Debates of Oct. 21st, 2004

Supply

[Gordon O'Connor, Conservative, Carleton—Lanark, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I believe the previous defence minister alluded to it during the election, and it is our understanding today, that the government will be making a series of announcements of grand things that it intends to do but it will not really commit any money for quite awhile.

The government is going into a defence review that has stretched on. I think this defence review was to be completed about a year ago and it has been stretching. Every time someone brings up the defence review it goes on for three more months, three more months, three more months. The latest prediction I have is that the defence review will be completed by June next year.

If the government meets that schedule of June of next year and it has a completed new policy, then the force structure people within the department will have to take that policy and the guidance that is in that policy and develop a force structure. The force structure will then have to be approved. The earliest possible time the government could trickle any money into this new policy would be April 2006. If it is careful with that process, it can make sure that the significant funding requirements are shunted into 2007, 2008 and 2009 by which time somewhere in there it would hope to run in an election and hope that it does not have to meet the bills.

We are in this endless chain process where the military is being spun around and around with promises but there is no real money going into it.

[Rick Casson, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I would like the official opposition defence critic to comment on the size of National Defence headquarters which employs 11,000 to 12,000 civilian people. This is equivalent to 14 infantry battalions in a military that cannot afford 14 infantry battalions.

As well, could the member take a moment to comment on the relationship between the military personnel and the civilian personnel in headquarters?

[Gordon O'Connor, Conservative, Carleton—Lanark, ON]

Mr. Speaker, given that the armed forces have decreased year over year, the headquarters we have today is far too large for the requirements of the Canadian Forces. We now have a headquarters that is sort of a bureaucratic driven department.

The headquarters has more members than the navy, probably more members than the air force and close to being equal to the army field force. It is excessively large.

The other problem is that we have military officers tangled in with bureaucrats all through the headquarters. One of the great difficulties with the headquarters is that when the minister wants military advice he rarely gets pure military advice. He gets blended bureaucratic political advice. I think the government should be looking at the DND headquarters.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to join the debate today on the opposition motion. I have listened with great interest to my colleagues on both sides of the House.

I am certainly pleased to see some of the new members in the House of Commons, such as the defence critic for the opposition party with his obvious expertise and experience in the Canadian Forces. I believe a commitment exists in all parties in the House to try to do the best we can for the men and women in the Canadian Forces.

At the outset I want to thank the men and women of the Canadian Forces for their hard work and commitment on behalf of Canadians, both here at home and in working for peace and stability in what is surely a dangerous world.

I have a few observations about the tone of today's debate and the tone of the larger debate that is taking place and needs to take place in this country, whether it be in the Standing Committee on National Defence, in the media or in the public generally.

The tone of the debate is very important. I feel the best efforts of members ought to be directed toward trying to keep their comments as non-partisan as possible. I understand this is a competitive place and that it is partisan by nature. I know we will seriously disagree from time to time and perhaps even vehemently on various points related to defence or anything else.

However, given that we are talking about the Canadian Forces and doing the best we can for the men and women who risk their lives, often daily, in the service of their country, I think it behooves all of us to tone down the rhetoric and the volume a little. It has been pretty loud in here today already. Maybe we could be a little more respectful and tone down the debate, not by any means deleting our disagreements or watering down our points. We were elected to come to this place to make those points but I hope we tone down the rhetoric and volume just a little so that in the spirit of cooperation on both sides of the House we can look to what is the future that this country wants for its Canadian Forces and the resources they need to carry out the tasks with which we charge them.

I want to now make reference to the fact that members opposite, primarily from the official opposition, have made the point that the previous Liberal government significantly cut spending on national defence. That is true. I was elected in 1993. I was not enamoured of the fact that we were cutting as deeply as we were, but the reality is those cuts were made. I honestly and sincerely believe that we cut too deeply but I believe we are turning the corner on that now and that we need to turn it more quickly.

