserve forces. Recruitment is still a problem and retention is a problem once they are recruited. I am sure the minister is aware of those problems.

I see the minister is in the House. Maybe afterward he could clear up something that came to my attention, because he may have an opportunity in questions and comments to say something. One of the rumours running through the reserves is that the program that provides some educational benefit to people joining the reserve, whereby they get help with their university education, may be cut. People who are in command positions within the reserve are concerned about this. They see this as an important recruiting tool to be able to offer young Canadians who may be considering joining the reserve.

When I asked that question this morning, when members of the Standing Committee on National Defence and Veterans Affairs were at DND, I was told there was no thought being given to cutting that particular program. It would be good if the minister could confirm that and that it be communicated to people in the reserve. There is no sense having rumours floating around that are unfounded, but, if they are well-founded, we would like to know that as well.

The minister said that he wanted to make the forces, both regular and reserve, the employer of choice. Certainly bringing pension benefits up to par with that which is offered in the rest of the public service and the private sector would be part of that. The bill would go some way toward creating the context that the minister desires.

However I certainly would agree with the official opposition critic who talked about the quality of life for our Canadian Forces members while at the same time tolerating this increase in rent. If we kind of take with one hand what we have given with the other, people are not stupid. They do not come away feeling good about it. If the idea is to make people in the Canadian Forces feel more appreciated than they have over the last several years, and to respond to the quality of life report and to deal with some of the things that led in the past to Canadian Forces families having to access food banks, et cetera, then I would hope that the minister would reconsider this rent increase as other things have been reconsidered.

For instance, at one point it looked like a fait accompli that supply and other functions would be contracted out to a British company. I cannot remember the technical name. I know people in the forces called it kibbles and bits, or something like that. That decision was rescinded and the work has not been contracted out.

There is room for flexibility here. If the minister could see the wisdom of not proceeding with this, that would be great.

While we are on contracting out, although it is not quite relevant, I would hope that the Minister of Industry might see the wisdom of rescinding the contract to Lockheed Martin for the Canadian census. It gives one pause that if we can contract out the census to a big American multinational, it is a wonder we are not contracting out elements of our military to an American corporation. We hope we will never see that day.

Those are some of the things I wanted to put on the record. Other members have tried to turn this into a larger debate about defence spending. Of course that is appropriate to the degree that the Chair allows it. I certainly would not want to be the one who would try and do that given my longstanding respect for relevance.

Others have mentioned it and were not chastised. I might also want to put on the record that we too abhor the delay in replacing the Sea King helicopters. I was here when that contract was cancelled. The EH-101s were first proposed by the Conservative government. We had concerns about that contract.

I would hope that anyone who was here at the same time as I was would say that if we had any inkling of the fact that cancelling the EH-101 contract would mean that 10 years later we still would not be anywhere near obtaining a replacement for the Sea King helicopter, we would have said to buy the things. Whatever it was that was objectionable about them, in my opinion it has become far more objectionable to leave our Canadian Forces in the twilight zone that they have been in with respect to the Sea King helicopters for the past 10 years.

This is a dangerous situation. It is a situation that has nothing to do with helicopters and has everything to do with Liberal politics in terms of the original cancellation, but more blameworthy is the fact that the Liberals have taken 10 years and they still have not figured out which one of their friends will benefit from the contract. Until the Liberals can figure that out, it is the people in the Canadian Forces who have to fly this obsolete equipment. That is shameful.

At the heart of this is a very shameful reality. The reality is that defence contracts in this country can be held hostage to ongoing political manoeuvring of the sort that we have seen relating to the Sea King helicopters. It is not only with respect to helicopters that this happens, but this is one of the more glaring examples of how politics can hold up something which should have been proceeded with expeditiously.

If the Liberals want to cancel a contract, that is fine. However, they have to make up their minds about what the new helicopter will be like and get them on stream and into the hands of the people who need them.

