Rick Casson

[Supply, May 29th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I want to expand on the most recent comment by my colleague. One of the comments that came from the Prime Minister was criticizing the U.S. for its deficit.

The U.S. is a country that went to war against a tyrant to free his people, a war in which our government chose not to get involved, and our Prime Minister has the audacity to criticize that country for running up a deficit. I would like to hear the member's comments on that.

[Supply, May 29th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate my colleague on his presentation. He talked about the missile defence system being an opportunity for Canada to now repair some of the damage done over the last year or more by some of the comments that have come from the Liberal government.

Many in the House have been working day and night to try to resolve an issue that is affecting the economy of Canada in a big way. With regard to the cattle industry in the country, we have tried everything we can. We have been pushing the government and we have been trying to open up relations with the United States. Then again this morning we see headlines in the newspapers that our Prime Minister has degraded or denigrated the President of the United States. This is doing us absolutely no good. It is causing us more harm than we can possibly imagine.

When the member states that this is an opportunity for Canada to start mending those fences, I believe that is true. This might be a little on the fringe of the missile defence system, but I would like to hear his comments on that.

[Agriculture, May 28th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, every day that goes by sees more and more of these cattle reach maturity. This situation is not like the softwood lumber dispute where the government can sit back and wait months and years to reach a decision. These are live animals. They reach maturity very quickly and must be fed and maintained on a daily basis.

With our borders closed, what is the government prepared to do with the 60% of these mature animals that have no market?

[Agriculture, May 28th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, it has been nine days since our borders were closed to exports of beef and beef products. Canada's multi-billion dollar beef industry is in peril of disappearing. With every hour that goes by, the industry gets closer to economic collapse.

Could the minister tell us what demands are being made by our trading partners to assure them what we already know that our beef is safe, and when will our borders be reopened?

[Income Tax Act, May 27th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for Elk Island for that question. Being a mathematician, I should have had him help me with this estimate because I am sure he would have come up with more accurate numbers.

The best numbers we could find were approximately 100,000 volunteer firefighters in Canada and possibly 25,000 to 30,000 emergency responders of other kinds. They are in a 20% to 25% tax bracket. We do not know how many would qualify for the 200 hours. Some people told me it was too high. Some thought it was fine, but two hours a week of practice or training and two hours a week of active duty does not seem like a lot. Maybe this would encourage people to stay active.

Based on those numbers, the cost to the government could be anywhere from $30 million to $35 million or $40 million. Those are the best numbers we could come up with. We could not find any current accurate numbers. When we went back a few years and extrapolated with the population, I compared the numbers I could find for Alberta and worked them out with the rest of the country and it worked out pretty close.

It is not a small item. That is an awful lot of money. However, if we were to look at the dollar value compared to a paid professional person in these emergency response positions, it would be peanuts compared to the value of the service that these people would be giving to Canada on a voluntary basis.

As I stated, there are so many communities in this country that cannot afford to pay. They are getting a wonderful service from volunteers who are dedicated and work hard. I think it is an amount that Canadians would gladly give to recognize the contribution that these folks give to our betterment.

[Income Tax Act, May 27th, 2003]

moved that Bill C-325, an act to amend the Income Tax Act (deduction for volunteer emergency service), be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Mr. Speaker, it is great to be here today, and I thank my colleague from the west coast for seconding my bill.

I feel, as many do in this country from coast to coast to coast, that my private member's bill, Bill C-325, is an initiative that is long overdue.

I would like to thank some people. I would like to thank Mark Osaka, who is a long-time friend and a councillor from the county of Lethbridge, and Sam West, who is the volunteer fire chief in my hometown of Picture Butte, Alberta, for the encouragement they give me to push this forward and to keep this private member's bill moving.

There is a group of unselfish, dedicated Canadians, men and women who lay down their lives on a volunteer basis every day for their fellow man and they need to be recognized in a concrete way for what they give to society as a whole.

My private member's Bill C-325 is proposing an amendment to the Income Tax Act which would allow volunteer emergency workers to deduct $3,000 from their taxable income from any source.