I want to recall for my friends opposite that this did not start with the previous Liberal government. Many of my colleagues know that from 1984 to 1999, under the previous Conservative and Liberal governments, there were, I believe, 15 straight years of cuts to the military budget.

What I have been hearing from the other side, which is called a selective recall of history, with all due respect, is that the cutting started 10 years ago with the 1993 Chrétien government coming to power. The fact is that it actually started at least back in 1984, or perhaps sooner, when the governments of various political stripes cut the defence budget significantly and, I would agree, probably too deeply.

I will maybe put a little more of a non-partisan perspective on the fact that if we want to point the finger of blame about cutting defence in this country, we have to point in several directions and not just in one.

I would like to make a point about some of the hyperbole or exaggeration that I have been hearing and have heard from members of Parliament in the debate today and in past debates, within the Liberal caucus and within the opposition caucuses. We hear this hyperbole or exaggeration in the media from time to time and I certainly hear it from various members of the public when I go out and hold my regular town hall meetings in my riding in every season of the year. I am sure my colleagues, when they interact with their constituents one way or another, would probably acknowledge that they hear some of this exaggeration or hyperbole about the state of the Canadian Forces and the state of the equipment.

I think the opposition motion moved by the opposition critic is well-intentioned. However, we must look at some of the wording and look for some of the hyperbole. The motion states that the forces “have been permitted to decay”. That sounds as if they have been destroyed or that they no longer exist, which is not, I believe, what the mover intended. In days past I had the opportunity to teach and one of the subjects I taught from time to time was English. I find there is a very clear connotation in the words that would suggest that if the forces have been permitted to decay, they are rotten or they have been destroyed. I do not believe for a minute that is what my hon. friend intends but it is very important. Words have power and meaning and it is very important that we focus on that.

Let me talk about that point. I do agree that the Canadian Forces have been in decline, probably for the past quarter of a century or longer, in decline in the sense of probably we are under-peopled in the Canadian Forces. I think there is an acknowledgement of that. I believe there is an acknowledgement in the current government that we are falling behind in terms of replacing our infrastructure. Some of our equipment needs have to be and have been addressed very recently and will be addressed in the next budget and in future budgets.

It is far different to acknowledge that there has been a decline in the Canadian Forces, which ought fairly to be laid at the footstep of past governments of different political stripes and not just past Liberal governments, and that the decline needs to be addressed and is being addressed. That is very different than saying that they do not exist or that they are total non-functional. I wanted to make that point because I know that is not the intention of the mover's motion but it is a proper understanding that one could take.

The reality is that since 1999 there have been some $10 million of new funding directed toward the infrastructure needs of the Canadian Forces. The reality is that I was chair of SCONDVA, the Standing Committee on National Defence and Veterans Affairs. I am honoured again to have been elected chair of that committee and am pleased to be working with some of the colleagues in the opposition and on the government side who are really committed to doing good work there.

The first time I had the opportunity to chair that committee was in 1999. We produced a report, largely under the chairmanship of a former colleague of mine, Mr. Robert Bertrand. I became defence chair toward the end of the study on quality of life. The report was considered by most as an outstanding report. I was told this repeatedly by people in the military, not the generals but the ranks, the troops, some of whom I personally know and some of whom I taught in a former life. They said it was an outstanding report and, if it is, it is because it is their report. Members of the defence committee went coast to coast to coast in Canada. We went overseas to engage the men and women of the Canadian Forces. We said that we did not want any military brass in the room, that this was their chance to tell us what was really on their mind or they should not complain in the future. Well, they did. They laid it out in spades. The result was what is now considered an outstanding quality of life report on the state of the Canadian Forces and the challenges they and their families face.

It was in the 1999 budget when we saw the first increase in at least 15 years in the Canadian Forces. It was directed at trying to improve a very badly needed and deserved salary increase, and more funding to recognize the housing challenges. It was a direct result of their work that we were trying to do more to improve the situation of our men and women in the forces and their families.