The member from the Bloc Québécois said he could not resist the opportunity to speak highly and offer praise to the Canadian armed forces who were helping out during the ice storm in Quebec. I certainly welcome his remarks in that regard. Likewise, I want to take the opportunity to be praiseworthy of the members of the Canadian armed forces who were in Manitoba at the time of the flood in 1997. They were camped out in tents in the parking lot at the East End Community Club in Transcona. That is where they were bivouacked. I had an opportunity to visit with many of them at that time. I certainly want to add my commendation for the work they did at that time and for the ongoing work they do with respect to catastrophes, whether they be floods, fires, ice storms or whatever the case may be.

The minister did say in his remarks that the national missile defence system was on stream. What does on stream mean? We have made our opposition to Canadian participation in the American proposed and American led national missile defence system very clear on a number of occasions in the House. It is part and parcel of what the government has always said it was against, which is the weaponization of space. We are disappointed that the government seems to be proceeding on this without really making it clear what it is up to.

I would hope that members of the Alliance who seem to agree with national missile defence would agree that there is a procedural inadequacy here. If the government is going to participate in national missile defence, it should come before the House and make that absolutely clear. Perhaps it could bring forward a motion and have the House vote on it. It should do something which at least would nod in the direction of parliamentary participation, of parliamentary approval or disapproval of this very significant step.

As New Democrats, our main quarrel with the Minister of National Defence at this time is national missile defence by stealth. First of all the government was not going to have anything to do with it, then it was discussing it, and now it is on stream. This is not the way these kinds of major decisions should be made.

We certainly hope that the member for LaSalle--Émard, who is certainly on stream to becoming the next prime minister of Canada, will make his position clear on this issue so we can have a debate with him and with those who support him about the position that he has taken.

It is pretty obvious that the position of the new prime minister will be one of support for national missile defence because he is making noises that somehow we have to kiss and make up with Washington for our brief shining moment of independence when it came to the war in Iraq. This is one of the concerns that we have had and one which I notice the former minister of foreign affairs has. The price to be paid for our independence on the war in Iraq will be years of acquiescence, of making up, for that independence. It seems to us it was no coincidence that shortly after that the government began to move in the way it has on national missile defence.

I will end there. Perhaps the minister will have an opportunity in questions and comments to respond to one of the things that I raised earlier in my remarks.

[John McCallum, Liberal, Minister of National Defence]

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to respond to the specific question raised by the hon. member regarding education.

As he knows, I myself have spent 18 years in the field of education. The education advisory board met last week and is trying to put a really strong focus on the importance of education and professional development in the Canadian Forces.

With that as a background, I am happy to confirm that there is absolutely no suggestion that the educational benefits that are currently provided for reservists are in any kind of jeopardy. This is not the case. I do not know where the rumour came from but rumours sometimes get around. I am telling the member unequivocally that those benefits are there to stay. We will try to get the word out to anybody who has doubts on this matter.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the member from Strathcona a simple question, but there is a preamble to it.

He mentioned the floods in Manitoba, and I can certainly feel for him. I appreciate the fact that the military was there. My other colleague from the Bloc mentioned the ice storms in Quebec and I appreciate that as well. I found myself in the position this summer of knowing first hand just how valuable the military is in a domestic crisis. Military personnel were in my riding for the fires this summer and I do not know how we would have done it without them. I truly do appreciate them.

The member from Strathcona and I have some philosophical differences regarding the issues of the Canadian military. I do think we are on side on one issue, which is that we have treated our military very poorly.

With regard to the missile defence system which he also raised, I would only say to him that from my perspective and my point of view, I have to look at things in reality. We have Alaska above us and the United States below us. Whether or not a missile shield goes in is almost a foregone conclusion. Perhaps he would disagree with me, but I would like to be a part of that decision making process since I am fairly aware it is going to happen regardless.

The question I would like to ask concerns the superannuation that we are discussing today. Although it is a very small step toward treating military personnel the way they deserve to be treated and honouring them for what they do for us in the country and what they do for us overseas, would the member agree that it is a step in the right direction? I would like to confirm that he and I are on the same page on this and we are going to support this bill.

[Bill Blaikie, NDP, Winnipeg—Transcona, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I do not want to be unkind but the hon. member should pay closer attention. I said right at the beginning that we supported the bill.

