Debates of Sept. 26th, 2003

Transportation

[Rex Barnes, Progressive Conservative, Gander—Grand Falls, NL]

Mr. Speaker, in April of 2000 the Minister of Transport promised the disability community across Canada that new passenger rail cars would be accessible to all persons with disabilities. The Canadian Transportation Agency has ruled that these cars still present obstacles for persons with disabilities.

Why has the minister not kept his promise?

[Rey D. Pagtakhan, Liberal, Minister of Veterans Affairs and Secretary of State (Science]

Mr. Speaker, this is a very serious issue and I will bring it to the attention of the minister at once. I will take this question under advisement.

Government Response to Petitions

[Rodger Cuzner, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36(8) I have the honour to table, in both officials languages, the government's response to four petitions.

Petitions

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

Mr. Speaker, still thousands of people across our nation are concerned about the marriage issue.

I have two petitions today signed by many members across the country. The petitioners ask Parliament to use all possible legislative and administrative measures, including the notwithstanding clause if necessary, to preserve and protect the traditional definition of marriage.

[Bob Mills, Canadian Alliance, Red Deer, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I have two petitions from my riding of Red Deer today.

The first group of 359 are petitioning the government to retain the protection in the Criminal Code for freedom of speech and freedom of religion.

[Bob Mills, Canadian Alliance, Red Deer, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the second petition, signed by 71 constituents, calls upon Parliament to pass legislation to recognize the institution of marriage in federal law as being the lifetime union of a man and a woman.

Questions on the Order Paper

[Rodger Cuzner, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, I ask that all questions be allowed to stand.

[The Deputy Speaker]

Is that agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-37, an act to amend the Canadian Forces Superannuation Act and to make consequential amendments to other acts, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Canadian Forces Superannuation Act

[Ken Epp, Canadian Alliance, Elk Island, AB]

Mr. Speaker, this is a very short interruption to my speech, it being only a little over an hour. I do not know if I hold the record on an interrupted speech but there was one time when I was interrupted and then the bill that I was speaking on was not called for a couple of days less than a year. I started my speech over by saying, “as I was saying when I was interrupted”, and I will not do that today.

I have only a few more points to make on Bill C-37. I draw attention to the fact that with Bill C-37 finally reserve troops are drawn into the pension plan for the armed forces. This again is another item which is long overdue and which I would commend. As a matter of fact, if Canadians were to look at one way in which they could get a lot of value for money, strengthening the reserve forces in Canada would almost certainly be one of those ways.

I know there are other countries in the world that rely very heavily on reserve forces. Perhaps instead of spending a billion dollars on registering duck hunters and threatening to take away their guns if they do not comply with these administrative rules, we might better off issuing rifles to reservists, making it a part of the condition of their having a gun that they take the training and that they be ready to be called upon in case they are needed.

That is perhaps a facetious statement, but certainly the reservists have a great deal to offer the armed forces and the people of Canada. There are many times when there is an emergency that occurs in some part of our country. At that stage, instead of using our regular troops, we could call upon the reservists to help, especially when it comes to helping domestically. I think that would be a very good return on our money.

In any case, Bill C-37 draws them into the pension plan as well. Full time reservists would receive a partial benefit. For those who are part timers, it is a little less generous, but that is fair enough since most reservists have other full time employment and are able to look after their retirement needs in that way.

I would like to comment briefly about the schedule. There are two problems that I have with the bill. One is that there is an awful lot in this bill that will be done by regulation, by order in council. I have spoken on this topic before and I will reiterate it.

The ministers have a great deal of unilateral power when it comes to regulations. If anything needs to be strengthened in our parliamentary system, it needs to be the scrutiny of those regulations. We have a parliamentary committee that does that, but generally it has only the capacity to respond when there are complaints or issues are drawn to its attention.

While it is obviously administratively necessary, we should have perhaps more debate and more public input into decisions that are made and that are proclaimed by regulation.

