Joe Comartin

[Supply, October 21st, 2004]

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.

[Supply, October 21st, 2004]

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.

[Natural Resources, October 21st, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, in mid-July the Great Lakes provincial and state governments released proposed agreements on diversion of Great Lakes waters. Under the agreement, these states will be able to unilaterally divert water from the Great Lakes without any veto from Canadians.

These agreements override treaty arrangements between Canada and the United States that go back 100 years. The legal framework between our countries make it absolutely clear that it is the federal government's responsibility to control the flow of water in the Great Lakes basin.

My question is for the Minister of Foreign Affairs. Will he today, to this House, declare the government's opposition to these agreements and to the further diversion of water out of the Great Lakes basin?

[Credit Union Day, October 21st, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today on Credit Union Day to pay tribute to Canada's credit union system.

The great distinction of credit unions in Canada is that they are owned by their members. Accordingly, credit union services are determined by the needs of all their members rather than those of profit driven shareholders.

Credit unions serve and help communities drive their own economic growth. They have a proud history of introducing innovative services like life insured loans and weekly versus monthly payments, both great benefits to their members.

Today in Canada there are 572 credit unions with close to 1,800 locations serving more than 4.6 million people. They manage assets in excess of $74 billion. Including the caisses populaires in Quebec, one in three Canadians is a credit union member.

I extend congratulations to all credit unions, a vital component of Canada's economic and social life.

[Supply, October 21st, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, it is the first time I have been on my feet since you have been in the Chair and I congratulate you on your appointment.

One of the concerns we have had has been the poor treatment of our forces. It is the only way I can put it. I know the minister wishes to avoid past practices. However let me just ask the minister if there are any plans to deal with the issue of housing on the bases or of providing additional remuneration to the lower ranks in particular, from lieutenant on down, so they would have the ability to cope with the general expenses for themselves and their families, especially when they are on active duty for this country.

Along the same lines, I want to speak specifically to the housing and the horror stories we have heard. From the perspective of our party, very few of those housing accommodations on the bases have been improved over the last few years. This has been raised repeatedly in the House. Is there any prospect that the government, in the very near future, will address the issue of housing and better remuneration? If so, the recruitment that is underway at this time, initiated by this specific administration, will be much more successful and we will draw the best candidates in the country.

[Petitions, October 21st, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, my final petition, pursuant to the same standing order, concerns the decriminalization of marijuana. The petition, which contains approximately 200 signatures, asks the government to move ahead with legislation in that regard.

[Petitions, October 21st, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, my second petition concerns the issue of missile defence.

The petition contains approximately 100 signatures asking the government to take a position opposing any involvement by this country in that, again pursuant to Standing Order 36.

[Petitions, October 21st, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, I have several petitions this morning.

My first petition is with regard to a petition by a number of my constituents, pursuant to Standing Order 36, imploring the government to move rapidly to fund, in significant dollars, public transit in accordance with our industrial strategy with regard to a green car.

[Natural Resources, October 14th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, negotiations between the Great Lakes states, Ontario and Quebec have resulted in the release of the Great Lakes water diversion annex.

The ultimate effect of the annex will be to allow U.S. states to unilaterally divert water from the Great Lakes without a veto by the provinces. The annex has been met with a great deal of concern and opposition by municipalities, Canadian sovereignists, environmentalists and first nations people.

The International Joint Commission has warned against any further water diversion from our Great Lakes. If this annex is ratified, the impact on the Great Lakes basin and the St. Lawrence River will be enormous, especially in light of global warming.

In spite of these concerns and outright opposition we have not heard from the federal government at all on this important issue of national sovereignty. We call upon it today to stand up for Canadians and say no more water diversions from the Great Lakes.

