Peter MacKay

[Public Safety Act, 2002, November 5th, 2002]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate my colleague's question and his interest in this issue. I believe I have it straight in my mind about what he is asking, and that is should there be different treatment and a different standard applied when examining the manifest of individuals, depending on their countries of origin and whether they have been granted citizenship in this country as opposed to individuals who are either being considered for citizenship or maybe simply visiting.

It is a very provocative issue when we start classifying individuals in terms of risk. We have seen this controversy arise quite recently in the United States and at our borders with respect to the issue of profiling. However there are sadly factors that have to be taken into account and one would suggest, with no prejudice or malice, that a citizen who has received citizenship in this country has already been scrutinized to a large degree and a finding has been made. To that degree, I suspect that there could be a case made for examining, with perhaps a sharper eye and a sharper focus, an individual who is unknown and is coming from a country of origin of which there may have been concerns expressed. There may be heightened tension in that instance for the police or the security agency, be it CSIS or otherwise, to have heightened suspicion. It will be interesting to see this fleshed out.

I also have concerns about the level of scrutiny that we will have henceforth. It is interesting to note that one of the proposed changes to the way in which bills would be examined by the member for LaSalle—Émard would bypass second reading. That is doing away with much of the scrutiny that we have seen today, for example, and the important public debate that occurs on the floor of the House of Commons.

I appreciate the question. I know that this member will continue in his diligence in examining this and other important bills by his government.

[Public Safety Act, 2002, November 5th, 2002]

Madam Speaker, as I mentioned in my remarks, perhaps the preference might have been to look at amending the old Emergency Measures Act or perhaps look at ways in which we could insert a greater degree of scrutiny within the legislation. My friend is correct. When one is prepared to sacrifice civil liberties on the altar of protection for all, one must be very careful when wielding that sword.

The lack of accountability, transparency and the scrutiny by outside bodies, and I am particularly talking about the courts and a greater degree of accountability in this place, the highest court in the land, give me reason for concern, concern that has been expressed by others. We know that lack of accountability can lead to great corruption. Lack of scrutiny and transparency can lead to some grave injustices.

I believe we have to go through the legislation with a fine-tooth comb to flesh out in detail the practical, solid impact that it will have on areas of civil liberties. I fully expect that my hon. colleague and other members of the House will do just that.

I thank him for his question. This is a very important issue for the House.

[Public Safety Act, 2002, November 5th, 2002]

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise and take part in this very important debate, a debate that I suspect will give Canadians some assurances about the state of security but may also alarm them to some degree as to the power that may be forfeited if the bill were to pass in its current form. It would give the government what I would describe as unprecedented and somewhat dangerous new powers: powers to hide information, powers to be unaccountable, powers to go against the very principles of transparency that members of the government used to espouse and used to hold so dear.

From a technical point of view the bill touches on no less than 20 acts of Parliament. It is an omnibus bill, which those listening will know is a catch-all that touches on many different forms of legislation before the House of Commons. Security is really not the only the issue. Security is but one of the issues and perhaps the most emotional part of the bill and the one that is to some degree driving the support for this type of legislation. We all know that it came about in the aftermath of September 11. That clearly was a time when there was great alarm and great concern around the country, some of which has dissipated, some of which is still very real.

This piece of legislation is back for the third time now. This is the third incarnation of the bill and is one that members of the government and, I would suggest, members of the opposition and some impartial officers of Parliament like the privacy commissioner have expressed great concern over.

Obviously the obligation on any government is to govern with balance and integrity to ensure that people's interests are being protected, and certainly the obligation is to ensure that there is a degree of scrutiny over its actions. My greatest concern, and I think it is the concern of many who have already spoken, is that the bill backs away from that fundamental principle, that tenet of justice that says there has to be accountability, that there have to be consequences for actions taken.

One of the more controversial elements that the bill touches upon deals with the creation of military zones. This creation aspect of the bill gives interim orders that can be found in no less than eight different sections of the bill. In fact the legislation still allows for the creation of military access zones, albeit not through the direct interim orders that existed in previous legislation. Yet let us make no mistake about it: These interim orders allow the government to suspend the rights and freedoms of Canadians wherever it sees fit.