The amendment, and I will give some more detail, to section 60 of the Income Tax Act would add a new paragraph, paragraph (y):

$3,000 [deduction], where the taxpayer performed at least 200 hours of volunteer service in the taxation year as an ambulance technician, a firefighter or a person who assists in search or rescue operations or in other emergency situations.

It would also amend section 60.03, as follows:

In order to claim a deduction under [these conditions], a taxpayer must provide a certificate from the appropriate municipality or other authority verifying that the taxpayer performed at least 200 hours of volunteer service referred to in that paragraph. For the purposes of that paragraph, volunteer service includes time spent carrying out related duties and in training.

That is the legality and that is the way the bill has been presented in the House.

The rationale for me to go ahead with this and include the groups of ambulance technicians, firefighters and search and rescue personnel is based on the similar and unique aspects of their duties. They all require extensive training on an ongoing basis, they all find themselves in dangerous, potentially life-threatening situations and most are on a 24/7 call-out basis, if not all the time, at regularly scheduled times.

The 200 hour minimum annual limit that we came up with was based on four hours of contributing time per week, two hours of training and two hours of active duty. This has been established to reward those who are truly dedicated and to act as an incentive for retention and recruitment.

The record keeping needed is being done in most cases and is included in annual reporting to municipalities or other authorities by the emergency squads. The issuing of appropriate documents for the volunteer to use on his or her tax return would be a simple matter. Therefore, we are not creating another level of bureaucracy and a huge additional workload for anyone.

There is a societal aspect also involved in the timing of this initiative. Our everyday lives are getting more complex and the number of willing individuals stepping forward to volunteer in these critical areas is declining. Also, the risks volunteer emergency responders face are increasing and becoming more complex as well.

There are ever increasing demands being put on volunteer emergency responders, with increased responsibilities, liabilities and expectations. Training is more extensive as the situations these volunteers find themselves in become more dangerous. As our industries, communities, homes and everything become more complex and as society itself changes, the situations our volunteer emergency responders find themselves in become absolutely dangerous many times.

Volunteer emergency responders are absolutely essential in most communities in Canada due to the simple fact that these communities cannot possibly afford full time, paid squads. The dependency on volunteers has become part of Canadian culture and is an accepted part of everyday life. Therefore, the reduction of willing volunteers is an issue that needs to be addressed by Canadians as a whole.

Some of the issues faced by municipalities as they address declining numbers of willing volunteers include the following: the basic problem of recruiting and maintaining adequate squads within the reality of tighter budgets; the increase in commitment of time and energy needed to stay up to date with training and equipment; and the increased possible exposure to an ever changing environment such as new chemicals, building materials and situations changing constantly.

Volunteer emergency responders are called upon any time of the night or day to answer the call to assist anyone needing their help. This takes them away from their place of employment, in many cases without pay, and away from their families often for extended periods of time.

We as a nation need to recognize their contribution in a concrete way. My proposal for a tax deduction for qualifying volunteers is a direct and simple way to say thanks to this dedicated bunch of people, also to act as encouragement to stay on and an incentive to work hard.

Because of my firsthand experience as a volunteer firefighter for 17 years and my 18 years on municipal council, it gave me a good perspective on the critical need for a show of support for our volunteers. Allowing a tax deduction that can be applied to earnings of any source will be looked on very favourably by all concerned and will help maintain the high level of volunteer protection on which we as Canadians have come to rely.

I have received many letters of support from across the country from emergency responders. I would like to read those into the record. These comments come from the people who are doing the volunteer work. They explain in a far better way than I could ever hope to the things they like about the bill.

This is from the Mountain View county. It states:

Fire fighting services in Mountain View County and the urban centres within our boundaries are provided by residents volunteering their time. We appreciate the many hours and significant contribution that these volunteers provide to our community...

Thank you for bringing this bill forward on behalf of the many volunteer emergency workers.

The letter is signed by the Reeve, Ian Harvie.

