Elsie Wayne

[Supply, December 4th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my hon. colleague for splitting his time with me.

I heard the hon. government member say that Canada's productivity growth has grown. Canada's productivity growth has lagged behind that of other industrial nations in recent years and its productivity growth over the past two decades has been slower than every other G-7 country. Canada has one of the worst growth rates in the OECD.

Today I want to talk about what the government has done to the military. What happened on September 11 was a wake-up call for the government to do something. We do not have the military resources needed to look after the security of Canadians.

Let us take a look at what this government has done.

In 1993 the Liberal government cancelled the contract for EH-101s only for politics and for no other reason. That cost taxpayers $500 million and we got absolutely nothing for it. Also, look at the Sea King maintenance and upgrade program. The program put in place for this cost $600 million. Canada's search and rescue helicopter program cost $790 million. The maritime helicopter project cost $2.9 billion. Also the long term service support that the government put in place cost $1.7 billion. Administrative costs in splitting procurement cost $400 million. The total cost of these Liberal programs, with no inflation included, was $8.6 billion.

The total cost of the Conservative program for 43 EH-101s to replace the Sea Kings, based on Liberal election literature in 1994, would have been $5.8 billion. Then we would have had Sea Kings aboard those frigates that could fly, and we would not have the problems that we have within our military today. God bless those men and women who are trying to look after us.

Having sat on the defence and veterans affairs committee, it tugs at my heart when I see how little our military has received from this government in the way of support. It is not right. The government has cut back on the number of people in our army, navy and air force. The regular force ceiling has been reduced from 35,800 to 20,400. The primary reserves ceiling has been reduced from 24,000 to 20,000. Yet we are asking our men and women to perform peacekeeping duties where they do not go for just three months, but for six or eight months. Some members have come back recently. They have told me that they were ashamed because they had to borrow resources from other countries because they did not have them.

The budget coming down on December 10 must be a military security budget for every man, woman and child in Canada.

What happened to our shipbuilding program? The Minister of Industry when he was running in the election--

[National Defence, December 3rd, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, we have been informed that the Sea King helicopter replacement will yield a finished product that is inferior to the equipment our forces have today.

The Minister of National Defence has indicated that in a post-cold war world the reduced specs were all that were needed. In light of the tragic events of September 11 and the subsequent increased pressures on our military, is the minister still prepared to say that our military needs can be met by lesser equipment and helicopters that are inferior to EH-101s?

[National Defence, November 28th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, will the Minister of National Defence confirm a report published in the Times of India today that the government has sought the permission of the government of Kyrgyzstan for the use of its airfields for our C-130 Hercules? If so, what role will they be playing in this U.S. campaign against terrorism?

[National Defence, November 27th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of National Defence has publicly stated that the process to replace the Sea King helicopters is behind schedule. A document from the defence department states that the delay for the delivery might well stretch beyond the year 2010.

Will the minister be up front with us today, not political but up front and tell us exactly when we will get the replacements for the Sea Kings? When will he award that contract?

[Anti-terrorism Act, November 26th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I have to say that my party believes we must have and is generally in support of the principles behind the legislation to fight terrorism, but we do have some major concerns. My leader and our justice critic have brought forth a number of amendments. These amendments should not only be addressed but adopted.

The government believes that the legislation is okay because the government thinks it will be used properly. It thinks that the solicitor general in place at the present time will always act correctly. I have to say that kind of thinking is dangerous, not only right now but for the future. Before the government enacts legislation the government MPs need to imagine what someone whose motives are not good could do under this legislation. That should be the test, because once the law is on the books anyone vested with these powers would be free to use them to the full extent.

Does the government not believe in oversight and in parliament? These are major concerns. It does not matter which party is in power. These are the concerns we would have no matter who is in power.

I stated that we are generally supportive of the principles behind this legislative response to fight terrorism, but we have also been made aware that in 1999 CSIS went to the government of the day, this government, and said it knew there were some terrorists in Canada. CSIS said it needed more money to hire more people to assist it in being able to find these terrorists and get them out of Canada. In fact, at that time the government, instead of giving more money to CSIS, cut its budget and it had to lay off people. That did not come up here. This is what we are saying. The government had the power but that did not come up for debate so that the rest of us here in the House of Commons could have an opportunity for input.

The bill attempts to achieve a balance between the measures needed to protect Canadians from acts of terrorism and the need to respect the civil liberties and human rights that Canadians cherish. We believe that a strong legislative response is necessary, as are the resources to allow our law enforcement community to be proactive in the important task of fighting terrorism.

That is why I say that right now we have to look at what the government has just done. The solicitor general has recently announced funding increases to the RCMP and CSIS. We are pleased that the government has done that, but considering that the government has been financially starving these groups for years prior to September 11, as I have stated, the recent funding will not even begin to address the additional responsibility for Canada's law enforcement agencies. The current reassignment of over 2,000 RCMP officers to duties outside their current postings highlights the personnel shortages. The government's decision to put RCMP in national parks and at borders is stretching security capacity to the breaking point.