It brings us back time and time again to the basic question. Do we trust the government to make some of these important decisions? Do we trust not only its ability to make those decisions but its ability to justify them, its ability to be accountable for them?

We have had instances very recently where the solicitor general was questioned on some of his activities. Also, the former Minister of National Defence was questioned about what he said in the House and what he said publicly about the capturing of prisoners in Afghanistan by Canadian soldiers. These are concrete examples of instances where Canadians have questioned their government and questioned specific ministers about decisions they made and about public statements they gave. That is one backdrop to all of this legislation when we talk abut empowering an individual minister to make such important decisions that touch on civil liberties and on important information that can be controlled or withheld.

There are other examples where a military type of operation has been put in place. We saw what happened at APEC, for example, where in Vancouver students were pepper-sprayed by the RCMP over the protesting of a dictator who was visiting Canada. We have seen instances of what I would describe as unruly behaviour in Quebec City. There was certainly concern over security at Kananaskis. These are the types of scenarios that are set up and covered by this type of legislation.

Whenever there is an instance of where Canadians' rights and freedoms can be affected, I think we have to proceed cautiously. We certainly have to proceed with a great deal of detail in looking into the practical effects of enforcement of this type of legislation.

The government would have us believe that it has listened to Canadians on this issue, to members of the opposition and in fact to members of the government's own backbench, and we will see evidence of that later today. But if the government had truly listened, I suggest that we would not be seeing this legislation back in its current form, because there have not been significant attempts, in my view, to throw back the blinds and look at some of the elements of accountability and transparency that the bill touches on. Mobility rights, property rights and freedom of access to information are all very fundamental rights that could be jeopardized if this legislation were accepted holus-bolus. There are shadowy, surreptitious elements to the bill that in my view have to be exposed.

Once again the government has attempted to alleviate the fears of Canadians by simply qualifying when and how these interim orders are to be issued. In this incarnation of the bill, the minister can in effect issue these interim orders that would suspend rights and freedoms of individuals or corporations for a period of 14 days unchecked, that is, the government can make the order and for a full two week period there can be no scrutiny and the order will be in effect.

Other members have mentioned the ability to recall Parliament quickly for the purposes of examining such a decision, such an interim order. I agree with that. I do not think that there is any real impediment to having Parliament recalled when such an important decision is taken, a decision that could have an impact on the lives of Canadians. The bill could have taken greater steps to ensure that those types of decisions would receive Parliamentary scrutiny.

Judicial scrutiny is another element in all of this and it is bypassed to a very large degree by the provisions of the bill. There is some element to take an issue to court, to take an interim order to court, yet having worked in the justice system I can state that the old maxim “justice delayed is justice denied” still rings true today. Because of the complexity of many of the cases, because of the backlog that currently exists in courts throughout the country, by the time an individual is able to access judicial intervention I would suggest that much harm could have been done, many rights could have been infringed and a person could have suffered irreparable harm and harm to a reputation. Harm to a reputation is something that is very difficult to retrieve. Who does one see about getting one's reputation back when one's name has been slandered on the front page of a newspaper or when one's community has been informed that one may be involved in a nefarious act or accused of terrorism or escorted off a plane because of suspected activities? It is a very delicate situation when a person is potentially exposed to that type of persecution.

That is not to say for one minute, and I want to be quick to point this out, that the police, CSIS, members of the RCMP or even the military police, who are often in the role of enforcement, would do so negligently, with any malice or irresponsibly. What I am getting at is that this type of legislation sets up scenarios in which the proper checks and balances, the proper ability to examine the exercise of authority, are undermined. This is, I suggest, partly arising out of an attitude that is very prevalent. It is persistent within the government and we have seen evidence of it for a number of years.

I would suggest that this type of legislation can be a convenient tool for government to concentrate more power, more state control, and that state control can impact very negatively on civil rights or liberties. In effect this type of decision taken could last a year. It is fair to say that this type of power could be described as power for the sake of power in many instances. I think that Canadians feel more cynical and even apathetic to the point of not participating in the democratic process when they see this type of power being exercised. It is almost a collective form of the Stockholm syndrome when it comes to the government. Canadians are starting to simply accept and acquiesce to the government's decisions because they are feeling hopeless. They are feeling that they have been co-opted and that the opposition is not able to even hold the government to a higher form of account.