A letter from the Fire Chiefs' Association of British Columbia, states:

As I am certain you are aware, in communities all across Canada, volunteers deliver a considerable portion of emergency service. This is especially true in the fire services. As more demands are made on these volunteers it is becoming increasingly difficult to retain and attract people. This Bill provides both an incentive to stay and means of attracting people. In addition, it is a concrete means of thanking people for their dedication to their communities in roles than can create a high risk to them in carrying out their duties.

The Fire Chiefs Association of B.C. asks that you support this Bill to ensure that volunteer emergency services continue and are recognized in British Columbia and all of Canada.

The letter is signed by Bruce Hall, the president.

This comes from a mayor of the town of Devon. He states:

As you are probably aware, Volunteer Firefighters contribute greatly to the fabric of local communities and do so without asking for much in return. The Town of Devon feels that any initiative to support and encourage volunteers to be active and stay active is of great value.

It is our hope that you will see the value of this initiative and support it.

This letter is from chief Doug Hamer, acting president of the New Brunswick Association of Fire Chiefs. He states:

I have been copied your correspondence regarding your Private Members Bill C-325, “An Act to amend the Income Tax Act”...

I commend you for bringing this issue to Parliament and you can be assured of our support in this regard. Ironically the New Brunswick Association of Fire Chiefs Annual Conference is being held in 10 days. You can be assured we will put forward a resolution of support of your initiative, and provide the appropriate lobby efforts amongst New Brunswick Members of Parliament to assist in this endeavour...

I am sure, as a former municipal councillor, you appreciate the challenges in maintaining and recruiting volunteer firefighters; this bill should serve to enhance that initiative.

Thank you again.

This is from one from Kenneth J. Brands, the Fire Chief from Hinton. He states:

It is a pleasure to see someone “on the Hill” concerned about the welfare of our oft overlooked emergency service volunteer responders.

This is from the fire chief of the Rich Valley Fire Department, Gunn Alberta. He states:

In response to your letter about proposed Bill C-325 I just wanted to let you know how well your idea went over in our hall. We are delighted that someone finally wants to recognize the importance of volunteer emergency services. As you may be aware, it is very hard to get members in rural Alberta to join our services. Many people don't realize the importance of our service and therefore don't realize the repercussions if there was no service to our residents. Hopefully if this bill goes through it will make our job of getting more people easier.

Here is a letter from the Saskatchewan Association of Fire Chiefs, addressed to the finance minister. It states:

We understand that Bill C-325 is scheduled for debate [in the House]. We strongly urge your support to vote in favour of second reading and reference to the Standing Committee on Finance. Our Association's membership consists primarily of Volunteer Fire Chiefs and other fire service personnel and we are all too familiar with the role these volunteers perform in the best interests of their communities. We feel that this amendment is only just and proper for such dedicated men and women. We hope that all Members of the House of Commons from Saskatchewan will give unqualifying support to [this member's] proposed amendment.

That came from Robert Prima, the president of the Saskatchewan Association of Fire Chiefs.

Here is one from Fire Chief Ulla Hansen of LaCorey. It states:

First of all I would like to express my appreciation for your interest in our Volunteer sector. You are to be commended for your efforts to try in every small way to compensate our Firefighters for countless hours of unpaid service.

Here is a letter from the Town of Vegreville. It states:

The Vegreville Fire Department currently consists of thirty-one (31) Volunteer Fire Fighters and eight (8) Junior Fire Fighters. Our current jurisdiction area covers approximately 550 square miles with us responding to fire emergency calls, motor vehicle accidents and medical assists in this area. We are also involved with various fund raisers (Muscular Dystrophy and the Fire Fighters Burn Unit) which takes an enormous amount of effort and time from our volunteer group.

We often forget the volunteer work they do to keep us safe and the volunteer work that they do for the rest of their communities.

It goes on to say:

Our department as a whole is certainly in support of this proposed Bill and we hope that you will represent our support for it when it is scheduled for debate...