I believe we began to turn that corner in 1999. Every budget since has seen some new money for the Canadian Forces. We need to turn that corner more quickly, but we have to acknowledge the facts of the matter. There is a strong recognition and commitment by the Prime Minister and the government to seriously reinvest in our Canadian Forces.

When I talk about this hyperbole, I want to go back to the comments earlier today of the deputy leader of the opposition party. I took him up on them a little, trying to do it in a cooperative way. I think maybe he took umbrage. The reality is there are some serious problems with the Canadian Forces and we acknowledge that. They need to be addressed. The government is trying to address them and I hope we will do better in addressing them in the very near future, in the best spirit of cooperation on both sides of the House. However, as my friend the defence critic from the NDP indicated, it serves no one to perpetuate falsehoods about this.

I do not think the deputy leader intended to mislead the House, but perhaps he was not aware of the statements of Major General Leslie at the SCONDVA around last April or May. That was when the whole issue, which got so much play in the media, was overblown about our poor troops having to go into desert action without tan camouflage uniforms and that they were sitting out there in an unsafe situation or they were a target because they did not have these proper uniforms. That is simply not the fact.

Do not take it from me. Take it from Major General Leslie who was our commanding officer in Afghanistan. I have his testimony here which I could quote. I could table it if anyone wants it. He came to our committee and very clearly said, “We had tans for most of the soldiers”. He said that it was his choice that they not use them. He very clearly explained why he made that choice. He talked about much of their action being at night and that they were better off in the green uniforms. He talked about wanting to distinguish Canadians from other troops there, so many of whom were wearing the tan uniform. There was no distinctive look for the Canadians and the Canadians wanted to have that. It was very positively reinforced by the population that they recognized the Canadians instantly.

We have heard the word nonsense many times on both sides in some heated exchanges. Let us stop the nonsense where we play the partisan game, and let us not continue to say something that we know is wrong. We acknowledge there are real challenges that exist for the Canadian Forces and we need to deal with them. However, let us not continue to perpetuate something like the myth that our troops in Afghanistan did not have tan uniforms, because it is not true and Major Leslie was very clear in pointing that out.

I simply bring this point back up because I do not think the deputy leader, in answering my earlier question, answered it at all. He then went on to say that I was blaming the military. I was not blaming the military. I was recalling the testimony, which I am prepared to table, of Major General Leslie at the SCONDVA around last April or May. Those are the facts he gave us.

It would behoove all of us to tone down the rhetoric, tone down the volume, tone down the hyperbole, acknowledge the real problems that exist and work cooperatively to try to address those. When we have new facts that put a different light on something which has been stated incorrectly, let us be candid enough to acknowledge that, get past it, and move on.

I agree with some of the points made by the hon. Leader of the Opposition. He made some good points, but again he gave into the temptation for hyperbole. How? He stated in the House pretty much something to the effect that Canada sent troops around the world on missions where they were unsure of their purpose on those missions. I invite the hon. Leader of the Opposition to go into the field and talk to the men and women of the Canadian Forces on mission. I did so in Kosovo along with colleagues on both sides of the House.

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

You guys make up the rules of engagement to go along with it, and you know it.

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

Perhaps. I understand that the opposition whip feels strongly about this, as do I. I want to encourage him to let me say my piece and I will listen very carefully when he has his chance to say his, as we have normally done at the SCONDVA committee.

The point I am trying to make is this. If we go on mission and talk to men and women in the Canadian Forces, my experience is that their morale is extremely high and they know exactly why they are there. They believe in what they are doing. They may wish they had a little more up to date equipment, no doubt, and I acknowledge that. The reality is it is simply an exaggeration and an unhelpful piece of hyperbole for the Leader of the Opposition to suggest that our men and women, when they are in the field on a mission, have no sense of their purpose. I simply do not believe that.

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

He didn't say that.

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

He said something very close to that. I originally said that he said something to that effect.

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

You guys are talking about hyperbole. Don't use it.

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

We can have a look the blues, but that is clearly what the Leader of the Opposition was suggesting and, quite frankly, he is wrong in that. My plea for toning down the rhetoric is falling on deaf ears.