That is why there is a need for rigorous debate. There is a need for rigorous examination at the committee level, by the media, by members of Parliament and even by members of the government side who have in many instances distinguished themselves in other fields and who have been able to criticize the government in a constructive way. At the end of it all, that is surely what we should try to accomplish: the best form of legislation and the best, most accountable and most transparent system of government.

I cannot help but feel some frustration when I look at this type of bill and see the elements of the power grab for the minister. There are insufficient checks and balances, I would suggest, implicit in this legislation. For example, in part 3 dealing with the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, in order to have an interim order remain for a duration longer than 14 days the minister must, within 24 hours after making the order, consult with all affected governments to determine whether they are prepared to take sufficient action to deal with the sufficient danger. That allows for a consultation but it is consultation after the fact: 14 days and then an additional 24 hours.

To this I say that we are putting the cart before the horse. It belittles other levels of government and in effect could in fact be seen as a coercive tool used for manipulation. Let us say, for example, that the environment minister believes there is a sufficient danger to the environment in the eastern townships in Quebec. The minister can immediately issue an interim order and in effect suspend all rights and freedoms. However, under this section of the bill, should the minister wish to extend the 14 day period, he then would have to consult with all of the affected governments to determine whether they are prepared to take sufficient action to deal with the danger.

Let us say that the government has taken action and 14 days later or 15 days later it then goes about consulting with another level of government. Then, let us say, the government, that is, the minister, determines whether the province would be prepared to take sufficient action. This section of the bill basically gives the minister the ability to tell any level of government, whether it is provincial, territorial or municipal, that if it does not act on the minister's recommendation the minister will act on their behalf and impose the will of the state upon that province. This is not consistent with consultation. This is not consistent with a cooperative approach to federalism or with a cooperative approach to anything, for that matter, be it in an emergency situation or otherwise.

This, I would suggest, is again symptomatic of a government that has gone down the road of being provocative toward the provinces and giving them the stick in the eye approach. We have seen evidence of that on Kyoto. We have seen evidence of that with the consultations on health. There are numerous examples we can point to over almost a decade where the government has been belligerent to and disrespectful of the provinces and the municipalities, all the while knowing that those forms of government in many ways are far more directly accountable and far more in touch with the people in our country, and I would expect that on some of these important issues, but for the financing and the money that ultimately comes from the federal government, they are more effective in their ability to represent people's rights on important issues.

What happens if a municipality, province or territory decides to take sufficient action, in its opinion, to deal with the danger but the action is deemed inappropriate by the minister? Obviously the federal government's state imposed measures would take precedence, which threatens the very sovereignty upon which the country was founded, that is, there was a division of provincial and federal powers, not to mention the separation of powers laid out in sections 91 and 92 of the Constitution.

There are a number of problems with the bill. That was but one example. There is another that comes to mind clearly as a concrete example. If there were to be an environmental disaster on the Ottawa River just behind the Parliament buildings where there are two provincial jurisdictions and a municipal jurisdiction involved, there is confusion as to what effect this bill would have.

I suggest that there are so many problems with the bill that we are not going to have time to deal with all of them today in this sitting. Some have compared previous incarnations to the Trudeau War Measures Act. Once again I would suggest that it is perhaps a back to the past approach to legislation, a clawback to darker days when secret powers existed and decisions were being made in backrooms, as opposed to the transparency received in the House of Commons. I would suggest that it is a bill that in many instances is not necessary and poses a fundamental risk and a fundamental threat to freedom of civil liberties and freedom for Canadians. In terms of a threat to national security, we already have very effective legislation that can deal with unforeseen circumstances in times of emergency and crisis. We could amend that act if it were deemed necessary by the government.

The bill, which came in response to terrorist attacks, ironically does not mention terrorism. It does not deal specifically with issues of international threats to peace and security. It does have everything to do with an accumulation of power and the hiding of information, a government clearly that has demonstrated it already has too much power and not enough accountability. It has a style and an attitude, one that has been pervasive now for a number of years.

We in the opposition hope that at the committee level the legislation will receive a greater degree of scrutiny. Perhaps some specific, practical, on the ground effects could result. We will hear from witnesses who will have examined this legislation in detail. However, because of the number of bills that are affected, it will take some time to do that.

