Debates of Oct. 21st, 2004

Business of the House

[The Deputy Speaker]

The House has heard the terms of the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

(Motion agreed to)

The House resumed consideration of the motion.

Supply

[Dave Chatters, Conservative, Westlock—St. Paul, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to join in this debate on our supply day motion from a couple of different perspectives.

Certainly from the perspective of a member of Parliament, in my riding I represent the only two armed forces bases in Alberta. There is the Cold Lake air base, which is world renowned for its Maple Flag operation, which brings countries from around the world to the best facility in the world for training and practising among air forces in the work they do flying and training for combat capability. I also represent the Edmonton garrison, of course, which is one of the Canadian super bases and certainly a base that continues to deploy soldiers around the world.

I speak from both of those perspectives because in just the few short months that I have been the member of Parliament for Westlock--St. Paul, which is now Battle River, the file in my office from Canadian Forces personnel is by far and away the largest file, with both current and retired members of the forces contacting my office.

I am sure that my colleague who just spoke and who represented the Cold Lake area before I did probably had the same experience. Certainly the amount of mail we get and the problems we recognize I think indicate just how serious the morale situation is in our Canadian armed forces and how abandoned by the government the members of our forces feel. I want to talk a little about that.

I also want to talk from a personal perspective, because my family has a long tradition of service in the Canadian armed forces, both in wartime and in the days of the Pearson peacekeeping tradition. Today my son has served for 18 years in the military. It makes me very proud as a father to support what he is doing for his country.

However, particularly in my speech I want to focus more on the enlisted ranks because I think that group has truly been let down and betrayed by the Liberal Government of Canada, going way back to the years of Pierre Trudeau and the amalgamation of the three wings of the forces and what that did to morale. It has been a constant downhill slide ever since then.

I have to say right up front how disappointed I am with the parliamentary secretary and his words and his statements, because I served in the same caucus as the parliamentary secretary for 10 years and I always knew him as a man of great principle and integrity. In his years in our caucus, he was a person who did not buckle down, who stood up and took controversial positions on things like health care because he believed in them. I believed that he was serious, that he believed what he was saying was right, yet his party sends him in here on this supply day to stand in response to almost every speaker and defend the government's position,knowing full well that the record is here, the record of his comments over the last 10 years on how Canada has treated its military.

My sympathy goes out to the member because it must be very difficult to have sold your principles to that degree: to be a member of the Liberal Party. Of course what he is doing today has to be the supreme test to see if he belongs in the Liberal Party or not. My condolences to him. It seems he does.

As I have said, I think it certainly is the non-commissioned ranks that are being shafted in the way the government is treating its armed forces. This is for a couple of reasons. Certainly the mail that I get does not come from the officer corps. Occasionally I do have a few letters from officers who, after retirement, seem to have been released from the bonds of this esprit de corps and are able to speak out. I think the officer corps has an advantage in a couple of ways.

First, the top levels of our armed forces are so overloaded that they do not face the strain our non-commissioned ranks do in doing the day to day work. We have such a surplus of officers that they do not face the redeployment pressure that I think the non-commissioned ranks do. Second, I think the officer corps has let down the non-commissioned ranks in their responsibility to stand up, speak out and defend the foot soldiers, the airmen and the seamen when they are facing the kinds of problems that they do.

I focus more on that direction because it is the families of the enlisted ranks who are being destroyed by this lack of personnel and the requirement to redeploy over and over again. It is the families of those ranks who really face that challenge and it is a huge one. If we were allowed to see the statistics of family breakdown, suicide and alcoholism in those enlisted ranks compared to the general population, I think we would be absolutely shocked and appalled at what we are doing to our armed forces personnel, who continue to be, in spite of all these things, so proud to wear Canada's uniform and stand up and represent Canada all over the world.

Second, it is the non-commissioned ranks that face the funding shortages. As an example, I will refer back to the group of servicemen who were on course in British Columbia and were awarded some $70 a day in an expense allowance. They were paid, but when they came back after the course the payment was clawed back. It was clawed back to the point where at least one of those servicemen had to mortgage his home in order to pay that back. I do not think the officer corps faces those kinds of challenges. That is why I focus on the ranks. I just think this is unforgiveable.

The parliamentary secretary actually stood up and defended and talked about the Canadians in Iraq and Afghanistan. I think it was in Afghanistan that they were recognized, where the snipers were honoured for their ability and the work they did in Afghanistan. The parliamentary secretary actually stood up and said he was so proud of them, but the government that he is speaking for today refused to allow the U.S. government to honour those guys with a service medal. Maybe he is proud of them, but his government did not seem to be proud of them. I do not understand why.

According to the Americans, they were doing an exemplary job, the best there was. Then when the Americans wanted to recognize these people on the international stage, for some reason the Canadian government did not want our soldiers to be recognized for that kind of work. It is far better to be recognized with peacekeeping medals, I suppose, but that is not what being a soldier is all about. That was really a shame.

Certainly it is again the non-commissioned ranks that face the challenges to keep obsolete equipment operational. It is the ranks that have aircraft and ships and army equipment that has to go to work. They have half the fleet cannibalized for parts for the other half in order to keep it operational. How discouraging is that? They do not have the tools. They do not have the parts. That really is demoralizing.

