John Duncan

[National Defence Act, March 30th, 1998]

Madam Speaker, I consider that comment an insult. If the member thinks that way about me it is because he has not listened to me very much. That is the last thing I am doing here. This is a Liberal apologist.

He said that I made jingoistic statements. I suggest the member look up jingoistic in the dictionary. Somehow he tied that to housing and pay increases.

[National Defence Act, March 30th, 1998]

Madam Speaker, regarding the member's question about alternate service delivery, I do understand from my visits to Comox air force base that there has been a lot of alternate service delivery which has been brought into the military and to that base over the last several years. I think much of it makes sense, so far. However, there comes a point at which some of the essential things, especially those things that military personnel need to carry with them into combat, should be retained by the military.

The member's question about personnel being asked to take a 60% pay cut concerns me greatly. It tells me that somebody else has become the new employer and they want to retain the same employees but pay them less. If that is the circumstance, it is not one that I am aware of on the home front. I cannot say that it is something I would subscribe to. If there is alternate service delivery I would assume that the reason it is being done is because efficiencies are going to be achieved in some other way, through scheduling, through economies of scale or inventory.

However, to make one's cost savings by offloading onto employees does not make sense to me. I am with the member in terms of that part of his question.

[National Defence Act, March 30th, 1998]

Madam Speaker, it gives me pleasure to speak today to Bill C-25, an act to amend the National Defence Act and to make consequential amendments to other acts. The purpose of this act is to make substantial changes to the military justice system in the Canadian Armed Forces.

Probably the impetus or a lot of this dates back to October 1995 when the Liberal government issued an order in council to establish what became known as the Somalia commission of inquiry. Later that commission by order in council was prematurely shut down. This is the first time in Canadian history that an order in council has been used to shut down a commission of inquiry.

The reason that happened was the commission was about to investigate the involvement of the Liberal government in the Somalia affair. Allegations of murder, the cover-up of murder, the failure of the general staff and the government to hold anyone accountable for their actions or omissions, the culture of secrecy at the Department of National Defence and the double standards of the military justice system all bubbled up during the Somalia inquiry.

We all know that the Liberal government is no friend to the Canadian Armed Forces. It has done no favours for our armed forces by allowing a cloud to hang over them by shutting down the Somalia inquiry. It has not given them a clear mandate to fulfil and it has failed to adequately equip them for their tasks.

During the term of this government the Canadian military has never been asked to do more with less resources. The government has failed to provide openness, accountability and independence for the Canadian Armed Forces. There were three important recommendations that came out of the Somalia inquiry. They continue to be ignored by the government.

Regarding the military police, they should be taken out of the chain of command and given more independence. Judge Marin was commissioned to report on the military police. He recommended that they not have the power in Canada to conduct criminal investigations. This recommendation is totally ignored in the legislation.

It was recommended that the office of the judge advocate general be split into defence and prosecutorial roles. It was also recommended that the judge not come from the same office and probably should not come from the federal court, trials division.

The Somalia inquiry recommended the creation of an inspector general. The government continues to ignore this recommendation. It ignores this request because an inspector general would be independent. The Liberals continuously ignore the role of Parliament with respect to national defence. The government has forgotten that deployment decisions of our troops should be taken by Parliament.

British Columbians are justifiably proud of our military. But we are also very concerned that this government has denuded British Columbia of part of our military. It decimated Chilliwack. We still have Esquimalt and we still have Comox. It would be very difficult indeed for this government to remove the naval presence from British Columbia. Otherwise it would have done so by now, there is no doubt about that. All the west coast coverage for the air force comes from Comox, which is essential. It is bad news for British Columbia that we no longer have an armed forces base in Chilliwack. We no longer have the army presence that we look for in national or international emergencies, ice storms, Bosnia, Kosovo or Haiti.

If we have an earthquake on the west coast who are we going to look to? We are going to look to our military. Ottawa has let British Columbia down very badly indeed.

The Liberals have put politics before principle. They have put politics before what is good for the nation and good for society. The Liberals are no friends of the military. They are continuing to ask our personnel to fly unsafe helicopters. We had another helicopter crash last week. As my colleague said, it is a good thing they float better than they fly.