We may even see members of the government take a more active role in this process. In recent days we have seen backbench members flex their muscles. There will be a vote before the House this afternoon. While I realize that this afternoon's display is more about positioning in the ranks of the Liberal Party, I will remain optimistic that while the sitting Prime Minister is still in office we may enter into a new realm of accountability and of openness to change in this place. This will not be brought about by malice, or revenge or the settling of old political scores. It will be for the greater good.

The bill has very far reaching and long term implications for Canada. It touches on many other pieces of legislation. In the short time this Prime Minister has left in office, there is reason to express concern that this convoluted legislation might be used for purposes of hiding information that could be damaging from a partisan, political perspective. There is reason to raise this.

We have seen in the past instances of behaviour by officials under the watch of the government with respect to advertising contracts in the province of Quebec and with respect to the awarding of appointments and contracts in other provinces like Prince Edward Island. This is not something dreamed up by partisan opposition members. There are concrete examples that we can point to as to why we might be concerned about the government's ability to hide information about its activities.

This because I am a conspiracy theorist or that it is all about scoring political points. We have seen concrete examples that lead us to have concerns about the ability of the government of hiding information about its activities and what it is doing when making arbitrary decisions.

We have seen the government for almost a decade lump legislation together that in many cases does not relate to one another. For example, what does pest control have to do with the Aeronautics Act? This is chalk and cheese. This is not the type of legislation that should be placed in a single bill. I suggest that this omnibus approach has been abused again. It is one that glosses over perhaps and is an attempt to confuse the issues.

The federal privacy commissioner has raised alarms in the past and may raise alarms again, citing grave concerns about sections of the act which allow the RCMP to obtain airline passenger information when it is searching for individuals under warrant. He believes that the precedent may be set by this provision which would ultimately open the door to unwarranted police searches and which could result in the loss of privacy rights in this country.

Section 5 of the bill amends the department of citizenship and immigration act to permit the minister to enter into agreements or arrangements to share information with provinces or foreign governments. Is there a reciprocal piece of legislation in the requesting country? There are concerns about writs of mutual assistance. All these questions will have to be asked and fleshed out at committee level.

Section 11 of the amendments to the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act allow for the making of regulations relating to the collection, retention, disposal and disclosure of information for the purposes of that act. There are concerns about the way this will be exercised. Will this information cause individuals problems in areas of their every day life such as credit ratings, travel, or entrance into certain jobs or certain institutions?

Privacy in the name of terrorism is a very difficult issue to deal with for many Canadians. We have to make sure that the ministerial prerogative will be subject to scrutiny at all levels.

I note that I am out of time. I truly wish there was more time to discuss this bill. That will come at the committee level. I look forward to the questions and comments that will follow and further debate on this important subject.

[Supply, November 4th, 2002]

And the $38 billion left by the Trudeau government.

Maybe we could go back to the time of Sir John A. Macdonald when he borrowed money to build a railroad. If we want to talk about deficit spending, maybe it is Sir John A. Macdonald's fault. Let us keep going back. We can go back in history and say that Sir Robert Borden should not have borrowed money to fight a war. There is lots of history we could get here, but it seems that if we say “Trudeau, Trudeau, Trudeau” they all go rabid over there.

I am not sure if they are dealing with the same thing that I am trying to deal with, and that is to ensure increased spending on the military in the next budget. I have looked at the last three budgets on having an increase on military spending. I am pleased that we have recognized that. We recognized the men and women of the Canadian armed forces when the member for York Centre had the gumption and fortitude to bring in the quality of life report. Of the 84 items that were recommended, all of them are being acted on or have been brought in. There was a raise last week to the people of 4% and 4.5%.

The member does not want to recognize the fact that the government does good things. It is doing a lot of good things and I know it bothers the person who may think he wants to lead the fifth party. I guess if one is the last wagon in the wagon train, one would want to lead anything.

He should recognize that we are 7th in NATO in real dollars. He should recognize that Canada has a budget close to or larger than most other countries and that we require more pilots and are training them all the time. He does not want to recognize any of that. He only wants to deal with a leadership campaign that will go nowhere fast and that no one else wants. We can hardly wait to see it play out. Perhaps when it comes out, the way they are going, they will be able to rent a telephone booth and still be overcrowded for their convention.