My final statement on Bill C-37 is that it is long overdue. I commend the government for doing it now but I need to point out very emphatically that looking after of the pension scheme for our armed forces personnel and for our RCMP officers is a need which has been there for a long time. While commending the government for doing it now, I would like to also chastise it for having taken so long to get to this important issue.

Probably most of the members on this side of the House, as certainly on the other side, will be supporting this measure.

I would like to conclude my speech as I began it and that is by thanking the people in our armed forces for the good work they do. I hope that by supporting this measure, we are giving a tangible arm to the support that we are giving them.

Business of the House

[Don Boudria, Liberal, Minister of State and Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. There have been conversations among all parties in the House and I think you would find consent for the following:

That at the conclusion of the debate on Bill C-37 later this day, the House shall immediately proceed to private members's business and at the conclusion thereof the motion shall be deemed to have been put and a division thereon requested and deferred until Wednesday, October 1 at the conclusion of government orders.

The motion I am referring to is the private member's motion.

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos)]

Is it agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-37, an act to amend the Canadian Forces Superannuation Act and to make consequential amendments to other Acts, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Canadian Forces Superannuation Act

[Mario Laframboise, Bloc, Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to speak today to Bill C-37, an act to amend the Canadian Forces Superannuation Act and to make consequential amendments to other Acts. You will have understood that this is, quite simply, a modernization of the Canadian Forces pension plan.

That is exactly what it is, a bill to update a pension plan badly in need of improvement. WIth the improvements in this bill, the plan will move closer to the pension plan currently available to the Canadian public service.

The most important changes are the following: provision of a pension for members of the reserve; reduction of the number of years required for eligibility; enhanced transferability of pension credits; eligibility no longer tied to period of engagement; pension after 25 years service.

Let us look a little closer at this. Reservists will, at last, no longer be left out, and it is high time there was such a change. This bill finally entitles them to pensions, which was not previously the case. This is a good thing: finally acknowledging the work of the men and women of the reserve.

In future, given the serious recruitment problem it is experiencing, the Canadian Forces will have to depend increasingly on reservists for its various missions and operations, both here and abroad.

Since military service in the reserve is voluntary here in Canada, the Canadian Forces need to make reserve service as attractive and worthwhile as possible.

We are of the opinion, therefore, that making reservists eligible for the same pension as members of the regular forces will make the reserve more attractive and as a result able to play a more vital role in augmenting, maintaining and mobilizing the armed forces.

Calling upon the federal government to improve the situation of the reserve forces is nothing new, nor is the demand for them to be treated as members of the regular forces.

Pension coverage for reserve force members was studied in detail in the late 1980s. The study resulted in the introduction of the reserve force retirement gratuity program, an initiative that, in effect, is a form of severance pay. This program was considered to be a reasonable and effective alternative to a traditional pension, given the reserve force work patterns and the fact that most reserve members typically have full-time duties and pension plans with other employers.

Pressures continued, however, for the implementation of more conventional pension arrangements for reserve members. The Standing Committee on National Defence and Veterans Affairs recommended the creation of “a real pension plan” for Canada's Reserve Force in its 1998 Quality of Life report.

Subsequently, as part of the 1999 federal pension reform initiative, Parliament approved amendments to the Canadian Forces Superannuation Act to allow the establishment of a reserve pension plan through regulations.

This goes to show that the government did not invent anything. The Bloc Quebecois applauds the fact that the federal government finally put these recommendations into a bill, but at the same time we wonder why it took so long do so. Nearly five years have gone by since the Standing Committee on National Defence and Veterans Affairs made the recommendation. Perhaps the effective strength of the reserve force would be greater if these recommendations had been acted on earlier.

In the same vein, much remains to be done with respect to recognizing the work of reservists. In the navy, reservists are too few and lack the training and experience to man all coastal defence vessels. As a result, many vessels are forced to stay in berth.

As for the army, it cannot man all vehicles, for lack of trained personnel. The reserve force could be a major asset in this case.