Also, the name of my riding is Winnipeg--Transcona, not Strathcona. Strathcona is in Edmonton. This is not an Alliance strategy for winning Winnipeg--Transcona, to confuse Transcona with Strathcona.

Seeing that the member brought this up, I would also say what the origin of the word Transcona is. It is not unrelated to Strathcona because the community of Transcona was created in 1909-10 when the railway shops in Transcona were built for the second transcontinental railway that was being built in our country at that time. Residents wondered what to call the community and it was suggested that it be a combination of transcontinental and Lord Strathcona, who was a founder of the railways. That is how the word Transcona came to be.

I thank the hon. member for the opportunity to give this little history lesson on the origin of the word Transcona but remind her that Strathcona is a community in Edmonton. She is not the first one to make that mistake, but I thought I should speak in a way that perhaps she would never make it again.

[The Deputy Speaker]

I heard something from somewhere in the House about relevance. I think we have just given it a whole new dimension.

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

Mr. Speaker, earlier in debate between myself and the hon. Minister of National Defence, he referred to the fact that in his opinion the government that he represents has been very forthcoming with funds to replace equipment. In fact he was bragging about the $160 million in last year's budget that was applied to the capital replacement program.

I note in today's Ottawa Sun in a story by Stephanie Rubec that our Prime Minister, who was in Kabul yesterday or the day before, criticized the military for having a never-ending wish list and for continually demanding more money. He is quoted as saying, “But it is never enough. They all need more. And they all have plans for more”. He went on to say that we have the best equipment, that we are better equipped than anybody else.

Would my hon. colleague from the NDP care to comment upon yet the latest example of the Prime Minister of our country addressing an issue of the gross neglect of our military on behalf of his government? The Prime Minister is basically blaming them or suggesting that they are simply crybabies, that they have this never-ending wish list when what they really need is the proper equipment to protect our young men and women when they are stationed overseas in harm's way.

[Bill Blaikie, NDP, Winnipeg—Transcona, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I am sure it is the case that the armed forces, like any other organization, have a wish list. It is the job of politicians to decide what on that wish list is appropriate to provide and what is not. When it comes to the Canadian armed forces at the moment, there are many things on that wish list for which they should never have to wish. They should already have these things.

As I said earlier, one thing they should already have and for which they should not have to wish is a replacement for the Sea King helicopters. However there are many other things one would think would be just part of something that would happen in due course. I have had people tell me that they have problems training people in the militia. Why? Because they have no ammunition.

This is not a debate about nuclear submarines. We are talking about people having bullets, rounds, call them whatever, so that when they point down the range something comes out of the end of the barrel. Something is going on when people say that it would be nice to be able to train people, but they only get issued two bullets per season or something like that. This is the kind of thing that makes a mockery of some of the things that are sometimes said about how well we look after our armed forces.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, there have been reports recently of the United States becoming so desperate to gain public support about the missile defence, or star wars program, that it has actually floated opportunities for the public to be involved. One suggestion that has come back, in terms of a national missile defence fund, is that the Americans use interceptor balloons to hit the missiles.

Could the government have made different decisions about the use of tax cuts, for example, those which have gone to a select few, and instead invested more into our military to provide the rightful resources? It is a matter of choices. Does the member feel the government has made the right choices?

[Bill Blaikie, NDP, Winnipeg—Transcona, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I say to my colleague that I do not feel the government has made the right choices. I think it has a habit of making the wrong choices.

However this is interesting. What kind of choices does the opposition make in terms of what it opposes and what it supports? Many times we have heard speeches from the official opposition and from the Conservatives. Of course now they are now one big happy family under the tutelage of Brian Mulroney. It is a wonderful thing to see the Alliance members have come back under the wing of Mr. Mulroney and the elite.

They have come crawling back with their heads hanging down saying that this is a terrible failure, that they are sorry and asking if they can come back. To see what has happened to the Alliance, makes the story of the prodigal son look somewhat tame. I do not want to get diverted.