Here is one from the mayor of the Village of Acme, Alberta. It states:

We consider the contribution made by our emergency services volunteers to be a valuable asset to our communciate the fact thaity. We appret local volunteers are prepared to make our community a safer place to live for our residents. Therefore the Council ... supports your proposal--

This is a short note from the fire chief of Didsbury. “To let you know that I support your initiative on this bill”.

Here is one from Airdrie. It states:

Thank you for your work on Bill C-325. As a volunteer Firefighter/Paramedic in Airdrie, AB I appreciate what you are doing. I will be sending a letter to my MP [asking for his support].

Here is letter from Longview & Rural Volunteer Fire Department supporting the bill. Elkwater fully supports this initiative. The County of Warner is fully supportive of the $3,000 deduction. The County of Lethbridge and the Town of Coaldale, these are all communities in my riding close to my home.

Here is one from the Village of Nobleford from Marvin VandenHoek. It states:

I would just briefly like to express our support for Bill C-325 regarding the amendment to the deductions that can be claimed by volunteer emergency services personnel. As a member of a small town fire department, I know first hand how much we do to provide this service to our community. Although we do it primarily because we enjoy it, it takes a tremendous amount of time and dedication to keep everything operating smoothly. There is no such thing as doing a half job in this service. People are depending on us and often trust us with their lives. Also, because the service is becoming more and more complex, it is becoming increasingly difficult to recruit new members. We need ways to encourage people to join. Therefore since we are, in essence, providing a public service free of charge, I sincerely believe that the government of Canada should be doing everything in its power to enable us to continue.

I do not think I could say anything better in any other words, and I appreciate all those letters and support that have come in.

I believe that for the contribution they have made in the emergency responder section of the volunteer section of this country, volunteers do a tremendous job across many sectors. However in this sector, where the training involved is so extreme and so high a level, where the hours are 24 hours on call and where their lives are being put on the line literally to service their fellow man, a recognition by the Government of Canada to these people is essential and would be very welcome.

[Question No. 197, May 27th, 2003]

With regard to the announcement on October 8, 2002 of the $246.5 million aid package for the softwood lumber industry: ( a ) what actual amounts have been given out as of February 28, 2003 and to whom or to what groups; ( b ) has Human Resources Development Canada (HRDC) kept track of how many employees are taking advantage of the enhanced program; ( c ) how much has it spent on the enhanced program; ( d ) is HRDC monitoring the success of the enhanced program and if so, by what criteria is success being measured; ( e ) has Industry Canada given out any money under the Softwood Industry and Community Adjustment Fund; ( f ) has Industry Canada received any suggestions for workable ideas for community development and if so, has it or will it be publishing these plans or ideas; ( g ) has Natural Resources developed a plan for dealing with the pine beetle-killed wood and for containing or eradicating the beetle; ( h ) has Natural Resources planned how it will create both a centre of excellence for pulp and paper research and a boreal forest research consortium; ( i ) will they be stand-alone institutions or be connected with an existing school or other institution; and ( j ) what will their mandate be and will this information be made public?

(Return tabled).

[Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy, May 26th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, it is good to speak to this most important and critical issue tonight. I have one message for the government: It is absolutely critical that we get the border open and get it open now. We do not have a month or two months. We only have days left before this whole industry will go down the river. We do not need to hear any more about how good our testing is or how wonderful we do in the world. That is important for consumer confidence and we have heard that message time and time again but what we need now is action from the government. We need the border opened up, we need confidence put back with our trading partners, and we need it today.

I will be splitting my time with the hon. member for Medicine Hat, my neighbour and colleague.

Our cattle and beef producers cannot withstand this issue for any extended length of time. They have been through years of drought. We have seen issues with the high dollar and with the country of origin labelling being thrown at them. One thing after another has been thrown at them and now this issue, an issue where science has proven us right. There is not a problem in this country with our beef. Let us do whatever is necessary to get that border reopened, get our trading partners back on side and let us get to work.