Finally, the air force is facing a serious shortage of pilots. However, it draws heavily on its retired personnel as a source of trained personnel. In the air force, reservists are often relegated to administrative duties. All this definitely needs to be reviewed.

All this to say that the changes proposed in this bill to improve the lives of reservists are all very good, but are just a first step. We only have to look at the latest requirements in terms of domestic security and defence to realize that the need for more trained and well-equipped reservists will surface sooner or later.

Therefore, the role of reservists will have to be reviewed and changed, based on our new needs. The time may have come to review our defence policy in order to reconsider the role of the reserve.

Let us now turn briefly to the reduction of the vesting period and the portaability of pension credits. That can get a bit more technical. The vesting period is the minimum period for qualifying for a pension. Right now, that period is 10 years, compared to 2 years in the federal public service.

The bill would bring the current requirements in line with what is provided for in the federal public service, which is a good thing. The Bloc Quebecois totally agrees with this new measure, which would allow soldiers to more qualify sooner for a pension and bring their pension plan in line with the federal public service pension plan.

On this issue of portability, the bill would allow soldiers entitled to a deferred pension to transfer the actuarial value of their pension to a prescribed retirement savings plan when they leave the armed forces. That is also a very thing, in our view.

Another interesting feature of this bill is that pension eligibility is being dissociated from terms of service. This means that the concept of period of engagement—a familiar term in the military world and one with intimate links to pension benefits—is being set aside and replaced by a pension system based on accumulated years of pensionable service.

To simplify things, we could compare the periods of engagement now used in the forces with fixed-term contracts in the civilian world. We can say that, until now, this system has perhaps help to retain some military personnel who are still fit for duty, but it has become clear that the system is not adapted to short-term or intermittent assignments which are sometimes necessary to support military operations today.

This new approach will also make re-enlistment easier since there should be no penalty for those who want to leave the armed forces. For example, a soldier could have temporary absences without losing his accumulated pension credits. In a period when recruitment and retention appear to be increasingly difficult for the Canadian Forces, such a measure would certainly make the task of the Department of National Defence somewhat easier, as it watches its personnel numbers drop well below the figures in the 1994 White Paper on Defence, which has still not been updated.

There is another measure which, at first glance, might also appear to be a way to encourage retention of military personnel, but which could just as well be a discouraging factor for those who wish to enlist. I am speaking of the new measure which would grant a pension after 25 years of military service, rather than 20, as is now the case.

This measure, which is the most remarkable one in the whole bill, is nothing short of a small revolution within the Canadian Forces. This measure would only apply to new recruits, which could leave to some envy. We are told that people who have already signed on for 20 years, will receive their pension after 20 years as planned, if they so wish. But, future members will not be entitled to receive their pension until after their 25th year of service. They are being asked to stay five extra years in the forces. This almost has the look of a two tier system, or a sort of orphan clause for new arrivals to the forces.

We realize that this is merely a way of retaining new members in the Canadian Forces a little longer and of increasing the numbers. As far as we can see, there is still a problem with recruiting.

Did the last intensive recruiting campaign, with bonuses for people in specialized fields, not go as planned? Is the number of members who are leaving the forces higher than in previous years? Is it really for these reasons that it was decided that pensionable service would increase from 20 to 25 years? We may never get the real answers.

Whatever the case may be, it is clear there is still a lot of work to be done to make the Canadian Forces more appealing. Its members' quality of life is, and will remain, the focus of our concern. Several thousands of Quebeckers are members of the Canadian Forces and they deserve all our attention. Whether they are stationed in Canada or abroad, their standard of living and well-being have to be protected. It is not because enlisting in the military is a personal and voluntary choice that we should neglect them.

The Bloc Quebecois will continue to be vigilant to ensure that current and future Quebec soldiers in the Canadian Forces are well treated.

Upon examination, we find that this bill is a good step toward improving the quality of life of our military personnel. That is why the Bloc Quebecois supports the principle of this bill.