Here, of course, the Liberals, like they do in every department I have seen in the last 10 years, always talk the talk but never walk the walk. There is all this talk about spending money and giving money. Let us look at the shipborne helicopters if we want to see how they walk the walk. It is 11 years later and we still have not ordered the helicopters.

[Leon Benoit, Conservative, Vegreville—Wainwright, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to say that I did represent that part of the constituency which the member is representing now with the Cold Lake air base and I did hear from a lot of personnel over the years about some of the difficulties they were facing in trying to keep our jets flying. I did hear about the strain on the families due to over-deployment and so on. That certainly was there then, as it is now.

It is amazing to me that for the 11 years we have been here in the House we have heard that our equipment overall is continuing to deteriorate and is simply inadequate, yet so often when Canada goes to various trouble spots it is recognized as serving extremely well. When we look at why that is, I think the reason is obvious, but I would like to ask the member about his thoughts on this.

It clearly is not because they have state of the art equipment generally, and it certainly has not been the case in the past. It is because of the ingenuity and the excellent training of our military personnel. It is the people themselves who are so capable, so proud and so committed to doing a good job on behalf of our country and making our country proud that they make up for the dreadful inadequacies of the equipment. I would like the member's comments on that.

[Dave Chatters, Conservative, Westlock—St. Paul, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the member makes a good point, because our military people are the best trained people in the world. My son went with a crew from his squadron years ago to an international airlift rodeo in North Carolina, and our crew was one of the best in the world in spite of the fact that they went there with a 20 year old aircraft when countries like Israel and the United States flew in with brand new aircraft. Our people represented us proudly. They did great.

When the government finally does get around to providing them with new, state of the art equipment, instead of giving these highly trained service people the responsibility of maintaining and being proud of the aircraft, for political reasons the government hires civilian contractors to do the maintenance on this equipment.

Members have no idea how demoralizing that is to someone who has made a career of learning how to maintain this equipment and becoming the best in the world at maintaining it for Canada and for the Canadian armed forces. Clearly this government does not even think about that. Its first consideration is political, it is spinning, it is providing smoke and mirrors to cover up what it is doing. The government is making promises that it has no intention of fulfilling and I think that is tragic for those people.

[Jay Hill, Conservative, Prince George—Peace River, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I know time is quite short so I will get right to the point. Earlier in the debate today, the deputy government House leader, the member for Ottawa--Vanier, referred to the fact that his government in last spring's budget allowed for tax exemptions for our overseas troops. When he was bragging about that it reminded me of the fact that when the Liberals brought in that policy they were in such a big hurry to try to buy votes and shore up their support among the nation's military that they did not even think it through.

First of all, the Liberals said it would be applied only to those involved in high risk missions, but they did not define what a high risk mission was. Then they said it was going to be only for those people serving in Afghanistan at Camp Julien. Then when some of us made the point that there are people on patrol in mine-infested areas in Bosnia who are certainly on high risk missions, they said they would look at extending it to Bosnia. Then it was Haiti. Even I do not know yet where they are going with this policy or whether it has been clearly defined in regard to who qualifies for it and who does not.

Has the member, in representing military people in his riding, heard about this issue? How do the people this policy actually affects feel about it?

[Dave Chatters, Conservative, Westlock—St. Paul, AB]

Mr. Speaker, that is an excellent question. It is certainly one of the topics that I most often hear about. Not only do I hear it from people who are deployed internationally over and over again at great cost to them personally and to their families who do not qualify for that. However, there are other cases of high ranking officers who fly into these hot spots for a matter of days or hours and claim the tax exemption. The whole thing is a nightmare and there are endless concerns about it. It needs to be addressed because it is a huge issue.

[Bev Desjarlais, NDP, Churchill, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I too want to join others who have congratulated you on your appointment to the Chair. I have enjoyed working with you over the last number of years and have known you to be nothing but fair, at least when you are in the Chair.

It is interesting today that we would be here debating the motion that is before us. As my colleague from Elmwood—Transcona mentioned earlier today, the preamble and the motion do not seem to give a clear direction as to what the official opposition was looking for. It is interesting to note, and as someone who has been here now since 1997, that often motions are written in such a way to catch the opposing parties and use something against them whether in an election campaign or in a newspaper article. We just want to have something to use against them and that so often is the case.

I would hope that was not the intent of the opposition on something so serious as proper funding for the military and ensuring safe equipment for the men and women who are in our military. I would hope that is not the case and that what we are really doing here is discussing and debating what the government's policy should be and whether or not the funding is adequate.

I will read a section of the motion:

--the combat capabilities of the Canadian Forces have been permitted to decay and the government is continuing this trend by proposing to raise a peacekeeping brigade at the expense of existing combat ready forces--

Most Canadians have a hard time distinguishing peacekeepers from combat ready. There are those who know the military and have said our peacekeepers are combat ready. They are trained individuals. They have to be combat ready for the jobs that they are doing. So we are left wondering what the heck is going on here. Is it a matter that the Conservatives are opposed to peacekeeping? I do not think so. However, I am not sure.

I want to read another section which I believe is from the Conservative's platform. It says that Canada's defence policy must reflect the global environment by balancing fiscal constraints with issues of collective security, participation in peacekeeping and peacemaking missions, and an appropriately structured military that is sustainable and sufficiently flexible to react to needs.