Our understanding is that on December 10 there is a budget coming before the House. I pray every day that when that budget comes in it will be a budget that will give the RCMP, CSIS, our security forces and our country the dollars and cents that are needed, and our military forces as well. The military forces do not have the dollars and cents they need. I really fear for all of us in Canada because of what the government has done.

The government knows there is a need for the police to be able to immediately arrest someone they believe on reasonable grounds to be a terrorist threat, but many Canadians are concerned that the expanded powers of arrest and detention are in some instances open to government interference, as was highlighted by the APEC report presented by Mr. Justice Ted Hughes. Bill C-36 would enable police to arrest and detain an individual for up to 72 hours without any charges whatsoever. Not only could this type of police power be used to curtail the right of assembly and demonstration, but it is contrary to the thrust of the APEC report.

We have to get our priorities straight. I asked our security why Father Van Hee is down at the flame and not allowed to come near our doors here. Let me tell the House what I was told. They said that at this time they do not allow any protesters here. I said, “Protesters? He is down there reading the Bible each day. I hardly think he is a protester, and if all around the world we were all reading the Bible we would have peace”. They said that they had truly never thought of that.

One of the amendments that our leader has put forth, which amends clause 4, is as follows:

(1.2) The Governor in Council may, by regulation, establish the criteria to be used by the Solicitor General in making his recommendation to place an entity on the list under subsection (1).

(1.3) Before making the regulations referred to in subsection (1), the list of criteria, or any amendment thereto, must be tabled in the House of Commons and be debated within 10 sitting days after being tabled.

The governor in council would have the power to make a list of terrorist entities upon the recommendation of the solicitor general, not parliament. Some of that information about terrorist entities may come from foreign countries whose democratic values are considerably different than Canada's. There should be criteria that assist the solicitor general in assessing this information. For example, the human rights values of another country could be part of the criteria weighed in the consideration of a listing of an entity.

We believe that parliament should participate fully in the development of these criteria. We want to ensure that there is full debate in parliament. That is what we want: to bring forth debate. We want to make sure that there is protection in Canada. We want to make sure there is security. We want to make sure that our military and our men and women looking after our security have the tools to do the job, but we want to have our voices heard. We are not here just to be negative. That is not why we are here. We are here because of the security of our country. We want to make sure that what is brought forth here is something we have input into and something that is right for all Canadians.

Also, we have another motion that the leader has brought forth. It is an amendment to replace line 30 on page 17 with the following: “the applicant no longer be a listed entity”. In this section dealing with the listing of entities, the governor in council may establish a list of terrorist entities on the recommendation of the solicitor general. Someone who has been listed as a terrorist entity can apply to the solicitor general to have his or her name removed from the list. Currently the bill provides that if the solicitor general does not make a decision within 60 days, it is deemed that the solicitor general has decided to recommend that the applicant remain a listed entity.

However, many times we ask for information from the solicitor general and it takes longer than 60 days to get an answer. Good heavens, that happens with just about everybody on the government side.

The amendment that we have put forward would reverse the procedure. If the solicitor general has not made a decision within 60 days it would be deemed that he or she is recommending that the applicant come off the list, not remain on it. This would require the government to deal quickly with applications to ensure that people's lives and reputations are not being ruined if there is a mistake.

We want to make sure that Canada is safe. We want to make sure that our people are safe and feel safe in Canada. We look at our children and our grandchildren and we want to make sure that things are right here in Canada for them.

Therefore, in regard to the amendments that we, our justice critic and our leader, have put forward, we ask that the members of parliament on the government side and all of our colleagues on the opposition side look positively at them and make these amendments take place.

[National Defence, November 26th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Defence.

It has been brought to our attention that the water filtration system of the HMCS Preserver , the supply vessel that is in the Arabian Sea, is not working. Our men have no water to drink. They cannot bathe or shower. The only one who can use any water is the person who is handling food.

What steps is the minister taking to correct this situation or is he going to bring those men and women back here to Canada?

[National Defence, November 20th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, it is not a national secret that the Sea King helicopters should have been replaced some time ago. Everyone in the House of Commons knows that, as well as that they require preventive maintenance and major overhauls to keep them flying.

On September 21, 1998, the minister of defence told the House that the upgrades to the Sea King communications systems were “under way”. Could the Prime Minister now confirm that the upgrades have now been completed and is he prepared to say that reports published by Jane's Defence Weekly , the international military journal, to the contrary are absolutely false?

[Prebudget Consultations, November 7th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to rise today to speak to the most important budget we have likely seen in a generation. I will be splitting my time with the hon. member for Dewdney--Alouette.

The events of September 11 have dramatically transformed our country and the world in which it thrives. The priorities parliament had set for Canadians and the direction we were to take as a country prior to the attacks have been changed for the foreseeable future by tragic circumstances.

In this new age our priority has become the safety and security of our citizens in the face of a constant threat from terrorist forces. The budget we will see this December will be unlike any we have seen since the end of the cold war. It will require a firm commitment to the programs and departments charged with the protection and defence of our nation.