However, some aspects will require further examination, such as the possibility that the government will use regulations to legislate various components in the bill. One of these days we should perhaps examine the Liberal government's new approach to legislation which increasingly allows the Governor in Council to legislate using regulations instead of consulting parliamentarians in the House of Commons.

The explanation will be that it is much faster and more effective, but is it truly more democratic?

[Gerald Keddy, Progressive Conservative, South Shore, NS]

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise today to speak in support of a matter of great importance to the men and women of the Canadian armed forces and the Canadian armed forces reserve, and a matter that should be of great importance, not only to the Parliament of Canada but to all Canadians.

At its heart, the legislation has the noble purpose of improving the quality of life for those who serve in our military. As such, it should not come as a surprise to learn that it has the support of members on both sides of the House.

It goes without saying, however, that the Canadian armed forces and the Canadian armed forces reserve personnel are among our most courageous citizens. They devote the best years of their lives, at great risk, to the protection of this country and its people.

In return, we owe them a duty of care. That duty of care extends to ensuring that they are properly equipped and appropriately compensated for the extraordinary service they offer the people of Canada. I also would say, with the peacekeeping missions that Canadian soldiers have served in the last 50 years, we should recognize the protection that they afford the people all around the world.

The Progressive Conservative Party has many disputes with the government with respect to the larger defence policy issues. There is no dispute at all, however, when it comes to the need to give our men and women in uniform the very best.

The modernization of the military and reserve pension schemes are things that are long overdue.

In the post-cold war world the Canadian military has undergone some very significant changes. Some of these changes speak directly to the demographics of those who are prepared to and those who continue to serve in uniform. The military pension scheme must be sufficiently flexible to reflect those changes and to ensure that our military men and women receive the very best pension possible.

Given the very rigorous and physical demands on our military personnel, the simple reality is that many in the service of the country are quite young. A pension scheme that reflects their youth must also recognize the various factors that can affect their length of service. I believe that both these important criteria are addressed in the legislation now before the House.

Moreover, we are in an age of the citizen soldier. The backbone of our military is now the militia. For too long this fact has not been appropriately recognized in the regulations affecting military pensions. I believe that aspect is also addressed in the legislation we are debating today.

Many of the changes proposed in the legislation speak to the need to revamp the administrative process that governs the military pension scheme.

All Canadians, especially our soldiers, sailors and airmen, deserve to receive the benefits they have earned without having to fight through red tape. After all, I think it is only proper that our soldiers, sailors and airmen, who do enough fighting for us, do not have to fight with us.

All this contributes to the creation of a military that is more competitive in recruiting the best and the brightest young Canadians.

This is, of course, a significant development given the difficulty the Canadian armed forces have experienced in the past in trying to increase recruitment levels.

International incidents, such as the September 11 attacks, can have a marked effect on recruitment efforts, as patriotic young Canadians make the commitment to help defend our country from possible terrorist attacks.

However, to sustain that level of recruitment and to retain those who have already joined, the military needs a pension scheme that is comparable to what is being offered in the private sector.

As members will know, the Canadian armed forces has suffered from the effects of manpower shortages. At a time when the operational tempo, the ratio of time spent by Canadian Forces personnel in deployed missions, increased dramatically, the number of CF personnel was in decline.

When demand exceeds supply, the end result is a military that is stretched far too thin. Our military men and women end up serving in longer rotations on a more frequent basis. This simply means that they have less time at home, less time to rest, less time to train and more time in the field. It also means that they have less time with their families. That is not a recipe for success. In the long run, and even in the short term, that is a recipe for disaster.

Our military has endured a very difficult period in these last 10 years. Cuts to defence spending have weakened our military but not its resolve. Recently the defence publication Jane's Defence Weekly wrote that these spending cuts have caused “irreparable damage” to our military. Irreparable damage: We can only hope that this is not the case.

Where there is no doubt is that we need the military to have an increased budget that remains stable for a definite period of time. Only stable funding at a level sufficient to meet our defence needs will allow our military to make the capital purchases it needs.