When we asked the minister today in the House of Commons what exactly the criteria was for the U.S. to reopen the border we did not get an answer. We also asked what the timeline was going to be to get the job done. We did not get an answer for that. Those are the answers that we need, our consumers need, our customers need and certainly the industry needs, and we need the answers now. If this thing carries on there will be a snowball effect that will be absolutely disastrous. The government had better realize that if panic starts in this industry and the bankers lose confidence that it can be overcome, we will have a big problem.

I sent a letter to the Prime Minister last week and asked him to make sure that the resources needed would be thrown at this and that there would be no shortage of people or whatever was needed to make sure the testing was done. I asked him to make sure that the fan out was finished, that confidence was restored to our consumers and our customers and that this industry gets back on the road.

We have seen tonight just a bit of what is happening with the overemphasis on our testing. I agree that testing is critical for consumer confidence. It is there. I have no doubt that our industry is safe and I have never stopped eating Alberta beef for one day.

I want to talk about the feedlot industry because it is in my riding. There are 950,000 head of cattle in this country on feed. Over half of them are in my riding or in southern Alberta. I know these people and I know how hard they work to maintain a clean industry and to maintain safety.

Let us look at the stats over the last few years for importing cattle from the U.S. into Canada. The producers have been telling the government for years that we have to bring in more cattle from the U.S. to calm the Americans down. They do not like to see our fat cattle go down there by the truckload and very few coming back. One year when it had the ability that industry brought in 200,000 head of cattle, quadrupling the number that comes in on an ordinary basis. It did that on its own just to show that it would buy these cattle if the opportunity was there.

We have been talking about the terminal feedlot protocol for years but it is not happening and it needs to happen. The U.S. is our closest trading partner. It buys 70% of what we produce. If we cannot ship it to the U.S. we do not have enough people in Canada to eat it. Therefore it is absolutely critical that we start this process and get that border opened up as soon as we can.

We are facing potential layoffs. I think the member for Medicine Hat might talk about this. He has a huge plant in his riding where a lot of this beef is processed. This plant has 2,500 employees and half of them will be laid off next week. This will have a snowball effect right across, not only in western Canada but in northwest U.S. A lot of the beef we produce goes down to Hyrum, Utah; Pasco, Washington; and Greeley, Colorado, and if that beef does not show up there they will have a problem.

Let us look at Canada. The spinoff effects on the trucking industry, the auction mart industry, the feed industry and on the people who grow barley and the people who grow the silage that goes into this will be absolutely incredible. One hundred feed train loads of barley go into southern Alberta into feedlot alley every day. That has created an industry in itself which has created a feeder industry into the feedlot business that is absolutely incredible.

Let us look at what else could happen to auction marts, to trucking firms and feed sales. Right now $11 million a day is being lost, which is $4 billion in a year. The numbers are astronomical. There are 950,000 to 1 million cattle and feedlots alone with over half of that in southern Alberta. We produce two and a half times more beef than we can consume. We need customers but we need our customers to have confidence in our product. The world needs to know that we have a safe product.

I believe our beef is safe and I will never stop eating it. I would not hesitate for a minute to feed it to my family or my grandchildren. However the markets are important and that confidence has to be restored.

There are 85,000 families in this country that make a living by raising cattle on cattle ranches, cattle farms, and 60,000 of those farms are in jeopardy because of this one issue. It is one cow. We must get it in perspective. It is one cow out of millions and we have shut down the border. We must get the criteria that is needed, get it done and get that border reopened. Everything else will take care of itself.

The people in this industry, all the way from the cow-calf guys, are very concerned. I just had a call from a rancher in southern Alberta who is very concerned. They will not be hitting the wall until fall when they have their yearlings or spring calves to get rid of but they realize that their customers, the people who will buy these animals, are in trouble right now. They need help and they need this border reopened.

This is a huge industry in southern Alberta and I believe they police themselves very well. They do a tremendous job of raising safe food and they go through the exercises to make sure that happens. I received letters from a couple of producers I have known for a long time who raise a lot of cattle in the area. They put out a scenario, which I think is important for us to put into perspective, as to what is happening right now as we speak.