[The Deputy Speaker]

I know the hon. member would also want to stay within the confines of relevancy.

[Bill Blaikie, NDP, Winnipeg—Transcona, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the member's question was about choices. The fact of the matter is those people who are constantly complaining and whining about a lack of resources for our national defence forces are the same people who do not blink an eye when there are $100 million in tax cuts and money goes to corporations and the wealthy in the country, money that would be much better spent on housing and other things for our armed forces.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the member for Winnipeg—Transcona for the history lesson on the genesis of Transcona.

First, Bill C-37, which is an act to amend the Canadian Forces Superannuation Act, encompasses a number of things. I would note that substantively the House is in support of this bill. However a couple of points were raised. I heard the comments of the Bloc Quebecois this morning on the transitional provisions with regard to those who are already under the current plan and with regard to the widows' benefits, of which I am not sure of the details. I will try to find out.

Just in summary, I would like to remind the House that the bill would make changes to the pension benefit scheme provided under the Canadian Forces Superannuation Act. The key features of the revised scheme are: first, a reduction of the minimum period for qualifying for a pension to two years; second, tying benefit eligibility to years of pensionable service rather than completion of a period of engagement in the Canadian Forces; and third, the provision of an immediate pension to a person who has completed 25 years of paid service in the Canadian Forces and has at least two years of pensionable service. There are also some consequential amendments or adjustments to other acts as a result of these proposed changes.

Again from the debate so far today, we certainly have broadened out the subject matter from pensions for our military and we have heard some very complimentary words about the quality of our Canadian Forces, but not from all. It really concerns me that in this place from time to time we tend to take advantage of the political opportunism to maybe joust on points not realizing that the families of our military are also listening to the debate. They are very interested in what is happening in this place as it relates to our military.

Canadians have heard that we have not taken care of our military personnel, that we do not pay them enough. We do not give them enough bullets to defend themselves. We do not give them the trucks or equipment they need. We do not do this or we do not to that. We do not have housing. After it is all said and done, we have run down the military so badly. It was never the intent, and I do not believe it is in fact the belief of members in this place. There is no question--

[James Moore, Canadian Alliance, Port Moody—Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam, BC]

Is the member for LaSalle--Émard going to do it?

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Here is a Reformer who is going to throw in his two cents, but let us not forget that it was members of the Reform Party that were going to slash military spending. Now, mea culpa , they are back again, “Oh, yes, we have to do this”. This is politics. It is not the reality of the military.

I had an opportunity in recent months to visit two of bases of our forces. Bagotville was one and Greenwood was another. I want to reiterate what members of the forces said to me as a visitor who was there to learn about what it was like to be in the military and what the concerns were.

When I was in Bagotville, I took the opportunity to meet some of the spouses of our military members. They did not talk about wanting more pay for their spouses' work. They talked about how difficult it was to lose spouses to a six month tour of duty, to have them come back for a short period and then maybe have them reassigned for another tour of duty. The spouses of our military members talked about the impacts on their families. They talked about the unfortunate increase in the levels of domestic violence within the military family. They talked about the impact on the children who were living on the bases. They talked about the fact that our military personnel got medical care on the base while their families who lived on the base did not. They had to go into the town to get the public health care. They wondered why their entire family should not be handled by the same physician. These are the kinds of things about which they talked.

In Bagotville they were not complaining about housing. They were not complaining about salary. When I met these families altogether, there was significant pride in the military life. There was significant pride in the contribution which they were making to safety and security, not only of Canada but around the world. There was a professionalism that most Canadians would not see and would not appreciate.

When I was in Greenwood at the end of last summer, I was part of a military program where I lived in barracks. I ate with the pilots and crews. I did maritime patrol for a week. I have a new found respect for the military. I met people who were a variety of range in age, but to the people, the dedication, the pride, the professionalism, the need to be better at what they did was very evident across the board.

I can remember sitting in a simulator with many of them who were training. The aircraft they fly on maritime patrol are capable of dropping torpedoes. They simulate tracking submarines and they make decision. The public and members of Parliament should see our military personnel in their work. They are not always engaged in theatre; they are preparing for theatre. They are not always doing some things. One member dwelt on how many bullets they had. Quite frankly, for many of our military, the issue is the impact of six month tours of duty, extended periods of duty and what that does to put strain on the family life.