The Conservative Party was saying, at least during the election campaign, that it supported peacekeeping. However, if we go strictly by the motion today, we would say that it does not really support peacekeeping as compared to combat. It only supports the one and not the peacekeeping, so I have to wonder what exactly it was intending to do by the motion.

Over time we realize different parties say different things at times. Again, I have to question the reliability of what the Conservative Party has said because during the election it said the following on strong democracy:

The Conservative Party of Canada believes true democracy involves vigorous participation by all citizens in the affairs of the country.

This is extremely important. It said:

We will commit to broad consultation with citizens across Canada to further the ongoing policy development process and ensure Members of Parliament have the fullest input from all Canadians.

Yesterday the defence committee refused to meet with the people of Canada on missile defence. It sided with the government and said we are going to go along with George Bush and put in the missile defence. The Conservative Party does not care what the people of Canada have to say. It did not want to hear that Canadian citizens do not go along with missile defence because anyone with an ounce of sense would know that is the weaponization of space.

There are Republicans in the United States saying this is the weaponization of space. There is no question about it. Once again we have a situation where, rather than standing up for Canadians and what they believe in, we have the Liberal government and, as we have always said, those just like them, the Conservatives going right along together saying they do not care what Canadians say.

Before I forget, I want to indicate that I am splitting my time with my colleague from Windsor—Tecumseh.

I want to emphasize the seriousness of this motion today and the lack of clarity in the motion. I do not think there is any question that every member of Parliament and all Canadians appreciate what our military people have done for us in the past. On Remembrance Day we always make a point of taking the time to recognize the people who have been either injured or killed over the years.

Certainly we recognize the military people who support our efforts. Whether Canadians agree with the government's position and what it might be doing on a particular issue or not, Canadians support the people within the military because they know the military is acting on their behalf to promote what they want to see as Canadians. There is no question about that.

Do we need to properly fund the military? Absolutely. It is unconscionable that any government or Parliament would say that we want our troops to go on a peacekeeping or peacemaking mission in a certain area of the world where we know it is going to be dangerous because some people who will not agree with it will be jumping out at them and possibly laying bombs on the road. We would want our troops to be riding in the best armoured vehicles that would help protect them. We all know that things could happen and they could be killed, but let us give them the best of what is available.

It would seem like a basic thing to think that people who are in situations where there may be possible sniper attacks and those kind of things would all be wearing at least bulletproof vests. We give them to a good number of our police forces within our country, but do the military have them? No. That is not acceptable. These men and women are working on our behalf for our country and we are not giving them what they need.

Somehow the government's priorities would rather see money going elsewhere. Some would say that it was only millions, not billions, that was wasted in the scandal or in different patronage plums within the Liberal government. If 1¢ of taxpayers' dollars was wasted that could have provided one piece of equipment for our military men and women, it is unconscionable. For every dollar that was wasted, people should remember that possibly one life might have been saved, maybe two, and maybe more. That is what is unconscionable.

As the Conservatives said, we need to be fiscally responsible. We need to have sustainability and balance based on the environment. It is crucially important that we provide the proper funding when our men and women are going into certain operations, otherwise we should not be sending them. That is the name of the game. We should not be sending them.

I want to mention, as my Conservative colleague from Trenton did, that I had the opportunity to take part in the defence program for parliamentarians. It was excellent. I had never experienced any kind of military operation. There were no bases where I grew up or in my riding, so it was a great opportunity to see the people in the search and rescue operations in Trenton and the fact that they were still using some of the older helicopters and equipment that has not been updated.

They were doing the best they could with what they had and speaking very proudly of their force, as well as their country. As a show of respect to them, we should do the same by properly funding and equipping our men and women in the military.

[Jay Hill, Conservative, Prince George—Peace River, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member from the New Democratic Party for her remarks directed at our supply day motion concerning our nation's military.

I must admit that I am little baffled. She said in her remarks that she had a problem understanding the intent of the motion. Without reading the preamble, the latter part of the motion states:

This House call on the government to commit to maintaining air, land and sea combat capability by ensuring that members of the forces are trained, equipped and supported for combat operations and peacekeeping, in order to enhance Canada's status and influence as a sovereign nation.

I do not know what could be more straightforward than that.

The problem that we have had, which has come out in debate today time and time again, is that words are cheap and to the government, all too often, lives are cheap because it refuses to commit.

The key word in our motion today is that the House call on the government to “commit”. We want to see it in writing. We want to see the money in the budget line instead of having what happened last year when the budget was tabled. The government talked about the $300 million and it hardly covered the costs of our expenses in Afghanistan and Haiti. There was nothing in new money to even address the shortfall in the ongoing operational budgets of the three branches of the forces: the army, navy and air force.

That is what we are seeking. We are seeking a firm commitment. We are tired of words. Men and women of our armed forces continue day after day to take the risks on behalf of their country. We are asking in the motion for a commitment in writing because we are tired of words.

[Bev Desjarlais, NDP, Churchill, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I know we are all very passionate about our military. It is interesting how it is always our military when we are just talking about them like this. We do not probably think about the military each and every day, which we should.