[Public Servants Disclosure Protection Act, October 14th, 2004]

Madam Speaker, this is the first time you have been in the chair when I have been up on my feet. Let me congratulate you on your appointment. It is good to see you there. We hope we can provide you with the cooperation you deserve, and which the Speaker generally deserves, from this end of the House. We wish you well in your endeavours in trying to provide us with some guidance in the coming months.

I am taking this opportunity to speak to the bill because Canadians have to appreciate the significance of this type of legislation to the public service in Canada. It is not for no reason that the bill has been brought forward.

In the last Parliament we had a litany of incidents where, had the public service felt comfortable in coming forward, a great deal of the scandal and abuse that went on in a number of areas would have been dealt with at a much earlier stage. Perhaps we have the right to believe, if not hope, that those incidents would never have taken place had we had a regime where the public service felt comfortable in coming forward. People thought they could get away with the type of conduct we saw in the Radwanski affair and the sponsorship scandal. That type of conduct, if considered, would have stopped before it ever got off the ground. If the culprits knew in advance that they would be exposed, they would not have felt comfortable conducting themselves in that way.

We also have to appreciate the fear that is within the public service. Look what has happened to staff within the public service, the Department of Health and more recently in the Department of Agriculture, who have dismissed out of hand. They did what Canadian citizens would expect them to do, and that is protect us from an abusive process. The last three employees in particular, the professional staff in the Department of Agricultural, were dismissed. How that could happen in light of what we have experienced in the last three of four years is impossible to imagine. The senior level of government felt they had the ability to get away with dismissing those people for the exposure they made about GMOs. There is no explanation for why that can happen. It should not have happened. What will we now be faced with, lawsuits? None of that needed to happen. We badly need this type of legislation, but not this one.

I want to speak for a moment about the reality of how the legislation got to the stage it has, which is not far enough in our minds. We would not even see the amendments in the legislation from its last incarnation in the last Parliament if it were not for the fact that there is a minority government. It is quite clear the minister and the government were quite prepared to work the legislation, which was of no use whatsoever in protecting the public servants if they felt compelled to come forward with abuses.

When that bill was put forward in the last Parliament, somebody conducted a survey of the public service in Ottawa. Over 75% of the people in the public service said that they were less likely to go public with their complaints or raise concerns around abuses than they were under the old system. That new legislation would have inhibited further public servants coming forward.

Admittedly in this bill we have seen some improvement. I do not want to deny that, but it does not go far enough. It is quite clear again, I believe, that if we took that survey of the public service we would still see a majority of them saying, “I am not comfortable. I do not feel protected by this legislation”. They say to us, “I know there is abuse going on but I am not comfortable in coming forward because I will not be protected. That is my belief”. Those are the kinds of statements we get from public servants when we talk to them now. In light of this current bill, those are the discussions we have had in the last few days with them.

Clearly, the NDP as a party is going to be looking for substantial improvement in the bill. We are signalling quite clearly that we are not satisfied it goes far enough. My colleague from Winnipeg, who will be responsible for this bill, made that very clear in his opening address earlier today. That is a clear message from the party. It is interesting to hear the same thing from the other opposition parties.

I hope and expect that at the end of the day we are going to see improvements so that when we next speak to the public service in this country, we will hear them say,“Yes, we are satisfied that the bill now protects us. We are satisfied that we can speak out without fear of repercussions to our career and to our well-being as public servants in this country”.

I want to echo some of the comments we heard from the last member who spoke for the Conservatives. I as well sat in and listened to Mr. Cutler when he testified. I could not help but think that in this new millennium in a democracy like Canada's this person should not have suffered the consequences he did. We should be well beyond that in terms of protecting the people who work for the citizens of this country. We had a man whose career was severely curtailed and we were not there. By “we”, I mean this House and the government. We did not have a system in place to protect him. He suffered the consequences. That should not happen.

If nothing else, we as a party are going to do whatever we can to see that when the bill gets to its final stages a man like Mr. Cutler will in fact be protected, will feel safe in coming forward and will feel safe that he will be protected by the system.