Art Hanger

[Petitions, February 9th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, the last two petitions both deal with Bill C-23.

Fifty-seven petitioners request that parliament withdraw Bill C-23, affirm the opposite sex definition of marriage in legislation and to ensure that marriage is recognized as a unique institution.

[Petitions, February 9th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, the third petition deals with the issue of the death penalty.

The petitioners call upon parliament to pass legislation within the next electoral period that would support an amendment to the criminal code that would allow for persons convicted of first degree premeditated murder to receive the death penalty.

[Petitions, February 9th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, the second petition has been signed by several people in the province of Alberta and in my riding.

The petitioners request parliament to affirm the duty of parents to responsibly raise their children according to their own conscience and beliefs, and to retain section 43 of Canada's criminal code.

[Petitions, February 9th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I have several petitions that I would like to table this morning.

The first petition urges parliament to remove the GST from books, magazines and newspapers.

[Peacekeeping, October 17th, 2000]

Madam Speaker, it is not just the discussion of Canadian peacekeeping deployment to Ethiopia but other conflicts in the world that have given rise to a take note debate in the House.

It is always interesting that the feedback from the government side to the opposition and to the Canadian people does not appear to lend itself to a true debate on this issue or any others when it comes to deployment. The decision has been made, pure and simple, so in a sense all we are really doing is offering a viewpoint that will not go much further than the statements made here in the House and which certainly will not influence any decision on that side.

I am concerned that the Liberal government continues to commit our troops to overseas duty despite almost daily warning signs that the Canadian military is on the verge of collapse when we talk about combat capability. The chief of defence staff was uncommonly blunt this week, declaring that the Canadian forces will have to cut personnel again and cannibalize their own equipment to purchase new equipment.

I want to go back to the auditor general's report, because I think the Canadian people should be well aware of what in fact will happen and what is presently happening.

We can talk about the navy issue. It is going to lose part of its operating budget and will cut back on two Kingston class maritime coastal defence vessels. It will retire minesweepers.

The air force has already removed eight of its 14 Challenger jets. In addition, two Dash 8 aircraft were declared surplus. It has called for a 10% reduction in infrastructure from its component parts.

The business plan of the individual services for the 2000 planning year indicates that additional reductions are planned. The air force faces the largest cuts. The CF-18 fleet will be reduced from 122 to 80. Overall, the air force will shrink from 460 aircraft to 257.

The situation in the army has not been addressed yet. The army has not yet determined how it will restructure itself, but it could also face significant reductions in its order of battle.

That is the complete picture. Of course there is no indication of downsizing, but that is on its way also.

Why? It all comes down to the issue of funding. The government really refuses to address that point of keeping our forces combat capable. If that is the purpose of having the military, the government has reneged on its duty.

The limited cash infusion contained in the last budget was just enough to pay off some of the backlog of bills. The vicious cycle of defence planning and spending continues in the country, yet the government continues to ship more troops overseas. Quite a number just came back from East Timor not too many months ago.

I would like to ask the government how much planning, both of a tactical and a strategic nature, has been invested in this mission. We have committed ourselves to UN missions before without considering the long term requirements or expectations, like the list my colleague from Medicine Hat clearly pointed out, with some situations like Zaire.

I believe the government just does not get the picture when it comes to what our military is all about. In fact, it has insulted our military from time to time, even to the point of referring to our peacekeepers as boy scouts. I think that is an insult. Really, they are far from being boy scouts.

The point remains that the government continues to support peacekeeping missions because we have always supported peacekeeping missions. No consideration is given to the fact that there are half as many people in uniform in 2000 as there were in 1970. We are deploying beyond our means.

The government has worked hard to promote and project an image of peacekeeping and our peacekeepers that is blatantly false and that needlessly places our military personnel in harm's way if they do not have adequate equipment.

Peacekeeping no longer follows the Cyprus model where Canadians stood in observation posts with binoculars and surveyed the uneasy but verifiable peace. For the past decade the UN has sent peacekeepers into countries where there is no peace to keep, or where the one that does exist is exceedingly vulnerable.

We have been sending our soldiers into war zones and blithely asking them to keep the peace, and it has not happened. The government's insistence that these operations are peacekeeping as usual has created a sense of false comfort as Canadians think their military personnel are enjoying six months in some foreign land with little or no danger. Moreover the government has failed to equip the troops it does send.