In between remembrance days we should remember why the military is over there. We should remember when we are voting on issues, if we ever get to vote on issues in the House, as to whether or not when we have military personnel go into places, that we are putting their lives at risk. It is crucially important that we do not forget that.

I accept my colleague's explanation of the motion. As I indicated, I had issue with what was in the preamble in relation to the motion. As he well knows, as do members of the House, we often have to consider that because there is a tendency to use some of that against each other in political times. I accept his clarification of the motion.

[Leon Benoit, Conservative, Vegreville—Wainwright, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the member said she had a problem with what was in the preamble. I am going to read the preamble. I do not see the problem. I would like her to explain the problem.

Before I read the preamble I would like to comment that the member sort of supported the military in her statement. However, the bottom line is, and this is so common in that party, when it comes to actually committing the resources necessary to provide the kind of support that we are talking about, its members will not do it.

I want to know specifically what the member finds offensive or unacceptable in the preamble which states:

That, in the opinion of this House, the government's national defence policies are seriously out of date and funding has fallen dramatically short of what is needed to meet defence commitments,--

That is pretty clear. How can she argue with that? That is a fact. It goes on to say:

--the combat capabilities of the Canadian Forces have been permitted to decay and the government is continuing this trend by proposing to raise a peacekeeping brigade at the expense of existing combat ready forces;--

That is the preamble. What part of that would she argue with? Would she argue that the government's commitment of 5,000 peacekeepers who would not be combat capable troops, that there is no problem with that?

I would like the member to explain why that would be? Does she think it is okay to send people into harm's way when they are not properly equipped, when they are not properly trained, and they may have to deal with a combat situation when it arises? Is that what the member is saying?

[Bev Desjarlais, NDP, Churchill, MB]

Mr. Speaker, absolutely not. The member is free to look at the Debates tomorrow since he obviously did not hear what I said. That is totally opposite from what I said.

We in this party absolutely support the fact that if our men and women are going to be sent into whatever situation, be it peacekeeping or combat, they definitely should be properly equipped or we should not be sending them. That is the issue.

There is no question about our support for our military men and women. As long as the government, and the country, has in place a policy where we will be partaking in peacekeeping, peace making or combat efforts, we have to ensure the funding is available to do so.

[Joe Comartin, NDP, Windsor—Tecumseh, ON]

Mr. Speaker, when I saw the wording of the official opposition's motion, I could not help but to think back on a couple of events, one just this past weekend in my home riding and one in the spring.

This past weekend we officially opened the new armouries, which is an interesting concept. The city of Windsor along with the Department of National Defence are jointly sharing the facility with our Windsor police services and the military, including a number of the reserve regiments that are based in Windsor and Essex County.

As part of that event, we had a number of vintage military vehicles as we did this past spring in an event that I co-sponsored with the mayor of the city of Windsor to recognize the veterans from our area who had been involved in the D-Day invasion 60 years ago. It gave us the opportunity to recognize the contribution they made to the country and to the world. As I read the motion, I could not help but think, as I did on both those occasions, that the government was still expecting our military to use those vintage vehicles.

I know that is a bit extreme, but the reality is we all know, and we saw so tragically just in the last few weeks with the incident on the Chicoutimi , that we have repeatedly placed our current military personnel at risk, sometimes when they are in training and sometimes when they are actually in the field.

To be very clear, the NDP, as I believe every party sitting in the House, believes that we can no longer do that. We should never have got to the stage we are at now. Even the government probably believes it and is now scurrying to catch up, but not as rapidly as it should be.

On the other hand, when I first saw the motion this morning, my reaction was that the official opposition was being somewhat misleading in the usage of the word. The official opposition says that we have to be combat ready. That is the ultimate resolution. We need to have that capability in the air, on land and at sea. The reality is that it will not occur.

It was interesting to hear one of the members talk about the report that came out of the defence committee about a year or 15 months ago. I read the report. It would have had the effect, if fully put into play, of more than doubling the budget that we spend on the military, from approximately $11.5 billion to $12 billion, as it was at that time, to something in excess of $20 billion, probably $22 billion, over a five year period. It would have got us to that level. The reality is the governing party would never take us to that level.

What we are faced with is very clear. We have been arguing for this for quite some time. We have to make decisions as to what we will provide by way of a military budget and the services that will flow from that. For ourselves, once the decision is made, the money is spent and the services are in place, the absolute number one criteria always is that none of our personnel should be put at risk with faulty equipment, equipment that is not up to the job that we are asking them to do.

Does that means that when we have to look at replacements, as we really do now with the CF-18s, we will replace them? We will have to make choices. I do not believe any political party or the Canadian government is capable of spending the money that we would need to absolutely protect us. It is just not there, and we have to make choices. The only way we can make those choices is if the government finally comes to its senses and does a meaningful review of defence policy for the country.

It is not just about being combat ready. It is about having military facilities, services, equipment and the accompanying personnel to defend the north, to extend our sovereignty clearly there, and to rebuff the claims that are being made by other countries. I was unbelievably sad when we looked at the small contingent that went north in the last few months and the problems it ran into. It was a very small contingent, we did not have the proper equipment for it and we put some at risk.