The opportunity for the government to reassure Canadians and our international allies is now at hand. The upcoming budget must serve as a bold reinforcement of the strong commitments we have made to the war against terrorism. In short, it is time for the government to put its money where its mouth is.

I have risen in the House on many occasions to condemn the repeated and senseless cuts to our nation's armed forces that have been made in the last decade. My colleagues in the Chamber will know that when I say the time has come to reinvest in our nation's security it is not a new position brought on by the times but an ideal in which I have always believed and whose time has come.

There is nothing easier in times of war than saying that one supports a strong military. What is far more difficult is making a financial commitment to building that military. I rise today as I have risen many times in the past to call on the Minister of Finance and the Prime Minister to make a firm and focused investment in the Canadian armed forces.

Prior to the September 11 attacks those who called for increases in defence spending were called alarmists. It was said that in the post cold war world Canada had no need to maintain the kind of military force it had throughout the seventies and eighties. For this reason the Department of National Defence saw its budget cut from $12 billion in 1993-94 to $9.4 billion in the course of a few years.

For most of the 1990s the government made clear to the nation that defence spending was a luxury which could be reduced as needed to fund other programs or as a means of reducing the deficit. It is only in the aftermath of the attacks on the United States that we are seeing how truly flawed the policy was. It is only now that we are seeing the devastating effects of the dramatic cuts on our military capabilities.

For the past several weeks and in the past few months before the summer break the Standing Committee on National Defence and Veterans Affairs has been investigating the operational readiness of the Canadian forces.

I can conclude what our findings were because we tabled them today. We came forward and said that we needed more money in the budget for the military. We need at least $1 billion but in reality we need a whole lot more.

As members of the House will know, I have often spoken of the need to replace our aging Sea King helicopters. Hon. members will also know that one of the most significant flaws in the government's procurement process is that contracts are awarded on the basis of the lowest price rather than the best value or, more important, the best product for our men and women.

When I think of this my thoughts turn to a story related to me by a colleague who sits on the other side. The individual travelled to visit our peacekeepers and was shocked to see that soldiers returning to Canada were forced to give their combat boots to the soldiers arriving in theatre.

The story is shockingly similar to a story the House heard just under a year ago when a representative of the Royal Canadian Legion wrote of the disheartening conditions he witnessed when visiting our peacekeepers overseas.

When our government does not give our men and women in uniform the very uniforms they volunteer to wear we have gone too far. When our military personnel see the government cutting corners and shortchanging them it is only natural that morale is low.

Our military deserves the best equipment possible. When we make a capital expenditure we should not do so on the basis of how much money we can save. When we buy combat boots and combat clothing we should order enough for everyone who needs them.

Sadly in the wake of the terrorist attacks the government continues to operate with the mindset that we should be cutting costs when it comes to our military. Last week it was confirmed that many of our armed forces reservists will see a 15% cut in their wages.

It is inconceivable that in a time of war any government, let alone a Canadian government, would give notice of its intention to cut the pay of those whose lives are being placed at risk. When I asked the minister to justify his decision, his answer served only to raise more questions. I would ask that my colleagues in the House notice the strange logic of the Minister of National Defence when he said:

There is no approved pay reduction at all. Let me tell the House that the 21,000 reservists over the last three years have had very substantial pay increases, as have those in the regular force. There is a proposal that will involve some readjustment, some realignment. Some will get a reduction. Even more than that will get an increase.

The minister said there was no approved pay reduction and then admitted there was. What is it? If some reservists are getting a reduction does it not mean a reduction has been approved? If a majority of reservists will be getting a pay increase, as the minister says, why would the increase require us to cut the pay of others?

Less than two months after the commitment was made the government repeatedly indicated that in light of the massive changes following September 11 our military would not be left in need of additional funding. Today the defence committee tabled an interim report which calls for increased funding and more resources for the military. It calls on us to help OCPEP and all the others.

My remarks today reflect my deep personal feelings on the issue. Our men and women in uniform cannot come to Parliament Hill, as so many others do, with placards to protest the injustices committed against them. Our Canadian armed forces personnel have never questioned their awesome duty to us. It is time we honoured them. The eyes of the nation will watch over the government when it brings down its December budget.

[Softwood Lumber, November 7th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, we all oppose the anti-dumping duty that the United States has placed on softwood lumber, a duty that is unfair and is arbitrary. Most unfair is the fact that, despite the maritime accord, our industry in Atlantic Canada has been subjected to the anti-dumping duty for no logical reason whatsoever.

The Prime Minister has said he spoke with President Bush today. What we want to know is can the president tell us if he will take off that 13% right away?

[National Defence, November 6th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of National Defence told the House defence committee that “We will have to catch up a little bit on the timing” of replacing the Sea Kings for 2005.

However those in charge see it quite differently. Col. Henneberry, head of the Pacific fleet helicopters, stated “It is my opinion that there is a strong potential we will be conducting Sea King operations well past the year 2010”.

Will the minister the minister make public today his departmental plan to deliver new helicopter--