There is also a need to make the investment in human resources and human capital. That is what we are doing today, albeit indirectly. There is a tendency to think of our army, navy and air force in terms of tanks, ships and airplanes. The reality is, it is about soldiers, sailors and airmen. For that reason, modernizing the pension scheme for the men and women who are at the core of our national defence is really an investment in our national security.

My good friend the hon. member for Saint John has often said that when it comes to the military we should put politics aside. Once we have ascertained what course of action is in the best interests of our military we should not let our political differences stand in the way of progress.

It is for that reason, and with this sentiment in mind, that today I am pleased we are taking this step toward ensuring that the military has a pension scheme that works and that the legislation presented here for our consideration has as its goal making the Canadian Forces pension scheme more accessible and efficient. After all, when their time in the military is over, our national heroes deserve a hero's welcome at home and a place to rest.

[Wendy Lill, NDP, Dartmouth, NS]

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise to speak to Bill C-37 today. I would like to echo some of the comments from the previous member about the importance of providing a welcome to our returning military members when they return home after a long career in the military.

Military pension modernization is sometimes not thought of as the most exciting topic in this place, but in fact it is extremely important to many people who live in my riding of Dartmouth, which is home to many military families, recent retirees from the military and, as I mentioned yesterday, many veterans.

We have a proud tradition of supporting our military, from standing at the docks to see the ships coming and going to and from the latest deployments to being out in full force at Remembrance Day, the Battle of Britain day and D-Day celebrations.

People in Dartmouth recognize the incredible commitment and sacrifice of our military personnel. They know that the men and women of our modern military spent a great deal of their time away from their families in the course of their work.

In fact, the Department of National Defence backgrounder on the bill illustrates the incredible change in our military's role. From 1948 to 1989, the Canadian Forces were deployed on 25 operations. Since then they have deployed over 65 times. That does not include the many training exercises and civilian emergencies such as the recent B.C. wildfires, which called personnel away for long periods of time.

I want to give hon. members an example of the effect of the multiple roles of our military. One of my constituents is in the air force. Two days after his son was born, Swissair flight 111 crashed off Peggy's Cove. He was one of the personnel in charge of retrieval operations. For the next three or four weeks he worked 16 hours a day supervising the retrieval of the plane, its contents and the bodies of the dead. He barely saw his newborn son and he certainly could not give his wife the support he would have liked to give her. That same constituent missed every one of his family's birthdays plus Christmas and Easter when, just two years later, he left for a deployment on Operation Apollo.

This life does not appeal to many of us. Frankly, I think that aspect of it does not appeal to my constituent either. We should be grateful that any of our citizens are willing to put their families through that kind of rigour, to move around the country and leave friends behind, to travel to foreign lands and to face daily danger.

In fact, we all know that our military is understaffed. Fewer and fewer people are willing to be in our military. Fewer and fewer Canadians make that decade long commitment that was once necessary to receive a pension, this at the same time that deployments are increasing. Again, DND points out that at any one time over one-third of its deployable force is either preparing for a mission, away on a mission or just returning.

We need a flexible pension plan that rewards Canadians willing to take on a military role. Instead of only supporting personnel who join the military at a young age and stay for a defined period of service, this new legislation will allow people to join the military for shorter periods of time and still generate pensionable earnings. It also allows breaks in military service without penalty.

Our military is changing and its role is also changing. These reforms of the pension plan for military personnel, both regular and reserve personnel, will help the military attract the best candidates. I think the military has had a bad rap over the years. Where it was once seen as an obvious choice for young people, now they are more likely to attend post-secondary or jump right into the work force.

Low pay, poor living conditions on bases and a draconian pension scheme that demanded lengthy terms of service could not compete with high salaries, stock options and more flexible work arrangements. Out of necessity, our military commanders have to recruit from non-traditional areas and they need the tools to attract the best candidates.

Finally, I want to comment on how important it is to our present military personnel to revitalize and fully staff our military.

