Leon Benoit

[National Defence, September 27th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, for years we have been calling for the government to make a serious commitment to Canada's armed forces.

The CDA says today that this government must invest an additional billion dollars a year into Canada's forces just to stop the bleeding and much more to rebuild the forces.

The military is Canada's single largest security force and yet it is not a priority for the government. The CDA says that the government is not meeting its commitments regarding our national defence. The minister says we are. Who is wrong?

[National Defence, September 25th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, the member answered the wrong question. In fact I got my information from the minister earlier in the House today.

We cannot seem to get a straight answer from the minister even on something as basic as just the number of men and women we have serving in the forces. It seems hard to come up with the straight numbers.

Canada's white paper commitments do include two squadrons of F-18s to Norad and one wing to NATO. Considering repairs and maintenance, just how can we possibly meet those white paper commitments because the numbers simply do not add up?

[National Defence, September 25th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, the defence minister's numbers just do not add up. He said again in the House earlier today that the government could meet its white paper commitments of two squadrons of CF-18s to Norad and one wing to NATO. The fact is, at the same time a third of the CF-18s will be down for routine maintenance and even more out of commission due to repairs.

Could the minister explain to Canadians just how he can meet his white paper commitments when in fact the numbers just do not add up?

[Supply, September 25th, 2001]

Madam Speaker, it is interesting that the member comments on some partisan comments from other parties in the House and goes on to make the most partisan statements I have heard on this issue in the House. Sometimes I cannot figure this place out.

The member referred to the opposition day motion and that he could not support it due to some specific points. I would like to remind him what this motion said. It stated:

That this House call upon the government to introduce anti-terrorism legislation similar in principle to the United Kingdom's Terrorism Act, 2000, and that such legislation provide for:

the naming of all known international terrorist organizations operating in Canada;

a complete ban on fundraising activities in support of terrorism, and provisions for the seizure of assets belonging to terrorists or terrorist organizations;

the immediate ratification of the International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism;

I do not know which of those things the member found difficult to support. The motion continues:

the creation of specific crimes for engaging in terrorist training--

I do not know why he would have a problem with that.

the prompt extradition of foreign nationals charged with acts of terrorism--

Is there a problem with that? I cannot really see why.

the detention and deportation to their country of origin of any people illegally in Canada or failed refugee claimants who have been linked to terrorist organizations.

The member for Winnipeg--Transcona said that he could not support the motion because of the specifics we attached to it. They are very broad items that should be included in legislation. I would like to know exactly which of those points the member felt he could not support and which led him to vote against our supply day motion.

[Supply, September 25th, 2001]

Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his question. He has attended many of the NATO parliamentarians' meetings over the past years and he understands how NATO works. Article 5 says that if any of the NATO allies is attacked it is considered an attack on all the allies. That would get NATO involved very quickly.

It is up to each NATO country to determine what it will send to a conflict based on what it is capable of and willing to send. The member is right in saying that.

He went on to ask whether parliament should determine, through a debate and a vote, exactly what the contingent would be. I suggest that parliament should have a debate and a vote on what the contingent would be. I support that. However there are cases where there would not be time for it. That type of situation happens on occasion and we must be prepared to deal with it.

It seems that at the speed the government is moving we would have time for a debate and a vote. Canadians deserve to hear more about what Canada has to offer. It is important not only in terms of specific commitments but so Canadians can know the capability of their largest security force.

Canadians who understand are quite shocked at how little Canada can offer. This is partly because we are overcommitted to NATO and United Nations efforts in various theatres around the world. Canada has taken on a heavy load in NATO commitments to Bosnia, Croatia, Macedonia and other places around the world. We are stretched to the limit right now. There is no doubt about it.

[Supply, September 25th, 2001]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to speak to the Bloc motion today which states:

That this House urge the government, in any reprisals taken in reaction to the terrorist strikes in New York City on September 11, not to commit Canadian armed forces in any offensive action until the House of Commons has been consulted and has voted on the matter.

The Canadian Alliance policy calls for any movement to arms to include a vote in the House of Commons. I would like to look at what the situation is today.

First, one of our NATO allies has been attacked. Article 5 of the NATO convention states that if there is an attack on any one of the NATO allies, that is considered to be an attack on each of the NATO allies. As a result, the attacks on New York City and Washington, the plane that crashed in Pennsylvania and the attempted attacks on other places are considered to have been attacks on Canada.

The Alliance policy says that before any of our military are sent into action there should be a debate and a vote in the House of Commons. In this case, the debate and the vote which made Canada a member of NATO, would satisfy the Canadian Alliance policy that we have a debate and a vote on sending our forces into action. We have had an attack on an ally and for that reason Canada is considered to be at war. We made that commitment when we signed on to become a NATO partner.

NATO is possibly the greatest military alliance ever in the history of mankind. It has been successful for the 50 some years it has been in existence. NATO has been a great deterrent against those who would attack its members, but also others anywhere in Europe or in North America. The alliance is a good thing and Canada's participation has been essential for our security.

We have had the first direct attack on a NATO ally since the agreement was signed and we need to be there.

I would go a little further with the idea that we need to be there and be available. Just a few minutes ago I asked the minister some direct questions about what Canada would make available, not what we would commit. I was not asking specific questions about any issue that should be kept secret. I was asking specific questions as to what capabilities Canada actually has to contribute to our NATO allies. No answer was forthcoming. The minister said nothing in response to the question except the usual, that we have the Coyotes. Coyotes are light armoured vehicles but a war is not fought with Coyotes.