I think what we have to remember out of all this is that people in uniform are ordinary Canadians. They come from our communities and they are trying to do a job for our country. Yes, they are trained to an extraordinary degree in many disciplines and they are often extremely responsive and responsible. Let us be very thankful that we have them. This is not the treatment the military has received from this government.

In downtown Ottawa and in other cities we have military personnel in uniform being mistaken for security guards or parking lot attendants. That is how far our military has plummeted in terms of public perception in this country because our government is doing nothing to maintain, restore and give Canadians pride in our military tradition, a very important military tradition. It is crucial that we go beyond Liberal lip service and live off the legacy which is this government's way of dealing with our military.

Recently at the APEC conference we received a slap in the face. The Seaforth Highlanders were not considered Canadian enough for APEC. The Seaforth Highlanders from British Columbia, that proud group, were replaced by the Van Doos because of a decision by the Prime Minister's office. I wanted to ask a question but unfortunately I already know the answer.

There was a political decision to fly those people to Vancouver from the province of Quebec at a cost of $210,000. Who pays for a political decision? The Prime Minister's office? No. The Department of National Defence paid that $210,000. A hard pressed department of government paid for that political decision. That is the ultimate slap in the face.

Under the government the military has lost pay comparability with the public service. This is what our Liberal administration told us on Friday. Non-commissioned officer pay had a 6.7% shortfall compared to the public service and our general service officers had a 14.7% shortfall compared to our public service.

This displays Liberal mindset. First of all, our military personnel should not be compared with the public service. They are not the public service. They do not resemble the public service. Our personnel should be compared with military personnel on a world scale. I would suggest we start with other Commonwealth forces and U.S. forces. More on that later.

Shame on this government for allowing our military personnel and our police personnel, by the way, to fall even shorter than our public service. Why was this allowed to happen? Talk about demoralizing.

I see it right up front. I do not think I explained but within my riding is Comox armed forces base. I have a fairly good feel for what is going on with personnel. The problems all rest with this frontbench. Shame on it.

As I mentioned, Comox armed forces base is in my riding. The stress of low pay and extended absences on individuals and families is tremendous. Moonlighting is rampant and essential for many of the young members. A news release from government on Friday states that economic increases for Canadian forces personnel were intended to mirror similar pay increases expected to be awarded to all federal employees, including members of the public service.

This makes no sense. They are not doing the same job and there is no comparability. We should be tying our military to Commonwealth forces, to U.S. forces. We can look at the pay. We can look at the perks. We can look at the tax treatments.

If we had looked at all this we would not have a scramble from over here trying to deal with catch-up for our pilots. They are losing pilots one after the other. We will have a shortfall. There is no doubt about that.

Instituting a measure that favourably treats pilots is demoralizing for the rest of the personnel. Why in heaven's name we got ourself into this. There is no vision over there.

Canadian forces personnel travelling in the United States have more perks than in our own country.

Why this reciprocity is there is a little beyond me because there is a lack of any substantive favourable treatment shown to U.S. personnel travelling in Canada. They are not extended the courtesy that our personnel are extended there. Once again, this is shameful. It is something that needs to be addressed, but all we get is lip service.

The pay of the military has been frozen since 1991. We started to see some increases in an attempt to catch up with the public service, as I described earlier. However, a four year phase-in period is totally inappropriate. The morale within the armed forces is not only down because of the pay, it is down because there is no clear indication from government when the cuts are going to stop, when their organization is going to stop being downsized, when their organization is going to be equipped in the way that it needs to be equipped. There is nothing but uncertainty and concern that it is so far down the priority list in the pecking order of this government that it is becoming increasingly difficult to keep people in the military, especially our best and our brightest.

Where is the government's vision? The only conclusion that I am able to come to, after observing this place for four years, is that there is none. If we read the documents, all the fine words are there, but it is lip service.

Another thing that is contributing to problems with morale in the Department of National Defence is that the organization is always getting smaller and there are obviously very few opportunities for advancement. People are having to stay in their job classifications or job categories. Those are valuable people. We want to keep them. We also want to compensate them in a way that they deserve. That is not happening.

This government is great at pitting one group against another. It is starting to split the military into groups. I have already talked about this favourable treatment to pilots and how that is going to be viewed and is viewed by some personnel. This is just not the way to operate. We cannot constantly be ad libbing about how we are going to manage a major department.