I have lost track of how many leave-takings and joyous returns to the dock in Halifax I have had the honour of attending, but I do know that the experience of the constituent I mentioned earlier is not uncommon. Our military personnel are tired from constant deployments and operations. They have to use aging, outdated equipment and spend valuable time figuring out how to keep ships afloat, aircraft in the air, and vehicles moving, all of this during some of the most dangerous deployments Canadian soldiers have faced during peacetime.

Any measure that will encourage more skilled and qualified people to join the military is welcome, and that will allow military commanders to build up personnel capacity when needed to reduce the demand on regular forces.

Pension reform, as I mentioned earlier, is not the most interesting change that can be made, but it is an important one and we will be supporting the bill.

[Keith Martin, Canadian Alliance, Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC]

Madam Speaker, today it is a pleasure to speak on Bill C-37.

It is particularly important for the people in the good riding of Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca. I have the maritime Pacific command in my riding and it is the major employer. A lot of my constituents serve our country honourably as part of our Canadian armed forces. I have had interaction with them and know of the trials and tribulations which they have endured quietly for a long time.

I just want to speak briefly on the first part of the bill, which really deals with the fact that the Canadian Forces superannuation plan was quite antiquated and desperately in need of modernization and enhancement. We thank the government for doing this, but it took a very long time to get it done. I will get back to the time delays and the government's inability to deal with the very important challenges faced by our military and by extension, faced by Canadians.

The pension legislation has a number of very good points. We asked for these for quite a long time. This first came about in the SCONDVA report of 1998. That seminal work, which was supported by all parties, had a number of very good suggestions that would improve the health and welfare of our armed forces personnel back in 1998. Sad to say, it took the government more than five years to implement these changes.

The bill talks about de-linking pension eligibility in terms of service. We support that. It talks about early access to deferred pension benefits. We support that. We absolutely support the portability of pensions. Reserve forces pension benefits is something for which we have been asking. It was explicitly stated in the SCONDVA report of 1998.

This is also a reflection of the respect that the armed forces reserve personnel should have received but did not. We have been asking for that for a long time and we are glad that finally the government has chosen to respect our reserve forces personnel and give them the pension benefits they should have had a long time ago.

I want to address the issue of life in the services, the challenges our armed services have faced for many years and how this has dramatically affected, in a negative way, our ability as a country to be safe and secure, not only here within the borders of our country but indeed abroad.

Our armed forces personnel are in burnout because the government has de-linked their capabilities. Policy decisions are made and are de-linked to the capabilities of our forces. The Prime Minister and his government have repeatedly made commitments without adequate discussion and analysis of their true capabilities.

Our armed forces have an enormous amount of will, desire or courage. However one simply cannot command and demand from our military an infinite number of work projects. Sooner or later they will burn out and their equipment will rust out. Not only we in the House have been saying that, but anybody who has had anything to do with the military in Canada and outside of Canada has been saying that as well. They have repeatedly said to the Canadian government that it needs to invest in our military in terms of manpower and equipment.

General Henault, our chief of defence staff, said this week that, “The Canadian Forces runs the risk of becoming irrelevant”. That is not something that our armed forces personnel want. It is not something that any of us want, but that is the product of neglect. Why do I say that? Right now we have about 56,000 people in our armed forces. That is a far cry from what we had when this government came to power 10 years ago. The numbers were in the 80,000 mark. In the seventies we had more than 100,000 people in our armed services.

Some suggested that post-cold war would have a peace benefit. However I would argue that the world today is as dangerous or more dangerous than it was during the cold war. Certainly the threats are different. In the two part cold war system, when we had two groups looking at each other with very potent and large numbers of nuclear weapons, there was a gridlock. Now the threats are more diffuse. Indeed I would suggest they are equally if not more dangerous because the tools and weaponry to commit and kill a large number of people are in the hands of uncontrollable individuals and groups. To this day we and our military are trying to deal with this.

However we cannot make the commitment or do the job within our borders and outside if we only have 55,000 people. For example, our soldiers are suffering from extreme burnout because they have been away for good parts of a year, and this has gone on for a long time. They come home and then they are rapidly recycled back into the theatre. That has a negative effect, not only on their personal health, but also it has a dramatic negative impact upon their family lives.