[Supply, November 4th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I certainly agree with the concept behind what the parliamentary secretary is saying. There is a need to reinvest and to reinvigorate our military in terms of spending and in terms of priorities.

I have many constituents in Pictou--Antigonish--Guysborough who take an active role in the military, either through the reserve or through the regular forces. Constable Howie Dunbar of the Westport policing force is a very active member of the reserve who just received the Governor General's Award for his commitment.

However the parliamentary secretary has to be intellectually honest about the amount of reinvestment that will be necessary. To do so, there has to be an acknowledgement that severe cuts were made; $7 billion over a period of time, 23% of defence spending.

He talks about the future and how we should not walk by the Minister of National Defence or the Minister of Finance without reminding them of that, but is it whistling by the graveyard if he is not listening?

Let us be intellectually honest about the record of the government. It is fine to say that now the polls are telling us and now because of September 11 we will make that commitment, but the hon. member has to admit that his government made a decision to cancel the EH-101 program and yet made no decision replace it.

His future leader, the member for LaSalle—Émard, had this to say in Hansard on April 24, 1996:

On page 111 of the red book we called for the cancellation of the helicopter program. Done. We called for cuts to national defence. Done.

Severe damage to the armed forces. Done. That is what happened

Does the hon. member admit that now is the time to repair some of that damage and now is the time to be intellectually honest about what was done and get on with the job of rebuilding, reinforcing and helping to enhance our Canadian Forces?

[Supply, November 4th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, in a word or two, hope and encouragement. I speak with individuals like Colonel Doug Stallard in the riding of Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough. I have attended events that celebrate the work done by reservists and by army and sea cadets who operate within our armed forces. They are already choosing at an early age to make that commitment to our armed forces. These are great training grounds for future men and women who will serve this country proudly.

We should do more to give incentives, scholarships, or perhaps more in the way of support for their education. I could not agree more with the hon. member for Sackville—Musquodoboit Valley—Eastern Shore that we should be embracing the opportunities to enhance the reserve's role in the military to ensure that they can make a smooth transition into regular forces should they choose to do so. That is a priority in many countries and it is something that is sadly slipping away in this country.

[Supply, November 4th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, just by way of explanation to my hon. friend, and I thank him for the question and understand his point, we drafted the motion by taking the words from the current defence minister's speech. That has been done in the past and members opposite are still never hesitant to vote against their own words. They have proven that time and time again. That was the way the specific motion was drafted.

I could not agree more that there has to be a complete revisitation of how we are spending money. Perhaps we should have a locked-in budget for a bare minimum of spending. Perhaps we should look at the way in which military contracts are awarded. We need to put greater emphasis on shipbuilding and frigates. We have purchased submarines. We have submarines that should not go down and helicopters that should not go up. That is the sad reality of where we are today with our military equipment on those two important files.

There could be more done to protect the coast and improve personnel and equipment. I could not agree more that this is something the Parliament of Canada should be fully engaged in and giving greater priority to.

[Supply, November 4th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his intervention. He is right to point out that during the 1940s when Canada was at war we had over a million men and women in uniform. Today, we have somewhere in the range of 52,000. The reserves have dropped significantly by 10,000. There is a problem with recruiting. There is a problem maintaining our presence overseas and maintaining our operational budget. That goes directly to the issue. It goes directly to the reason why we have chosen to make this a priority in this debate today.

The Progressive Conservative Party has always been a strong backer of the military. We made the last major investment with respect to the new frigate program, which is now over 10 years old. It is going to require refits very soon. We made the last major investment for LAVs. We had signed on for the purchase of military helicopters. All of that good work was undone in the last decade by the government.

Try as it might it suggests that things are not as bad and that somehow it is now a priority 10 years after the fact. By talking to men and women in the armed forces and the reserves, they will say what it is like. Members should visit an armed forces base and talk to individuals who must live daily with the carnage that has been wreaked by the government, and then forget about all the statistics because it is there, it is real, it is in our faces. There will be a time when there will be a reckoning for that. I hope that at the very least this next budget will reflect a recognition and a respect for the men and women in the armed forces.

[Supply, November 4th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, speaking of squares, I want to address the hon. member opposite because he took a moment to make what was a weak attempt at sarcasm or humour, but it is too important an issue. If he wants to be economical with the truth about his government and the man he worships, that is his illusion and his delusion.