The cattle inventory values dropped $100 a head in the first week of May 21-22. That week is past. During the second week cattle inventories will drop another $50 a head. That is $150 a head times 950,000 head in lots. Do the math. We are talking about a lot of money that has gone down the drain already. If we get into week three with more fear and uncertainty, it will cause complete market panic. If that does happen, the value of cattle will plummet. We are talking $350 to $500 a head, a huge amount; $500 million gone that will never come back.

This whole industry has been built on the sweat and hard work of people forever raising cattle. The big cattle ranches and cow-calf operations are what made people go out west. There are huge tracts of grassland. It has the best grass to feed cattle in the world. It is the people who invested their time, energy and their years building that industry who have made it second to none anywhere in the world. We need the cow-calf guy on the ground. We need the people who are finishing it.

We had a great system when the markets were there but in the last couple of years we have had the drought, the country of origin labelling threat and the high dollar which has taken 16% out of this industry in a few months. When a dollar shoots up that fast without anything holding it back it creates problems. People do not have enough time to adjust their inventories to make the changes they need to stay feasible. That happens in all export markets, not just in this industry.

However if these things continue to happen tumbleweeds will be blowing down the streets of many towns and cities in western Canada. The dollars that are turned over in this cattle feeding industry alone are absolutely huge and it keeps communities alive and keeps them going. Nothing creates as much wealth. Some 23% of all agriculture sales out of this country are in the cattle industry.

Let us do some things. Let us get that border open. We will do that by building confidence in our consumers and in our customers. We need to restore confidence in our producers and in the world. The most important people in whom we need to restore confidence are the bankers who bankroll these people. These people still have expenses and still need to feed their cattle as they grow but there is no income coming in.

[Budget Implementation Act, 2003, May 12th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, it is good to have the opportunity to speak to the budget implementation act.

Preparing a budget is a complex issue of course and we relate it to the way we prepare our own budgets, personal or family. In my case, when I was with the municipal government, there was a process that we used to establish which indicated what the budget would be and what would be needed from the taxpayer.

First of all we would start off with a long term plan of either five years or 10 years. In my case at that time, we knew what position we wanted the municipality to be in at the end of those years. We created budgets and priorities to take us down the path where we wanted to be. A long term plan would be put together by community members coming together as well as municipal councillors and mayors on what they wanted out of their communities in the years to come and what their priorities would be. It was essential for us to have that give and take in debate to know exactly what our priorities should be, what the taxpayer felt was reasonable as far as tax increases, and where they wanted their tax dollars to go.

I do not see that in the budget that was prepared. It seems to me that it was done with a broad brush, trying to appease a lot of people, but ending up appeasing no one, because no one got what they felt was necessary. Through this budget process there was no long term strategy, no long term plan, and no positioning of Canada in the world. To me, that is the kind of function that is necessary. It positions Canada and our citizens in the world and it moves along a path to where we want to be.

We go out across Canada with the finance committee. We hear input from many organizations, groups and individuals. A prebudget debate and contributions are needed to help establish what Canadians want out of the government and where they want the government to be or their country to be in a few years. However, I am afraid the budget completely missed the boat.

One of the things that we heard constantly when we were going across Canada dealt with the capital tax. If we look at this tax, it is one of the most regressive things. It is almost like a property tax on municipal government.

An old friend of mine from the town where I was mayor came to me and said that when he built his fence 20 years ago, it was considered an improvement and his taxes were increased. Twenty years later it was all dilapidated and needed to be torn down, but when he tore it down he was taxed again for improving his property. I am not sure if that was the case, but that was a scenario that was used. No matter what we do as individuals, we seem to be taxed for it.