In the case of the command troops aboard the HMCS Calgary , as of December they will have spent 47 of the last 52 weeks in the theatre. One simply cannot be away from one's family for 47 out of 52 weeks on an ongoing basis and expect to have a family left at the end of the day.

We have asked for a dramatic increase in the number of personnel to more than 75,000 so we can begin to address the manpower deficit. We also have to give them the tools to do the job. We need to give them the training opportunities. We need to give them the equipment, whether it is helicopters, ships, fighter planes or a litany of other tools necessary to do the job. We see rust out. It will be virtually impossible for the government to meet the needs of replacing equipment that has rusted in the short to intermediate term. However it has to try at least for the long term so the equipment is there to do the job.

What is completely unacceptable is the government's so-called investment in the military is nowhere close to meeting our short, intermediate or long term objectives. In other words, what the government is doing now is a recipe for disaster. The only way to get around this is for the government to put in a minimum of $2 billion a year for the next five years. This would have a significant impact and would give our troops the manpower and tools needed to do the job. If it does not do that, we will become increasingly irrelevant on the international stage and will be unable to meet our domestic commitments.

Why is that important? Our ability to be at the trade table, to negotiate and engage our allies in economics and have a say is predicated, whether it be trade or security, on our investment and commitment in hard resources to our collective security. Our security as a country is predicated on our collective security. We know the threats we are facing are complex, transnational and diffuse. Whether it is the war on terrorism, or another conflict in the future, or the control of nuclear weapons, or narco-terrorism, we need a multinational, multilateral approach to these issues that not only address aid, diplomacy and trade but also have a significant military component.

Some would like to say that post-cold war we should all be peacekeepers and police personnel, which we can be. However I think the viewers would be shocked to know that while one of our former prime ministers won the Nobel peace prize for peacekeeping, among our allies we are 19th out of 21 in our commitment to peacekeeping operations today. We have been on the lower third of commitments to peacekeeping operations for a long time. The reason for that is our lack of commitment to manpower and resources.

The other aspect that I would like to address is the fact that unless we can make those commitments with our allies, Canadians lose out economically. We do not have the power at the table to negotiate trade and economic benefits for Canadians. Therefore, we must make that commitment to our individual and collective security.

The second aspect is our domestic interest. We saw in British Columbia the heroic actions of the military in dealing with the terrible forest fires this past summer. It did a wonderful job. The fact of the matter is we do not have the personnel to meet the needs of our country for domestic emergencies. Our armed forces can go a long way to addressing domestic emergencies, but we not only lack the manpower, we lack the equipment.

In the Arctic, for example, we do not have the capabilities to deal with a lot of emergencies, particularly when there is a need for helicopters because the government has continued to drag its heals. I believe it is because the Prime Minister does not want to lose face. The Prime Minister cut a deal that the previous government had made to purchase EH-101 helicopters. That was an election promise but it was an election promise to curry votes with the public. It was not a promise based on the needs of our country and our military.

For the last 10 years our military personnel have been trying to cobble our helicopter abilities. They have tried very hard to do this but in the process they have compromised their own safety. Our ability to protect our forces and work with our allies are compromised by not having this asset. Also, our ability to work in the north and deal with rescue operations in the north are also compromised by virtue of not having this capability. Certainly a few have come on board but not enough.

I want to also talk about some work that is being done. I just came back from Sierra Leone. There is an exciting option that our government may wish to entertain in terms of a useful international component in which Canada can engage. When I was in Sierra Leone, two groups were operating there and doing an extraordinary job. One was our RCMP that was training the police force to be a competent internal police force. The other group was our armed forces personnel who were training the Sierra Leone army to be a competent professional military service for domestic needs.