The equipment that was in Afghanistan, when we lost some of our troops, was clearly not adequate. Whether it was the communications or the transport vehicles, we put them at risk and we suffered casualties as a result.

As is so often the case with the official opposition, the simplicity with which it approaches this and expects other parties to accept, almost boggles the mind. It is not that simple. Had the motion called for a meaningful review of our defence policy, establishing a meaningful defence policy in the country, it would have received all party support. As my colleague from Churchill indicated, the opposition is playing games and the end result of that is to attempt to lead the Canadian public to believe that the motion has some meaning. It does not.

It was interesting to listen to some of the questions the NDP has been asked today such as what would it spend. It is inappropriate and in fact verging on irresponsible to answer that question before that policy is completed, before we make the decision on how much we will commit to peacekeeping, peace making and traditional combat roles. The official opposition does not have the answer to that because there is no policy. We do not know. Of course the government has been schizophrenic on this for years.

I want to make one final point with regard to the integrity behind the motion. Both Conservative and Liberal governments have cut our forces. They have put us in the position we are today. We do not have a public policy that is meaningful and is something we can follow. It is one that both parties, Conservative and Liberal, have an absolute responsibility to bring before the House, get the review done and get that policy in place as rapidly as possible.

[Loyola Hearn, Conservative, St. John's South, NL]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the member to comment on something a bit different from what he spoke about, but something that deals with the topic generally.

Throughout the country we have several strategic areas, and we have seen government cut back and cut back in relation to our bases. In my own province, I am thinking of places like Goose Bay in particular, Gander and Stephenville. At a time when security is so important, when we talk about defending and protecting our nation, surely this is not a time for weakening our defences or our presence in strategic locations. I know in the member's own province, certainly in the north and Goose Bay would be in that category, our presence at this time is imperative, with our own people ensuring that the rest of us are protected.

I would like to know the member's views on this. Does he agree with the government's idea of downsizing our forces and our presence, especially in strategic locations throughout the country?

[Joe Comartin, NDP, Windsor—Tecumseh, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I do not agree that we should be downsizing. I have studied historically as we moved from 100,000 down to 80,000 and down to 60,000. The reality is that even though we are at 60,000 at this point, realistically we never have more than somewhere in the high 40,000 personnel available because of imminent retirements, people off ill, seconded to other duties or any number of other reasons. I recognize that and I do not see us downsizing. I want to take a position on that policy that I am talking about. I do not see us downsizing.

In fact I very much see us spending additional money. Part of the policy that I and I believe our party would like to see is spending more so that when someone like Commander Dallaire is in the field, we would be a position to lead and to commit an additional 2,000 or 5,000 troops and be able to ask Australia, the U.S. and other countries to put 25,000 to 30,000 personnel in the field in Rwanda and stop the killings. We were not able do that.

It was interesting to listen to the Prime Minister recently talking about whether we were going to make some commitments to Iraq. He said no, obviously, but the reality is that we cannot make that commitment. If the world comes to its senses and actually deals with this properly, we will not be in a position to help them.

I very much believe that we have to hold our numbers and in fact probably increase them, but not so much that we are doing the high tech stuff. I have real problems with that. It is not the security problems that I see we are faced with.

On the other hand, as the member knows, we have faced problems at our borders. He also knows the historical problems of foreign trawlers. We need to secure our fishery on both coasts and we need military personnel to provide that to us.

[Pat O'Brien, Liberal, London—Fanshawe, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I did not hear all of my colleague's comments but I heard enough that I would like to just ask him a brief question.

I heard him state his personal position and I think he was quite clear about that, but I would like to ask him to speak to the position of the New Democratic Party. I see that the former distinguished leader of that party is close by.

My honest view is that the NDP position on defence, at least in my 11 years in the House, has been somewhat nebulous, if I can put it that way. Others might be less kind, but I would say it has been somewhat nebulous.

The member spoke for himself but to what degree can he speak for his party? Does the NDP support an increase in military funding for personnel in the forces and, if so, to what extent does it support that increase? If there is clarity from his party on this, wonderful, we would like to hear it.

[Joe Comartin, NDP, Windsor—Tecumseh, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I want to be clear. We have heard from the Conservatives and I guess we are now hearing it from the Liberals. They want to know how much are we going to spend. This is not a bidding war. We need to know what we are going to do. The Liberals clearly do not know. They are hedging. We heard from the defence minister that we would have a full blown review and then that we would have a review just within the department. I am not sure what that meant, and we are not even sure if that is happening at this point.

It would be irresponsible for any party to stand in the House and say that it will spend $1 billion on this. I know I want to spend somewhere in the range of $100 million to $200 million on housing and better remuneration for the lower rents. I know I want to do that but I cannot say what the exact number is. Will that figure change if we take on those additional 3,000 or 5,000 in the reserves? Obviously it will go up.

Do we support the replacement of the Sea Kings? Obviously we support that. My colleague from Nova Scotia has been very strong and adamant on that, in spite of the incompetence that has been shown so often by the government on the issue and the length of time it has taken.

However it is irresponsible for anybody to stand in the House today and say that he or she will spend this amount of money. It was irresponsible for the Conservatives in their party policy to say that $1.5 billion had to be spent on operations and $1.5 billion a year on new equipment. They did not know what that meant and they do not know it today either.