This relates to the capital tax. If we are successful in our business and able to make a dollar at the end of the year through our hard work and efforts, and the risks that we take, the government rewards us by taxing us. It takes money away from businesses and enterprises that could be used for reinvestment, expansion, and creating more activity that would require more staff. That is one of the most regressive taxes we have in this country and we need to eliminate it quickly. Money that is in Canada and earned by Canadians should be left in the pockets of Canadians and they will do what is right with it. It will create a whole new economic spin which in turn will create jobs and investment, and move us along the road to building a bigger and better country.

Another thing I would like to point out is the employment insurance overpayment. That is a real problem. The money taken from hardworking Canadians and their employers for the EI fund is far more than is needed. The little bit of cuts we see in this budget and past budgets does not relate to substantive tax cuts that would help the employer and the employee make ends meet. The billions of dollars that are being taken out of the economy through this EI overpayment is counterproductive and something that needed to be addressed in a major way in this budget, and it was not. A tax system is supposed to be put into place to help move a country along in accordance with what its citizens want and to a position where it should be down the road.

I remember the debate regarding the GST. Many members of Parliament across the country who supported the GST bill when it was brought forward lost their jobs. Canadians said they did not want it. It was hinted that it would be used to pay down the debt. It was not. Once it was in place the government at the time and governments after it became attached to it. Now each percentage point of the GST is producing roughly $4.5 billion, far more now than it was when it was introduced.

The government's argument is that it is because the economy is doing so well, but it is a tax on legally everything we do. It is the most hated tax that was ever put forward in Canada. The reason it is hated is because Canadians feel somewhat betrayed that it was sold as a debt reduction tax. I have done some research because people have asked me to find out where it was mentioned in debate that it would be used to pay down the debt. The words were carefully chosen during the debate. No where did it ever say for sure that it would be used for debt reduction. It was indicated or intimated throughout the debate that debt reduction could be one area.

Over the last number of years, due to a lot of pressure from the opposition, the Canadian Alliance and the Reform Party before us, the government has its act together and is balancing the budget. There are no more moneys being accrued to the huge debt that we have. Debt repayment is not a priority of the government and it needs to be because it is still a huge debt around the necks of our children and grandchildren. About 20¢ to 25¢ of every tax dollar goes to service that debt, never mind paying the principal.

The GST is one area that we could really look hard at. If we were ever going to get rid of the most hated tax in this country, we would have to start somewhere. Reducing that tax or having a look at how it is applied is something that we need to do quickly.

The whole issue of using the tax system to share the wealth in Canada has its merits, but Canadians in different provinces and regions of the country need to be assured that the money they give through their tax system is being applied properly. If it is going somewhere where they feel it is a waste, then they have a real problem with providing those tax dollars. One area that is prominent is the gun registry system. It is at $1 billion and climbing. There is no indication from the government how long it will take to finish the job and how much it will cost. We have asked those two questions many times in the House and we have not received any answers.

The budget and the amendments that we are speaking to today must shape the future in order to receive our support. The budget must position Canada on a road to arrive at a place where Canadians want us to be. I do not believe it does that. I do not believe enough time and effort was spent on the priorities. Right now the defence and security of Canada are huge issues and there are not enough resources spent applying moneys to improve that in this budget. That needs to be addressed. All programs must be looked at on a regular basis to see if they are still viable, to see if those tax dollars that are being poured in are being used in the proper manner. If we would continually review those programs to ensure they were doing that, we would come up with a far better system in the end.

In conclusion, we will not be supporting the amendments that are being put forward today.

[National Defence Act, May 5th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, it is good to speak to the bill today. Of all the issues facing the military and the Department of National Defence, this is probably not the top priority of most Canadians. There are many things that need to be addressed.

The bill was introduced in the House last Thursday, May 1. The House leader indicated on Friday that the government would be bringing it back today. The way in which the bill has been brought forward and the way in which it has been handled is quite unusual.

As I said, a lot of issues need to be addressed when it comes to the Department of National Defence and I am not sure Canadians would have picked this as their top priority.

Last week the official opposition, the Canadian Alliance, brought forward a paper dealing with the many concerns Canadians have with our military today. A number of the recommendations in it would have had far more importance for the government to have brought forward in legislation, one being some changes to the way DND is run, but instead it brought this forward.