Coyotes are used to transport our forces from one place to another in battle zones or areas of engagement, but one does not fight a war with them. Yet the minister continually refers to that and does not get much beyond it.

The minister talks about our F-18s. They are still reasonable planes although they are more than 20 years old. They have had upgrades that make them much more capable. They were used fairly successfully in Kosovo. They need substantially more upgrades and some are in the plans. However we need the proper ordinance and we need experienced pilots.

Canada has produced excellent top level pilots. We have top level pilots now, but when we get into a joint operation with other countries we must have experienced pilots. The fact that we have lost well over half our pilots who flew in Kosovo is of great concern.

When we talk about shortages, whether in terms of pilots or others in our forces, the minister says we have a stronger recruitment plan. However we do not recruit pilots one day and have them flying the next. We do not do this anywhere. We certainly do not have them flying in joint operations without years of training.

That is something that has been anticipated. Past defence critics for the Reform Party, Canadian Alliance and other opposition parties have pointed out the shortages of capable and experienced people in our forces.

We have excellent people in our forces. We have very good training in our forces. I do not blame members of the Canadian forces at all. They are doing a great job and I am proud of them. Any time I see a member in uniform I feel pride. I am extremely thankful they are there for us. They are doing a good job and they are top notch. I am proud of that and Canadians across the country should be proud of that.

However our forces need training. They need training not only at the level at which they are receiving it but at a level that will prepare them for the engagement which may happen now and which will certainly happen some time in the future.

We cannot predict exactly when things will happen. However one thing we know is that there will always be people in the world who will attack others. That is human nature. It is the way things happen. It is not a question of if something might happen; it is a question of when.

The first responsibility of the federal government is clearly the safety and security of our citizens and our country. That is the first priority and the first responsibility. It comes ahead of everything else. Has the government given any indication that it understands that responsibility? It has not, and I can point to some quick statistics.

Numbers in the Canadian forces in terms of personnel have dropped from 90,000 to under 55,000. They are on their way down to 42,000 according to the Canadian Institute of Strategic Studies. Does that show an understanding on the part of the government that we need a strong national defence force? I suggest it does not.

Military spending in real terms under the Liberal government has dropped by 30%. Does that show an understanding of or commitment to security and to our largest security force? The Canadian forces is Canada's largest security force.

The auditor general has said that by 2012 we will be $30 billion short for the equipment replacements we have committed to. In other words, they are not budgeted. That is not the whole story. That is only for equipment already committed to. Does that show a commitment to our national forces? It does not.

The motion the Bloc has brought forth today is worthy of debate. The fact that the minister indicated we should not be talking about procedure right now shows a lack of understanding about the democratic process.

The motion is worthy of debate. I encourage the minister to come up with answers when these questions are asked. How many Canadians believe the capabilities of the Canadian forces are inappropriate? I suggest they want answers.

[Supply, September 25th, 2001]

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Considering the gravity of this issue, I would like to ask for unanimous consent to have the minister answer questions for another 10 or 15 minutes.

[Supply, September 25th, 2001]

Madam Speaker, I would like to ask the minister some questions. I have been asking them for two weeks now and have not been getting a lot of answers so I am hoping that today we can just have a little back and forth and get some real information.

The minister said that we should not be spending the energy of the House on this motion, that we should be talking about deployment, so let us talk about deployment. The minister also said that Canada's contribution would not be just a token contribution, that it would be substantial, with our NATO allies.

I would just like to ask the minister exactly what that contribution could be, not what it will be, but what Canada is capable of supplying looking at the fact that the number of our forces has dropped from 90,000 when this government took office to probably under 55,000 now, and according to some experts it is heading down still quite rapidly. Considering that this government has cut the defence budget in real terms by 30%, that our equipment is so badly outdated, starting with the Sea King and going right down the line, that we have mostly gaps in our equipment, we do not have an awful lot to offer. It is important that if we send our troops into a combat situation they have good equipment.

Even our F-18s, which the minister so often refers to, have been cut from 122 to 80 now, with a pledge to cut the number to 50. It is not just the planes themselves, of course, but also the pilots. We have lost more than half of our experienced pilots who flew in Kosovo. In regard to ordnance, I have had rumours fed to me, and judging from where they came I would say they are more than rumours, that in fact we are so short of smart bombs and other equipment needed in this type of situation that we cannot possibly go ahead until we restock in these areas.

I would like to ask the minister just what we can send and what his plans are in terms of emergency spending to restock some of this ordnance and to take other emergency measures to deal with this important situation.

[National Security, September 24th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, it is shocking that the minister cannot point to a single concrete measure he has taken to help improve homeland security in Canada or to help with our contribution to NATO.

The most likely contribution Canada will make will be our lead force, the JTF2, which totals 250 members. Will the Minister of National Defence tell Canadians whether he will keep enough members of the JTF2 in Canada in case of some event such as a hijacking or a hostage taking?

[National Security, September 24th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, Canadians want to know what special emergency funding will be made available to help Canadian forces make a meaningful commitment to fight against terrorism along with our NATO allies and to improve homeland security in Canada.

Could the Minister of National Defence explain to Canadians any emergency measures he has taken to help improve our military contribution to the fight against terrorism and to improve homeland security?