During that member's time, the member for LaSalle--Émard took $7 billion away from the military. The member speaks of the 2000-01 budget. Defence spending was reduced by a full 23%. The facts speak for themselves. That came from the Auditor General's report. He ought to take some time and read up on these issues before he gets up in the House and embarrasses himself.

[Supply, November 4th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to take part in this debate and to follow my colleague from Nova Scotia, who is a diligent defender of the military, as is the mover of the motion, the member for Saint John. She has consistently and persistently been a champion for the men and women of the Canadian armed forces.

For a number of reasons I am pleased to take part in this debate. The motion itself is one which I think sheds a dismal light on the current record of the Liberal government with respect to the Canadian armed forces. I believe there are a number of issues that arise from that record and have to be identified, but more important, where do we go from here? What do we do to improve the lives of and the situation for our men and women in the armed forces?

As it has been noted, we are preparing this week to recognize our veterans on November 11. It is a great reminder of the incredible sacrifice that the men and women of the armed forces have made over the course of our country's long and proud history. For it was on the fields and blood-soaked beaches of Europe and other foreign lands that Canada earned its hard-fought and formidable reputation. The theme for this year's Veterans' Week, which officially begins tomorrow, is “Remembering Our Past, Preserving Our Future”. It is a fitting theme and one to which I would encourage government members in particular to pay close attention.

Time and time again we have heard members of the Canadian armed forces, members of the opposition, Senate committees, former generals and, most recently, even the Minister of National Defence discuss the need for greater funding for our military. The shape in which the government has left our forces in the past number of years gives me pause to reflect on and question the very future of our military. As we look this week at the past achievements of veterans across the great nation in which we live, as we recognize the sacrifices they made in our stead, as we enjoy the freedoms that were afforded to us because of those sacrifices, we should also look to the future and we should do everything we possibly can to address the most dangerous shortfall in defence spending that the country has faced in years.

The sad reality is that the current Prime Minister and his record are sort of the political equivalent of a posthole digger. I say that because the more he takes away, the bigger the hole becomes, and the bigger the hole becomes, the more ground that will have to be made up by the military. This situation, this atrophy that has occurred within the military, is going to take some time to remedy. It is not going to be one big budgetary influx that will allow our military to make up the lost ground.

Some of the startling statistics have already been put on the record but bear repeating. The current Auditor General's report suggests, and this is based on a defence analysis which goes into some detail, that the operational budget of the Canadian armed forces is facing shortfalls of approximately $1.3 billion a year. That, added to the knowledge that we have about $7 billion that has been removed from the Canadian military budget since the government came to office, is truly startling when one looks on the other side of the equation, at how much the military has been able to accomplish, not because of the government but in spite of the government.

The ability of the men and women of the Canadian armed forces to adapt and to do more with less, and the ability that they have to recognize the importance of the task that they have been given, is once again cause for us to stop and reflect and give praise to those brave individuals.

Defence spending has been reduced by 23%, or 30% in real terms, during the government's tenure. Personnel levels have fallen by almost 18,000 since 1993. Reservists have fallen by almost 10,000 during that same time period. The army lost a brigade group of 6,200 reservists and has faced regular personnel problems given the high operational tempo of the last decade. The navy lost 3,500 sailors. The air force lost 7,100 members and went from 260 combat aircraft to 140 and from 128 armed helicopters to 30. The Canadian Forces is facing acute shortages in specialized trades, including pilots, engineers, doctors and various technical trades. Defence spending fell from 1.7% of GDP in 1994 to the current 1.1% today, ranking seventeenth in NATO.

This is all factual statistic information that is not partisan. It is simply information of which Canadian should be made aware. Despite the obvious need, which even the Minister of National Defence has now acknowledged, the department likely will not receive a substantial infusion of resources, given the efforts by the new finance minister to downplay the expectations and the Prime Minister's skewed priorities and pathetic look for some sort of legacy.

After being starved for resources by the government and while facing increasing demands, the Canadian Forces are likely to be victimized again as the internal leadership and the legacy politics of the Liberal Party will obviously trump the need of our soldiers.