Something we should all be very proud of is Canada's long military tradition. In many respects what makes and defines Canada as a nation started back at Vimy Ridge and continues to this day.

Whenever there has been a military engagement, peacekeeping or otherwise, since I came here in 1993, the impression I have had is that the government is making up the rules as it goes along. It does not have any sense of creating stability in the armed forces, creating combat capability or high morale within the voluntary military to represent Canada's interests and to fulfill what we deservedly should represent given our strong military tradition and history. All we have seen is the death of 1,000 cuts and a lack of commitment from Liberal administrations. We have actually never had a Liberal administration which has been supportive of the military beyond lip service and living off a legacy.

I have a brother who lives and works in the United States. I consider him to be part of the brain drain. He has been there for a long time. He works in a university environment where there are many very intellectual and intelligent people who are on the leading edge of many endeavours. It can be rather humbling at times for anyone in that environment to recognize that one has met someone who is more than one's intellectual match. One observation he carries that has really struck home with me is that some of the brightest and best in American society have their roots in the U.S. military. They say that the U.S. military has many of the nation's best and brightest. It is all because of this legacy and tradition and devotion to country and to making society a better place.

We have to ensure that we carry that tradition in this country. It is very important that we do that.

[Fisheries, March 27th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, the 1998 low salmon returns in British Columbia are a direct result of shortfalls in returning four-year old spawning salmon. The late returning Fraser River sockeye run was fished out within 12 hours in 1994. The 1994 disaster led to a major re-examination of DFO policy and gave a black eye to the department. Now the minister is blaming some guy called El Niño and a host of other things rather than accepting responsibility for disastrous fishery management on both coasts, affecting the livelihood of tens of thousands. This is despite clear evidence to the contrary.

Why is the minister refusing to accept responsibility and to make the tough decisions?

The Liberals are an odd lot Always hoping to change the plot Campaigning for the byelection They are hoping for a resurrection But after Monday this fact they will dread In B.C. the red heads are dead

[Fisheries, March 25th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, fisheries management in British Columbia is in a mess. However our minister thinks he has found a way to solve the Pacific salmon crisis. He wants to let the Americans fish all our salmon and then place B.C. fishermen on a west coast TAGS program. His answer to the problem is to fold to the Americans, kill thousands of jobs and place British Columbians on welfare. What an embarrassment.

Why is it that the only solution this minister has is to put B.C. fishermen on welfare?

[Fisheries, March 24th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, the fisheries minister and the foreign affairs minister do not know who is in charge for starters.

The fisheries minister is always talking conservation, conservation, conservation. What about honesty, integrity and leadership on this issue?

The priority of the fisheries minister has been to avoid upsetting the Americans. Meanwhile 5,000 fisheries workers are going to be out of a job.

Why will the Prime Minister not give the job to someone who will do it?

[Fisheries, March 24th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, British Columbians have been following the Pacific salmon treaty discussions and they have seen four years of inaction. They have seen hundreds of meetings, two negotiators and countless empty promises.

What is the result? A 50% reduction in quotas and 5,000 fishermen and fish plant workers laid off.

Why will the Prime Minister not tell the minister of fisheries to stop talking and take action or find someone who will?

[Fisheries, March 23rd, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, those are the very reports the committee has been denied. The federal government is continuing to approve foreign fishing in Canadian waters on the basis that these are fish in surplus of Canada's needs.

Meanwhile, there are unemployed fishermen and plant workers in Atlantic Canada. No other country declares fish surplus to its own needs. When will Canada stop this resource giveaway?

[Fisheries, March 23rd, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, when people lose confidence in the people who are the managers, they change the managers.

Canadian observers on foreign boats fishing within Canada's 200 mile limit have reported many violations of Canadian fishing regulations. DFO is not only aware of these infractions but has instructed its own people not to press charges against those foreign boats.

Who is accountable for this decision? Did the minister instruct his officials not to lay charges and enforce the law?

[Light Stations, March 19th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, 80% of British Columbians want their light stations staffed. The Minister of Fisheries and Oceans refuses to state his intentions to maintain staffing of lighthouses because of the byelection in British Columbia on March 30.

The government's retirement incentive for light keepers expires March 31 but light keepers cannot decide their future because the minister will not disclose the plan.

Will the minister commit today to maintain staffing of British Columbia light stations?