We are recognized internationally as being very good at doing that. Our people are very good at doing that. This is something the government may want to pursue as an international niche. We could take on the job of training other military services on how to be a good military. We could also train their internal police forces on how to be good police forces. At the end of the day, internal security of a country is absolutely essential for it to move on and have a strong stable economy. Indeed, social and economic stability is in part predicated on having good, fair-minded, professionally trained, professionally functioning internal security forces that can maintain the peace within a country. Without that, countries could easily spiral into anarchy or suffer from the predations of other nations.

I also want to talk a bit, if I may, about the situation that we are seeing with respect to our military families. The way in which some of our military personnel are being treated from time to time is really quite deplorable. I know our ombudsman tries hard to do a good job but our military personnel are finding it difficult ensuring their complaints are listened to and addressed within the system that exists today.

I have had a number of complaints that have come across my desk over the years where I wonder why the military does not treat their colleagues in a more professional fashion. I would suggest that the Minister of National Defence take a long, hard look at morale in our military and in how they are treated as individuals.

These are just a few bad examples that I am aware of but they are worthwhile looking at. What I am hearing from many of our military personnel is that the department does not treat them well under the present system.

I will give some examples in terms of personal finances. The government likes to trump up and say that it gave the military a raise. That is good because they desperately needed one. However, what it has failed to tell the public is that it surreptitiously took a lot of that money away. How did it do that? It did it through cuts to the cost of living allowance, also called the PLD, quite significantly.

What the cost of living allowance, or PLD, is supposed to do is address differences in the cost of living in different parts of our country. Since members of our military are sent wherever they are supposed to go based on the hierarchy within the system, which they are willing to do, the cost of living allowance or PLD is meant to address differences in costs. However the government dramatically cut that PLD causing significant harm to the incomes of our armed forces personnel.

The second thing the government wanted to do, which we talked about this week, was cut the foreign service deployment allowance our forces personnel receive when they are in theatre. Not only was it going to cut it, but it was going to be cut retroactively to the tune of $750 from $1,000 for each military family. My military families were aghast and, thankfully, were kind enough to make me aware of the situation.

We brought it up in question period and, I must say, I thank the government for saying that it would not cut retroactively the foreign service deployment allowance to our military. We all understand that a threat decreases and declines and the amount of money they receive is based on that threat, so of course the amount has to be decreased, which is only fair, but the fact that the government was contemplating cutting retroactively those moneys is deplorable. I never want to see that happen again in this House. Our armed forces personnel deserve better.

The government has also raised the rents on the private married quarters. This is based on two things. The government said that it had to raise the rents on the PMQs because it needed to make sure it was not artificially subsidizing PMQ rents. That is fair enough, but it made an enormous error in saying that a private married quarter in say Esquimalt is the same as a home in the private sector. That is completely untrue. Those private married quarters are not the same as in the private sector. There is no equivalent. It is a deeply flawed assessment in the value of those homes. The government bases its rent increases on that absolutely flawed assumption. I would ask the Treasury Board to immediately look at how it is assessing the PMQ rent hikes, because it is wrong.

The government is raising the PMQ rents on the basis that people who do equivalent jobs in the private sector to those in the military are making the same wage. The fact of the matter is that they are not. Whether they are firefighters, electricians, or in any other profession within the military, they do not receive the same amount of money as somebody in the private sector.

Raising the rents in the PMQ is flawed on two basic grounds: First, the houses are not the same; and second, the payment is not the same. If the government wants to ensure there is equivalence, then it either has to ensure that the houses are the same or that our military personnel receive the same pay.

I will close by saying that the government needs to make a significant investment in our military, the manpower and the equipment, and I am not talking about lip service. I am talking about a $2 billion investment per year for the next five years. If it does not do that then not only does it compromise the functioning of our military putting their lives at stake, but it also compromises the security of Canadians and for Canada, as a nation, to be a player at the table for the benefit of our collective security.

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos)]

Is the House ready for the question?

[Some hon. members]

Question.

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos)]

The question is on the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[An hon. member]

On division.

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos)]

Accordingly, the bill is referred to the Standing Committee on National Defence and Veterans Affairs.

(Bill read the second time and referred to a committee)