That brings us to the point of clothing the soldier. It is far from complete and well behind its deadline, leaving them without even the basic kit requirements. They have been forced to beg supplies and material from our allies in the field.

The larger equipment requirements have also proven a constant source of failure and embarrassment for the government. Our lack of sealift and airlift capability has meant that we cannot move our personnel or our equipment on scene without relying on contracted out services. All we have to do is reflect back to the GTS Katie to realize how unreliable some of those services can be, with disastrous implications to this country.

Canada is consistently late in regard to deployment because we lack the necessary deployment resources. Our military personnel are forced to work with equipment that is often not interoperable with our allies. Kosovo was an example. We just barely fit into the communications band with our allies and they were required to adjust to meet our lower standard.

We have no extraction capability, and this is becoming more and more important. If our troops were involved in some conflict and needed to be removed, there would be no opportunity to do that because we just do not have that capability. There are no resupply options. There is no reinforcement plan.

We have been fortunate thus far that our international friends have been so willing to lend us a hand under these circumstances, but surely a country such as Canada should not have to rely on military charity for its military forces to function. There must be a limit somewhere.

It is time to answer UN deployment calls within the context of national interests. The member for Medicine Hat clearly pointed out what should be our national interest. Is it every conflict which comes along that we are asked to participate in and we do it in an ad hoc fashion? Or, is it something that we define as our basic interest and that is where our priorities lie? That has never come from that side of the House, and it is high time it does.

We cannot respond to every crisis, especially given the government's complete lack of resolve to provide consistent funding to the Canadian forces.

Members of our forces have been deployed in some of the most difficult of situations and have never complained. It is the responsibility and moral duty of the government of the day to look after those needs, and I would have to say it has failed to do so.

[Peacekeeping, October 17th, 2000]

Madam Speaker, the concluding point in the auditor general's report—and I believe this is incumbent upon government to inform the House of exactly the state of our military—is this:

In summary, there is a need to provide Parliament with a more complete picture of the capabilities of the Canadian Forces.

To listen to the rhetoric coming from the minister one would think otherwise, but the truth of the matter is that the auditor general, as are many Canadians now, is very concerned about the state of our military and the deployment of our troops overseas.

[Peacekeeping, October 17th, 2000]

Madam Speaker, I want to reflect on the comments of the chief of defence staff. I think he spoke with some bluntness this week, saying that the Canadian forces will have to cut personnel further and cannibalize its own operations to purchase new equipment. That is just to keep things afloat. Looking at the auditor general's report that came out today, it is very clear that there will be substantial reductions again in military capability.

The government has a history of deploying troops and stretching them to the limit every time a conflict comes up. One has to ask whether it is the defence minister or the foreign affairs minister who actually gives direction to the military on whatever he decides should happen. This is not to say that there are not conflict areas in that world that do need attention, but I am concerned about our troops.

I am concerned about the number of deployments they have had. I have not heard much as far as assurances from the minister that those concerns will be addressed other than making this commitment. We are in the middle of a take note debate but the decision to send them has already been made, which does concern me.

What does the minister plan on doing? Does he plan on stretching the troops even further, to the point where something else will give? The chief of the defence staff has made clear note that there are problems with the budget as it sits and now the minister is committing our men and women even further.

[National Defence, October 5th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, Canadians have been waiting a long time for the delivery of the search and rescue helicopters and so has the military. Now we have learned from the government's own documents that the helicopters will possibly be delayed for another 30 months at an additional cost of $18.5 million. The government has meddled in this process for far too long and that is why we are running into these problems.

Will the Minister of National Defence accept the blame for this fiasco?

[National Defence, October 5th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, for the past seven years the government has mismanaged and played politics with the military procurement process, with the taxpayer paying half a billion dollars in 1993 when the Cormorant or EH-101 contract was scrapped. Now on the eve of delivery we have received access to information documents that reveal serious deficiencies in the Cormorant.

Will the minister tell the House when the first Cormorant search and rescue helicopter will be available and how much it will cost?

[Motions For Papers, October 4th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I ask that Motion No. P-39 be transferred for debate.