This is all to say that when the budget does come down in February, March or whenever the government gets around to doing it, even with all this information available and with the outcry from the many groups, including armed forces personnel have made, it would appear that this is simply not registering.

The federal government has overlooked the needs of the Canadian armed forces for so long, yet we continue to see the human effects that this partisan and callous decision making process by the government has had. A majority of the equipment is in need of upgrading and replacement. The men and women are forced to operate on shoestring budgets.

One of the most heart-rending and gut wrenching experiences I have had as a member of Parliament was when I was approached by a former member of the military who came to my office. He literally had tears in his eyes as he discussed the shame and the lack of morale the armed forces personnel faced when they had to go into a combat zone in Afghanistan with forest green uniforms in a desert setting. He discussed the danger in which that put them and the target that they represented as they stood out in those forest green uniforms against a desert background. The solution of the government was to send them capes, or that they borrow uniforms from the personnel of other countries or that they take paint and put it on their uniforms.

We have a manufacturer, Wear Well Garments, headed by Stirling MacLean. Mr. MacLean offered quite generously to shut down his operations and to manufacture those uniforms if the Canadian government would provide the material and the specs that were needed. That was denied. That would have allowed them to have uniforms in very short order to address this obvious shortcoming and negligent decision that was made by the department.

The lack of funds and the continual use of aging material prevents replacement and long term repair. Just the upkeep also becomes extremely expensive. We need only look at the record of the government in terms of the aging Sea King helicopters. These helicopters spend far more time undergoing repairs than they do in the air. As the senate committee on Canadian security and military preparedness found, the level of funding for national defence is insufficient to meet the many tasks assigned to our military.

The Sea King helicopter program has become the symbol of just how bad it is. The cancellation of that program alone cost over $500 million without factoring in the benefits that would have come from taking delivery of those helicopters, the component parts that would have been made by EH-101 in Canada and the profits that would have been made from future sales of that type of helicopter. It would have been the state of the art equipment at the forefront, at the vanguard of that type of military equipment, the helicopter. Yet here we are 10 years later still looking for the replacement that would lead to the ability of our armed forces to not only carry out their responsibilities, but to pick up the slack for some of the other decisions that were made that are associated to the shortcomings.

We no longer have the degree of capability in our coast guard. The government chose to disband the ports police. All of this to say that it leaves our ports and our coastal communities even more vulnerable. The Sea King fleet is unable to address that shortcoming. In fact they have to live with those problems as well.

The Auditor General, who is an impartial observer of Parliament, an investigator, an individual who all parliamentarians respect to do the good work of being a watch guard for the government in an impartial way, both the Senate and House of Commons defence committees, academics, defence analysts and individuals from across the country have called for additional funding of at least $2 billion in the yearly operating budget to maintain the levels that they currently operate.

Our armed forces participate in many missions around the world and it is clear that there is a cost in terms of vulnerability, respect and capability, given the current state of equipment and funding. Under the substantial financial strain, our military has been forced to do more with less on a daily basis. This has led to a serious deterioration in that equipment and also in the morale.

I spoke earlier about the individual who had approached me about the morale and the shame they felt when on international missions. They work shoulder to shoulder with other countries and they look at their equipment by comparison. They look at their uniforms. They look at the missions with which they have been tasked. They have to ask the serious question as to why their own government would leave them in this situation.

That is not to say that our men and women do not do their job admirably, with great pride and incredible ability, perhaps even more so given the situation in which they are left. Our record as peacekeepers has been as strong as any country in the free world. It is something of which Canadians are proud. It is something that defines us as a country. However the lack of attention paid by the government has left us unable to perform in the current global environment.

Our current military faces great difficulties of being ill-equipped due to sizeable cuts in its defence budget. A year after September 11, it has become painfully obvious that we are slipping in our ability to not only contribute to international peacekeeping and protection missions but even in our ability to maintain security at home. There is a great overlap between the issues of internal security and domestic preparedness, as well as our ability to partake in response to emergencies.

We know that a number of environmental disasters have occurred in Canada that have required the military to intervene. We saw that with the floods in Manitoba and in the Saguenay region. We saw that with the ice storm in Ontario and in Quebec. We know that there have been occasions where the military has stepped in and done an incredible job, for which we have to give it the greatest credit in the world, given its current stretched resources.