I wanted to raise that because it is really important for us to understand that our military personnel should not be talked about as inanimate objects. They are people. They are moms and dads. They have children. They have the same concerns, the same needs and the same wants as any other Canadian, but they are in a profession, and the significance of their profession to us is not in question. The issue is that they are there by their choosing, because of their pride, their dedication to their work, their professionalism and military service is what they want to do.

There is no question that there are cases where people have not been able to stay in their positions. Retention of military personnel has been a problem. Recruitment from time to time has been a problem. I do not believe it helps our cause to continue to treat military personnel as inanimate objects. The military is made up of human beings. They are heroes. They are Canadians.

I would hope, as the debate continues in this place, that in addition to maybe mentioning a couple of things about the bill, because the bill is pretty important, that we do in fact deal with this subject with a sensitivity which takes into account the fact families are listening to what their parliamentarians are saying about people in military life. They do not live in squalor. They do not live in poverty. They do not live without the benefits they are entitled to receive. The bill does enhance benefits.

One of the Bloc members raised an issue about transitional provisions, that if people had planned to leave after 20 years and they had 18 years or 19 years in the military, this would cause them some problems. The member did not say, which he should have, that members under the transitional provisions would have an opportunity to stay under the existing plan and would start to collect their pensions after 20 years. They would not have to wait 25 years, as the members said.

Mathematically, if they stayed for an additional 5 years and got up to 25, and went under the new system, obviously their pension would be better.

One thing is for sure under this bill. No pensioner from the military would be worse off with this bill. Every pensioner from the military in fact would be better off as a consequence of this bill. For that reason alone, I am sure members in this place will be supporting Bill C-37.

[Garry Breitkreuz, Canadian Alliance, Yorkton—Melville, SK]

Mr. Speaker, the member who just spoke said that the reform party would slash military spending.

These off-handed comments diminish credibility when they are not true. I want the member to be honest and cite one example from the debates in this House, or our policies, where we have ever advocated that. We have always defended the military, and we always will.

Our military is essential to our sovereignty as a nation. Our military is essential for the respect other nations will have for Canada. Our military is essential to the well-being of our nation in many other ways.

I have been here since 1993 and I know that the men and women in the military have been a priority for us, even when the budget deficit was a huge deficit.

I would like the member to stand and give me one example when we have ever advocated cutting the budget of the military.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, maybe the member did not look at his own platform when he ran in 1993. If he were to look back at the platform document for the reform party, he would see.

I will agree with the member that we should constantly be vigilant about supporting our military for the respect that it has earned, not only in Canada but also abroad. In recent years, it has not been so much peacekeeping as it has been peacemaking. There is a transitory thing going on here, in terms of the military, particularly as it relates to post 9/11 incidents.

This is not the place, nor the time, for anybody in this place, quite frankly, to be describing the military as some sort of leper.

Our military has a great tradition. It has great support in this place, on all sides I believe. I would hope that all members would simply use the sensitivity that I am sure they have when they are speaking about the heroes in our Canadian military.

[Art Hanger, Canadian Alliance, Calgary Northeast, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I have listened to the comments from the Liberal member. I held the portfolio of defence critic for some 10 years and over that time I had the opportunity to observe what has happened to our military. Forced changes were placed upon the military due to dramatic cutbacks in budget of somewhere in the neighbourhood of 25% or 26%.

Of all the departments in Ottawa, the Liberals chopped the military the most, right to the bone. Why? Because they knew they could get away with it. Who was going to object? They were not telling the truth to the people in this country. We in opposition party were vigilant in pointing that out to Canadians right from the very onset.

We sat in opposition. We did not chop that budget. The government did. It put the military in the position that it is presently in.

I have a question for the member from Mississauga. If he believes that this party was not vigilant, what does he call his own party?

The Liberals are downright obnoxious and untrustworthy when it comes to looking after our military men and women.