[James Moore, Conservative, Port Moody—Westwood—Port Coquitlam, BC]

You started that.

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

It will not dissuade me, because I feel every bit as strongly about the Canadian Forces as members across the floor. Some of them over there know it because we worked together. They should tone down the rhetoric, because I will have my say whether they like it or not. We can holler. We can turn up the volume too. It serves nobody. Let us all tone it down and show some respect as colleagues. I do not interrupt other members and I do not expect to be interrupted when I am speaking, so do us all a favour.

I want to talk about equipment, because much of the hyperbole we hear revolves around equipment. We hear it in the press, we hear it from members of Parliament on both sides, I am sorry to say, and in my own caucus, and we hear it from some of the public, that all the Canadian equipment is junk. It is too old, it is junk and it is inadequate. I invite people who feel that way to come to my riding of London—Fanshawe and visit a plant now owned by General Dynamics, formerly General Motors, on Oxford Street East. I know the defence critic is well aware to what I am referring. I do not suggest that he has made the “all the equipment is junk” statement, but members of his party have. At that plant, the very latest state of the art light armoured personnel carrier is produced. It is leading edge equipment and is the best in the world. The Americans think so highly of it, and they have an enormous military budget, that they are spending some $6 billion to purchase this equipment. It has been exported to various countries around the world. It is the very best piece of that type of equipment. It is not a panacea. It does not solve all our needs in a military vehicle, but it is excellent for what it does, what it is built to do and it is leading edge.

I will attempt to wrap up by simply saying that the defence review is under way. I believe it is certainly high time that it go to the defence committee. I look forward to participating in that review. The Irish rock start, Bono, said that the world needed more Canada. He was right. That means the Canadian Forces as well, working for peace and security both here at home and around the world. We ought to acknowledge the outstanding work the men and women do. We ought to admit we have shortchanged the Canadian Forces over the past probably quarter century, both Conservative and Liberal governments. I acknowledge that. I believe we cut too deeply. We have turned the corner. The Prime Minister and the government are seriously committed to reinvesting in the Canadian Forces, have done so, and will continue to do so in the very near future.

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

Madam Speaker, the member was certainly right that I find it difficult not to get emotional about this debate today. He was also right when he said that we worked together on the Standing Committee on National Defence and Veterans Affairs.

He said that we needed to stop the nonsense. It was his party in the last election campaign that ran ads that were not just totally misleading, they were outright lies. For him to stand in his place here in the House and say we should tone down the rhetoric is also absolute nonsense. The day he stands in his place and apologizes to Canadians for not just a misleading advertisement that stated the new Conservative Party of Canada was in favour of buying nuclear aircraft carriers, which his party knew was a lie, is the day I will choose to tone down the rhetoric and not get quite as emotional about adequately funding the men and women of our Canadian military.

He stated in his speech that we had turned a corner. I would ask him to try and defend the fact that in the last budget the military itself said that it was over $600 million short for its operational needs for the combined army, navy and air force. There was nothing in the first budget of the new Prime Minister to address those operational shortfalls. How does he square standing up in this place and saying that we have turned the corner?

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

Madam Speaker, the member was so busy being emotional that he did not pay much attention. I feel we have turned a corner because I indicated--

[James Moore, Conservative, Port Moody—Westwood—Port Coquitlam, BC]

Apologize for the ads.

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

Madam Speaker, they do not really want the answer because they are interrupting me again, but I will try again.

For 15 years and every year under the former Conservative government and former Liberal government, cuts were made to the defence budget. As the member should know, and I believe he does, in 1999 we began to reinvest in the Canadian Forces and we have continued to increase the budget every year since. I define that as turning a corner. I want to see us turn it more quickly and I want to see us reinvest more seriously.