An increase the defence budget is obviously needed to reaffirm Canada's commitment to our men and women who take so seriously the defence of this great nation, both at home and abroad.

Between 1993 and 1998, the current member for LaSalle—Émard, the former finance minister, tabled budgets that led to a 23% cut in the defence budget. This figure comes from the Council for Canadian Security in the 21st Century. I find this figure almost unbelievable. Yet while the former finance minister was at the helm, the DND budget dropped to $9.4 billion in 1998-99 and from $12 billion in 1993-94. These cuts represent a trend of an ongoing lack of attention to this important issue.

These drastic cuts have had a very detrimental impact on the military at a number of levels, not the least of which is this steady decline in the numbers who enrol, who participate and who choose to make the armed forces a career; a very distinguished career that it can be. Official department estimates put the trained effective strength of the Canadian armed forces at somewhere between 50,000 and 55,000, well below the currently mandated 60,000.

I have already mentioned the drops in defence spending as a per capita percentage of GDP, falling from 1.7% to the current 1.1%, ranking seventeenth among our NATO counterparts.

Blame for the desperate state of our armed forces lies directly with the government, including the member for LaSalle—Émard, for it was during his tenure that there were a number of choices that had to be made. While all budgets underwent change, the drastic cuts to the defence budget put our personnel and our country at risk.

While he tours the country, speaking of the democratic deficit, he should take a while to reflect on the deficit that he created not only in the military but also in our international reputation, in health care and here in Parliament when he stood and voted against his own words on a number of occasions.

In the red book he talked about having an ethics counsellor who would report to the House. He voted against that on two occasions. He voted against his own words most recently last week in a Bloc motion. There is a credibility deficit when we look at the record and the words of the member for LaSalle—Émard. These are just a few morsels that I refer to when it comes to his record and when it comes to the actions of that member.

I mentioned earlier in my remarks the decision taken by the government to disband the ports police. Under the current funding scheme for our armed forces, there is an even greater emphasis put on the lack of security that exists at our borders. By that I also include our ports. We have witnessed this disregard for safety by the government for a number of years.

I want to spend just a few minutes concentrating on the situation regarding the ports police. There is a direct correlation between the shortcomings, the availability and the capability of our military at ports coupled with this decision that was taken by the government. This is a trend that has been very evident to even the casual observer for a number of years. It is simply not a priority for the government.

When the standing committee on national security and defence issued its report on Canadian security and military preparedness, it included an examination of Canadian ports. I brought this to the attention of the minister back in November of 1997 when I rose in the House to address concerns over the disbanding of the ports police and what it would mean for Canadians and their security. Ports policing is a very specialized responsibility. At that time I told those in attendance that, for all intents and purposes, many of our ports would be open for business in terms of illegal drugs, gun trade and other types of illicit materials.

The disbandment of the ports police leads to greater vulnerability and infiltration for terrorist organizations. When the government disbanded that special unit, in essence it completely got rid of a specialized police force with specific training and extensive authority empowered throughout the Criminal Code, customs and immigration. This was again undoubtedly done at perhaps a great saving in the budget but at huge cost to the Canadian taxpayers in terms of security.

The Minister of National Defence has now admitted in the House and publicly that there is a problem. As the old saying goes, admitting there is a problem is perhaps the first step to remedying it. In this instance we know that the first step in remedying that will require a commitment from this minister to now go to the cabinet table and make a strong pitch to have money returned to the budget of the Canadian armed forces. That commitment still is not clear from the remarks today of members and the minister. The sentiment and the attitude that will be required from the government to shift its thinking and to put a greater priority on this subject matter is not clear.

We know a surplus exists, a surplus that has existed for some time in other areas of the budget. The EI fund, as we know, is carrying a huge surplus which comes out of the pay cheques of working men and women in the country. I say with great confidence that those men and women would be glad to see money go to assist in the revitalization and the reinvigoration of our armed forces.

While the Liberal Party may try to triumph the obvious need that now exists, what it needs to do is act. The Progressive Conservative Party supports providing immediate funds to our military. We are committed to initiatives that would secure our military's future. As we debate this issue today, I urge the defence minister and cabinet ministers opposite to revisit this issue at the cabinet table with diligence. While we spend next week remembering our veterans and our past, let us do all we can to necessitate and ensure that we preserve our future.