[Randy Kamp, Conservative, Dewdney—Alouette, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to speak in support of the motion. I will begin with a quote:

In the final analysis, it may be said that a nation not worth defending is a nation not worth preserving.

I did not make that up. Those disquieting words were written by a Liberal defence minister. The year was 1994 and months before the newly elected Liberal prime minister had announced a comprehensive review of defence policy. In 1994 a special joint committee produced its white paper on defence policy, which will be familiar to many here. Here is one of its conclusions:

The consensus achieved on the way ahead--an effective, realistic and affordable policy, one that calls for multi-purpose, combat-capable armed forces able to meet the challenges to Canada's security both at home and abroad--will serve to guide the work of the Department and the Forces into the next century. Together, we can take pride in a new defence policy that meets Canada's needs and fulfils our obligations, both to the nation and to our men and women in uniform.

While that minister of the day might take pride in a new defence policy, Canadians want to take pride in their military.

However, with that optimistic consensus that I just quoted, comes a prescient warning:

Canada cannot dispense with the maritime, land, and air combat capabilities of modern armed forces. It is true that, at present, there is no immediate direct military threat to Canada and that today's conflicts are far from our shores. Even so, we must maintain a prudent level of military force to deal with challenges to our sovereignty in peacetime, and retain the capability to generate forces capable of contributing to the defence of our country should the need arise. Beyond this basic national requirement, were Canada to abandon the capability to participate effectively in the defence of North America, NATO-Europe allies, and victims of aggression elsewhere, we would stand to lose a significant degree of respect and influence abroad.

The minister continued his clairvoyance when he said:

The past year has marked a significant turning point in the history of the Department of National Defence and the Canadian Forces.

And so it was a significant turning point, but it was in a downward direction. The government of the day had committed itself to investing in a modern, combat capable force, but quite the opposite happened.

I will not go back to the good old days of the cold war, like 1962 when we had a well-equipped military of more than 126,000. In 1990 we had 78,000 and now, with the continued erosion, we have an effective strength of around 52,000 personnel who are poorly equipped.

It is not just opposition MPs who have noticed this. Numerous institutions and agencies have commented on this, such as the Royal Military Institute and the Conference of Defence Associations. In 2002 the Council for Canadian Security said:

--the CF stands on a precipice between truly viable combat capable forces and a constabulary force.

If members do not like what the council had to say, maybe they would like to hear what the standing committee on national defence had to say in 2002:

To argue that the Canadian Forces are in need of additional funding is to utter a truism.

Our Committee has heard nothing in the way of testimony that would lead us to quarrel with...the conclusion that the CF may well be in the midst of a crisis.

We can no longer continue the practice of “robbing Peter to pay Pau” in the attempt to keep our defence structure afloat”

If members do not like what the standing committee had to say, perhaps they would like to hear what the Auditor General said in 2001 after looking at the equipment. She reported:

The Department [of National Defence] has frequently said that the Canadian Forces have never been more capable.... But until steps are taken to manage equipment readiness more adequately, these claims should be taken with a grain of salt.

A huge grain of salt I would say.

She found what we all knew. It has old equipment that costs a lot to maintain. She also found that we do not have the personnel to keep up with the maintenance schedule that is required to maintain the old equipment, if it is possible to maintain at all. In fact, one well-informed author estimated that by 2004, 40% to 50% of the army's weapons and vehicles may be immobilized because of inadequate spare parts.

If members do not like what the Auditor General had to say, maybe they could talk to some people in our constituencies. I have active and recently retired Canadian Forces members and I speak to them, as I think we all do.

What do we find when we ask them how things are? They tell us that the Forces are in a sad state of disrepair. They tell me that their equipment is out of date, if they have it at all. They tell me that morale is at an all time low. Can we find anybody, except perhaps these few opposite, who think that the Canadian Forces is properly supported by the government? The emperor has no clothes and it is about time the Liberals joined the crowd in admitting it. Canada has disarmed itself unilaterally and precariously.

Our motion talks about the role that a well-equipped combat capable military plays in enhancing Canada's status and influence as a sovereign nation. How do we maintain our sovereignty when we are forced to contract out our national defence to the Americans? During the election I was struck over and over by the paradox that those who were accusing us of being too close to the Americans were the very ones who had allowed our military to erode to the point where we had little choice but to depend on them. We are saying that we need to rebuild our military so that we can maintain our sovereignty.

Clearly, we do not have the kind of forces that the 1994 white paper envisioned. What went wrong? I think it was a lack of political will. Our current Prime Minister said that he would fix that and buy them some new equipment, but only 25% of what they really need. He said he would get them more people, 5,000 people, a brigade of peacekeepers. Where is he to get the money to recruit, train and equip them? What will they do? To hear the Liberals speak, it sounds like it thinks we can give them sensitivity training and send them around the world to join hands and sing Kumbaya .

People are shooting at these peacekeepers. We need to be sure that they are properly trained and equipped.