The member is a great one to quote history, but he is a bit selective when he does so. I congratulate him as well for having been the whip of three political parties. The first two parties, the old Reform Party and the old Alliance Party, as well as his current leader, are clearly on record in the House demanding cuts to the Canadian military budget. I could table those comments if anyone wants to challenge their veracity. It serves the hon. member's purpose to selectively look at history. That is his game plan. I have known him to do better on this subject.

[Gordon O'Connor, Conservative, Carleton—Lanark, ON]

Madam Speaker, I wish to make a couple of comments and then pose a question to the hon. member.

Regarding the uniform situation, the fact is that at the time we deployed forces to Afghanistan we did not have sufficient summer tan uniforms, desert uniforms, for our troops.

If I understand the witness, the military officer at that time, he did not answer definitively whether if there had been those uniforms available would he have taken those over the green uniforms. So the matter is that the Canadian Forces did not have the necessary uniforms to go into a desert climate.

The other point, our leader was referring to the rules of engagement. There have been instances where our forces were deployed overseas where the rules of engagement had not been crafted properly and precisely enough for our troops.

The third point I want to make and I will lead it into a question. I did intend to use the word “decay” and decay is a scientific term. It refers to a body that starts in its original state and over time it basically disappears. Would the member for London—Fanshawe confirm whether there are now less supply ships in the navy, less destroyers in the navy, less aircraft in the air force, less armoured squadrons, and less artillery squadrons than there were when the Liberals took power?

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

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for showing that he can make his points without hollering and that he can use his expertise without having to turn up the volume. I could probably shout as loud as any member here, but I do not think it adds anything to the debate.

[James Moore, Conservative, Port Moody—Westwood—Port Coquitlam, BC]

Prove it.

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

I am proving it right now as I speak. I am not hollering. He and I will have a respectful exchange right now.

Let me start with Major General Leslie. I have here and I am prepared to share with my colleague and table in this House his answer to the question of why the troops in Afghanistan used green uniforms and not tan. He said:

We had tans and they stayed in our barrack boxes, for most of the soldiers. Certain select soldiers used them for certain specific missions, when they went up in the mountains, but I don't think I ever wore mine.

That is about as clearly stated as anyone could state it. I am happy to share it with my colleague later on.

Let us get past it because I think we have bigger issues to deal with and my colleague has talked about some of them. The phrase that he has in his motion states “the Canadian Forces have been permitted to decay”. That is the past tense of a verb as he knows and as we all know.

It suggests that the process is complete, that the decay is complete. Members would think, by that wording and it may have been unfortunate wording, that we had no men and women in the Canadian Forces, that we did not have any equipment, and that we were reduced to a Boy Scout troop here at home that just helped elderly people across the street or something.

That is not what my colleague intends. He has far too much expertise to intend that I am sure, but it is clearly what it says. I only point this out not to challenge necessarily his use of language. I point it out as part of the bigger problem. There is a tendency for hyperbole. There is a tendency to exaggerate that all of our equipment is junk, and that we cannot do anything. Let us show a little more respect for the work done by our troops.

We hear it time and time from our allies. We hear from our allies how our troops give outstanding service in the field. We hear about the outstanding work and the evaluation of their work from independent sources. Let us not add to the negative tone that exists so much in the debate around our forces. I think the men and women of the Canadian Forces deserve better. I think we can rise above that in this House.

[Diane Finley, Conservative, Haldimand—Norfolk, ON]

Madam Speaker, we have been asked to tone down the rhetoric and deal with the facts. That is an honourable ambition, so let us look at some of the facts.

It is easy to determine where the priorities of the government lie when we have more people on the payroll dunning us for taxes than troops defending our country. There are 54,000 employees at the Canada Revenue Agency and 52,000 troops. That is a fact; that is not hyperbole. The priority is on tax collectors over troops.

In 1993 the Liberal government cancelled the helicopter contract that was already in place at a cost of $.5 billion to Canadians. The promise was that the government would replace that contract with a better contract soon. Guess what, it has not happened yet. That is a fact.

Our Sea Kings are 50 years old. Every hour that they are in the air, they need 30 hours of maintenance on the ground. This is a fact.

