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.