I am not a soldier nor the son of a soldier, but I see a soldier almost every day I come into this building. He is Lieutenant Colonel George Harold Baker. He does not say anything because he died in 1916. He is made of bronze. He is in the entrance to this building. He just stands there. However, he stands there as a reminder to us that freedom is not free; it is costly, and men and women over the years have paid the ultimate price. Soldiers, sailors and aviators have given their lives so that we can live in a free and flourishing nation. Lest we forget, beside that statue is engraved part of a poem that most of us know:

To you from failing hands we throwThe torch; be yours to hold it high.If ye break faith with us who dieWe shall not sleep, though poppies growIn Flanders fields.

How better to hold that torch high than to commit, as this motion states:

––to maintaining air, land and sea combat capability by ensuring that members of the forces are trained, equipped and supported for combat operations and peacekeeping, in order to enhance Canada's status and influence as a sovereign nation.

Every day as we walk past that soldier, we should ask ourselves whether we are doing our duty and whether we are doing everything we can to support the men and women of our military who serve to preserve and advance Canadian values at home and around the world. We need to ask ourselves whether it is right for our men and women in the service to make do with old, poorly maintained equipment. We need to ask ourselves whether we are treating them with the dignity they deserve.

In the final analysis, it may be said that a nation not worth defending is a nation not worth preserving. I think it is worth preserving, so let us pay the price of being ready to defend it.

[Guy Lauzon, Conservative, Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for a very well thought out and well researched talk on this very important topic.

The member mentioned some things that also caught me in the place where I live. He mentioned that we should have a military that we can take pride in. I agree with those comments. We must have a military that we can have pride in. The member talked about our military losing respect. Unfortunately it has come to that, he said. As he mentioned, our military is losing respect.

My grandfather was in World War I. My deceased brother spent seven years in the navy. They were very proud of their service. I remember when I was just a little guy and my brother would home from the navy, I was proud when that man walked in wearing his uniform. I wonder now in the same situation when a young 22 year old man comes home from the navy and his 12 year old brother is there, whether that 12 year old is as proud of that sailor as I was of my brother.

We have to equip the people in our military properly. My colleague talked about the Auditor General. He talked about what we need to give our troops.

My riding of Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry is the home of the Glengarry Highlanders. This regiment fought in both world wars and did quite well. It is a very proud regiment. These people went to Dieppe to celebrate being there during the Battle of Britain. They took part in the D-Day remembrance ceremonies. I met with them. I have a couple of friends who were there and who actually took part in the D-Day invasion. They told me that it is a shame, “Forget about us, but do something for the troops of today”. I think that is what my worthy colleague has tried to say, to please help the army, the navy and the air force of today.

My colleague has researched the topic much better than I have, but the people in the military tell me that the average age of the equipment they use is older than the average age of the troops. Is it possible that we are sending members of our military to these dangerous situations and the equipment they use is actually on average older than they are? If that is the case we must do something. I would ask my worthy colleague to comment.

[Randy Kamp, Conservative, Dewdney—Alouette, BC]

Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague and I share similar views on this issue. He is right. That is the research I have done as well. I quoted one author who said that by this year it may well be that almost half the equipment that we own will have to be immobilized. It is so old that we cannot get spare parts for it any more.

That was not all of the problem. The hon. member raised another part of the problem which is that we are having trouble recruiting. I think we are having trouble recruiting because the members of our military do not have a sense of respect any more. They do not have a sense of respect because as a Parliament and a government we are not giving them the things they need to do their job.

We must give them the equipment and the training in order for them to do their job. Until we do that, we lose not only the respect of the people in the military, but we lose the respect of people around the world.

If we want to be a sovereign nation and be able to do our duty, whether it be in peacekeeping or peace making or even in combat around the world, then we need to take this seriously.

There is one thing that has surprised me very much. The government likes to get involved in areas of provincial jurisdiction, but in the one area that is so clearly an area of federal jurisdiction, it is delinquent. That is unacceptable.

[Lee Richardson, Conservative, Calgary South Centre, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am proud to speak to this motion to enhance and support our military. I am also proud to represent Calgary Centre, a riding that has a proud history of support and respect for our military.

In fact, many Calgarians were incensed during the recent election campaign when the Liberals mocked the Conservative Party's serious proposals to give our military the funding it deserves. Providing proper funding would allow the brave men and women who serve our nation to carry out their duties knowing they have been endowed with the best training and equipment possible.

Over the past few months we have seen the Liberals continue to show disregard for our armed forces. We even read this week that the Liberals intend to impose further cuts, cuts of perhaps $50 million a year from our beleaguered armed forces. As one young officer recently told Conservative Senator Mike Forrestall, who quoted the young officer, “The government pretends to want a military and we pretend to have one”.

I find the government's contemptuous attitudes disgraceful. Canadians are not pleased with such attitudes. We share a proud history of support for our armed forces. We are incensed by Liberal government cutbacks in military funding and are saddened by the tragic loss recently of submariner Lieutenant Chris Saunders.

This terrible event, combined with the never ending horror stories of aging Sea King helicopters, underequipped troops and the loss of Canada's international standing are surely sufficient examples for the government to recognize that it must stop ignoring our sovereignty, jeopardizing the safety and security of our nation and demeaning those in uniform. We must restore the respect for our servicemen and women and return a sense of pride to their commitment to protect us.

In the post 9/11 world, we face a new reality which includes threats of global terrorism, oppressive regimes and the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. Rather than approach these matters with the urgency they demand, the Liberals have opted to treat our military with contempt and our foreign policy with indifference.