Our sub fleet is grounded again and our Cormorant helicopters have been grounded for the second time this year. These are facts, not rhetoric. When the emotion gets a little high, it is not rhetoric. It is justifiable outrage.

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

Madam Speaker, the reality is that the government is committed to 5,000 more full time personnel in the very near future and to 3,000 more reservists. I agree with the member that the helicopter purchase has taken far too long.

I have been in politics 24 years and I have not been successful because I have ducked what I see is the truth. It has taken too long to purchase the helicopters, I agree. However, the member is comparing apples and oranges when she talks about bureaucrats in the military and outside the military.

Her leader calls for a force of 80,000 troops. If the member were to do a little research, she would also find that there are whole parts of the bureaucracy that have more than 80,000 non-military people. What the member says may be factual, but I would encourage her to look for a few more relevant facts.

[Rick Casson, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Madam Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Oxford.

I would like to begin by congratulating the member for Carleton—Mississippi Mills for the motion that he has brought forward on behalf of the Conservative Party of Canada. On this supply day our party has picked the topic of debate and put forward a motion that will be voted on.

It is important to recognize in the House that we have somebody, out of the 308 members of Parliament, who has the expertise that is needed to bring meaningful debate and actual facts to the House of Commons on the state of our military. I welcome that member for his contribution not only to our party but to the debate in this country on the state of our military.

I would like to go back to September 11 a couple of years ago. I believe it was a wake-up call that went around the world. From that day on, the world changed. I also believe on that day that people in the military around the world, whether it was the Department of National Defence in Canada, the minister, or the chief of staff suddenly realized that we as a nation have cut our military to the point where we may not be able to defend ourselves against that kind of action.

This is not a traditional war or confrontation situation. This is terrorism. These people do not attack in normal ways. We must be able to defend the citizens of our country. First and foremost, the duty of a government is the safety and protection of its citizens. I believe on that day the alarm bells started to go off, particularly in Canada, to say that all of the cuts to the military over the last number of years have put us in a position where we fear that we cannot protect our citizens.

This motion today is a great opportunity for all members to rise and talk about what we would like to see done. That is where I would like to focus my comments.

Some of the parties in the House of Commons do not support the military to the degree that we would like to see it supported. I do not think anybody does to the degree that my party would. We want to see our regular forces increased; we want to see our reserves increased. We want to see a substantial increase in the funding that would go toward capital replacement.

I have had two occasions to be involved with the military on visits in North America. On one occasion I went to Norad headquarters in Colorado Springs and actually went inside Cheyenne Mountain where the operations took place on September 11. A Canadian was in command.

I also had an opportunity to go from air force base Trenton to Alert Bay on a Hercules resupply mission. It was a three day trip. It took a couple of days to go up and a day and a half to come back. It was an experience that I will never forget. The resupply mission that goes there on a weekly basis, particularly in the wintertime, is the only connection the people on that base have with the rest of the world.

Our men and women in uniform were on a Hercules cargo plane that I was able to get on that had over twice the flying hours recommended for that air frame. It had been re-winged and new motors were installed, but the plane had 40,000 hours that was only supposed to be on duty for 20,000. People are expected to get into those planes every week to take those supplies into that air force base. That is not the only situation. The people on those bases depend entirely on this aging fleet of airplanes to bring in their goods and supplies.

I know full well that the crew on that airplane, from the two loadies in the back up to the pilot, the captain, the navigator and the engineer, were excellent, qualified people. They knew that equipment. Nobody moved until the engineer said that plane was safe. Thank goodness for him.

I learned a few things about how the military operates. I will never forget that crew and how dedicated they were. They did not complain. They knew I was a member of Parliament and they knew they had an opportunity to say some things. They were very open with me but not once did they say they regretted joining the military. They enjoyed that life. However they were disappointed to some degree with the respect they were receiving from some quarters but they did that job week after week and were proud of the job they did.