A decade ago in its white paper on defence, the government forecasted a diminishing role for the Canadian military. The Liberals assumed that the world would become a safer place and that military and defence matters would become less important. The Liberal government was wrong then and it is wrong now.

While our allies have conducted thorough reviews of their defence policies after 9/11, the Canadian government has been unresponsive, wasting time and resources and placing our sovereignty and security at risk. The Liberals have chosen to keep these matters on the back burner, not deeming it necessary to adopt new defence policies to new realities. While they have dramatically reduced our defence capabilities throughout the years of cutbacks, they have multiplied our commitments abroad.

The cutbacks have been so severe that the military has been forced to defer funds for badly needed infrastructure upgrades just to fund day to day operations. Since it is capital spending that allows for the renewal of military capabilities, the future of our military has been sacrificed to pay for its day to day existence.

Canada now spends less than 1.1% of its gross domestic product on its military, far below the NATO average of 1.9%. That means, to quote Liberal Senator Colin Kenny who is chair of the Senate committee on national security and defence, “We are spending about half of what would legitimize us in the eyes of our allies and the rest of the world”.

Not that long ago, from 1985 to 1987, under a Conservative government, a government with which I am proud to have been associated, the Canadian defence budget accounted for 2.2% of our gross domestic product, twice what the Liberals allocate today.

I am also very worried by the short-sighted, minimalist view adopted by the Liberal government on the role of our military. Conversely, as the Conservative Party leader said earlier in this debate, our party supports three longstanding and increasingly interlinked goals: the security of Canada, the collaborative defence of North America, and the promotion of peace and security on the international stage.

We must act now to deal with the ever increasing challenges that confront us. We must immediately increase defence spending by $1.2 billion per year and continually increase annual expenditures until we at least reach the NATO average of 1.9% of GDP per year.

Our 52,300 regular forces now struggle to meet the demands placed upon them. It is too much to ask of our overworked and under-supported troops. To adequately serve and protect Canadians we need a force of at least 75,000 military personnel and we need to provide funding immediately for new equipment, including airplanes, helicopters, tanks and artillery.

I want to acknowledge the fact that members of the Canadian Forces have held up remarkably well under trying circumstances. The brave men and women whose job it is to protect us deserve our respect and support.

[Roger Clavet, Bloc, Louis-Hébert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I think at this stage the debate might be on the wrong track. I was just listening to my Conservative colleague and several others before him. Fortunately the interventions suggest that there are inaccuracies in the Conservative party's proposal. My colleagues in the NDP noticed it earlier and I agree with them.

I heard my Conservative colleague say that improved defence requires more money. This remark has been made many times. We are told numbers need to be increased and money needs to be added. We in the Bloc Québécois are against the Conservative motion because it seems like an exercise in reverse. It puts the cart before the horse. Let me explain.

Instead of investing more in defence, we have to start by re-evaluating Canada's foreign policy; we have to read it and understand it better. It is very important to grasp the nuances.

During previous interventions, I heard Conservative members say that it was very important to have a better army with more money because, in fact, the purpose of the army is to raise Canada's status and influence.

I think we would need a lot more than an army to enhance the reputation, status and influence of Canada. First, we need a long term vision. It would also be a good idea to have a government from time to time. That could be what is missing in Canada and my Conservative colleagues might agree with me that we may not be addressing this issue the right way.

We, in the Bloc Québécois, think that we need to have a debate on the plans for the future of our armed forces. We like to remind people that we are committed to improving the living conditions of our troops. It is important, and we are not just paying lip service. We believe that a better army begins with giving its members their due. But please, let us not pour in more money right away without developing a comprehensive policy and examining the whole situation.

This brings me to a quick discussion of the missile defence shield. This is an option we absolutely have to avoid. It is probably more important to talk about it than to continue to fund it.

Let me conclude by making a comment and asking my Conservative colleague a question. To ensure peace and security, we certainly have to focus more on development assistance. Should that not start with peacekeeping missions?

[Lee Richardson, Conservative, Calgary South Centre, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I do not know if there was a question there frankly. If the member has some doubts as to what the motion is, I would be happy to read it again but he can do that himself of course, in both languages.

I did want to point out that if the member had further remarks to make, and he suggested we should have a longer debate on this matter, we would have been pleased to have done that. We do consider it a very important point.

Not to diminish the other aspect of the member's question with regard to foreign aid, the debate today is on the question of national defence, the lack of national defence of our country and the lack of support for our troops and the commitments that we make to our military.

I do not need to reiterate the motion as it is stated here, and would simply thank the member for his comments.

[Jay Hill, Conservative, Prince George—Peace River, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I was trying to be recognized earlier in the debate when one of our colleagues from the NDP was speaking. He used the term in reference to the Conservative platform that it was inappropriate and borderline irresponsible for us to make firm commitments prior to the outcome of the defence review. I take personal exception to that.

Too often in the past there have not been firm commitments made to our men and women in the military about what different political parties, in particular the government, are prepared to do for them. As I said repeatedly today, there are too many words and not enough action on behalf of the government. I do not think it is irresponsible for each party to state where it stands. I was pleased to hear my colleague from Calgary reiterate yet again exactly to what the Conservative Party is prepare to commit.