When we looked at the throne speech it was shocking to see the support the government expected to give to the military. There were three critical words in the speech: the military needs to be smart, strategic and focused. I agree with all those things but it bothers and worries me that they might just be code words for just more of the same, that we do not need to re-invest, that we need to somehow re-conform the military into a smaller, less capable command.

I think we need to keep those words in mind as we go through this next year and the next budget process. It will be our job as the official opposition to hold the government's feet to the fire and ensure that it properly funds the military to the degree that Canadians are expecting. More and more Canadians realize that it is our military personnel who will have to protect us from terrorism.

We just have to think back to yesterday when Ambassador Cellucci from the U.S. indicated that Canada could be, not has been, a launching pad for terrorism to anywhere in North America, including Canada. We have to be very aware of that.

One of the issues that keeps coming up is the funding. Let us get to some facts. The Prime Minister indicated that his defence equipment acquisition is what the military is asking for and that the Liberal government will take care of it. The actual fact is that it has only approved $7 billion, which is only one-quarter of the military's own 15 year request of $27.5 billion. This is based on the 1994 policy and recent operations.

We can compare that to Australia, a country smaller than our own, that has spent $50 billion on equipment replacement over a 10 year period. It just goes to show where we are positioned in the world regarding our military capabilities.

The chairman of the defence committee mentioned decay. What we are indicating is that it continues to decay, not that it has decayed to nothing but that it is in a decline in terms of its capability and equipment.

As our critic mentioned earlier, every time there is a deployment and our equipment is moved around the world or within Canada, it gets more worn out, more run down and more in need of replacement. We are not keeping up to that need.

We can look at the money needed for capital replacement and infrastructure repair. When I was on the air force base at Trenton it looked to me like it had been a magnificent place at one time but that it needed some serious upgrading. They were only simple things. The lawns were in disrepair, the parking lots needed repair and the buildings needed painting.

When I went into the operational buildings there was the look and feel of them being rundown. It was not because of the men and women in our armed forces who work there every day. It was because they did not have the capability, because of budget cuts, to do what was needed.

We also need to look at the numbers. If we are going to do a proper job of defending Canada against terrorism, we need the numbers. Right now our recruitment process is so bunged up it does not work properly. We have people who are lining up to be in the military but they cannot because the system is not capable of doing that.

Those are a number of the areas we need to address before we can properly stand in any forum, whether it is the House of Commons or anywhere, and say that we are doing our utmost to keep Canadians safe.

[Keith Martin, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence]

Madam Speaker, I appreciated the comments by the member of the opposition who is a thoughtful vice-chair of the defence committee. I look forward, as all of us do, to working together to strengthen our armed forces.

I would ask the member a fairly simple question. He articulated well the change, post-9/11, that our threats are more diffuse, more complicated and involve a multifactorial approach to the problem.

I wonder if he is aware of the new $300 million that the government has put in to having an integrated response to maritime security. Does he support that? The $300 million plan involves operations both on the west coast and the east coast and integrates our defence, RCMP and Coast Guard capabilities. Does he see that as a move in the right direction?

[Rick Casson, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Madam Speaker, one of the issues that was very apparent during and after the September 11 crisis was the total inability of different agencies and different forces to communicate. Whether it is within a country or between countries, certainly in the Norad sense, we need to be able to do that and do it in a very meaningful way. Whether it is the program to which the parliamentary secretary referred or whether it needs to be more or different, it needs to happen and it needs to happen in a major way.

It was illustrated to us how difficult it was for the different non-military agencies, the ones which control air traffic and control movement on the oceans and in the ports, to communicate with each other. It caused major confusion. It slowed down the ability to respond to these attacks and to potential problems that could arise.

Absolutely, communications has to be the best that we could possibly acquire. We can think back to an occasion when our air force planes could not communicate with the other allied defence airplanes and different operations without the enemy being able to listen in. So there are all kinds of areas in communications that are so important. As we know, in any business or any walk of life, communications is absolutely critical, but in a military context it is absolutely the difference between life and death.