Over a number of years successive Liberal and Progressive Conservative governments have undermined Canada's military heritage. What has happened in the last number of years to our military is nothing short of criminal. Because of the cuts that have taken place, the hardworking men and women in the armed forces are having to get by with less and less. In recent times our forces have been unable to respond to situations because of a lack of equipment and a lack of many things but certainly not courage and dedication. It has been the lack of support by the Liberal government that has put our people into situations they should not be put into.

When our military has had such a proud history it has been unfortunate to see it deteriorate over the past number of years strictly due to the lack of support by the governments of the day.

We need an effective, multi-purpose military capable of meeting situations that arise. As we know, the world has changed since that fateful day on September 11. We are now in a war on terrorism. We have the war to change the regime in Iraq, which we did not actively support. We did not support the movement against a government that was brutalizing its own people. We did not have what it would have taken to contribute in a realistic fashion. Even if we had said that we would support it, although it would have been in a limited way, at least the offer would have been made, but it was not.

We reject entirely the idea of soft world power. The situation over the last two years indicates that type of approach will not work.

The world is realigning, which is happening right now as we speak, the situation with the United Nations, with NATO and even Norad, and the relationship Canada has with the United States, those organizations will change.

As all these things happen and the war on terrorism continues, we as Canadians should be preparing our military in a vigorous fashion to meet those challenges of the coming years. We are not seeing that being done.

The bill that was introduced last week, to which the minister spoke a few minutes ago, in no way addresses any of the issues that Canadians have top of mind when it comes to protecting our sovereignty as a nation. We need to do that but we have not done that properly over the past number of years. A number of things need to be done.

The members of the official opposition, the members for Lakeland, Calgary West, Edmonton North, Calgary Northeast and our leader, the member for Calgary Southwest, worked hard to put together some recommendations they and our party felt met the needs that Canadians felt our military needed at the present time.

I believe all or any of the recommendations put forward by our party more poignantly addressed the problems that exist within our military and addressed some of the things the minister should have brought forward. Instead he chose to bring forward a bill dealing with retroactive pay for military judges, important as that might be. We are not disputing that fact. However it is an issue of priority. What do we see as a priority for our government to be working on in issues facing the military?

Going through some of the recommendations that we made, we think Canada should support maintaining Norad as a viable defence organization to counter threats to North America, including those emanating from rogue states possibly equipped with ballistic missiles and weapons of mass destruction. Norad should be given the command responsibility for the envisaged system for defending against ballistic missiles. That speaks for itself and where our party believes we should go as far as the protection of the North American continent and some of the issues that are coming forward in terms of missile defence systems.

We now get into spending and parliamentary oversight. Increases in the defence budget should be accelerated to provide an additional $1.2 billion per year over and above the increases in the 2003 federal budget, bringing the immediate increase to $2 billion per year. This money should be added to the DND budget base and directed at the most urgent operational equipment priorities.

As recommended by the House of Commons and Senate defence committees, over the long term the Canadian defence budget should be progressively increased to bring it into line with the NATO average as a percentage of GDP devoted to defence.

Further on, government, closely supervised by Parliament, should initiate a comprehensive reform of the budgetary management process within DND which would aim to do the following: allow the department greater flexibility to purchase or lease equipment “off the shelf” to meet urgent operations requirements; give the Minister of National Defence and departmental managers more authority over procurement decisions in order to simplify urgent equipment acquisitions.

As we see the replacement programs for the Sea King helicopters drag on and on year after year, certainly it would make sense to streamline some of these issues.

The next aims would be to de-politicize the procurement process and remove unnecessary bureaucratic impediments to speedy and effective procurement, and to give DND access to funds raised by the sale of departmental assets or infrastructure.

Further on, an independent commission of military experts should be established to review: the activities of all agencies, divisions and sections within DND; and the operational necessity of all national defence bases and facilities. The commission's recommendations would be submitted to government for a final decision. These are common sense types of things.

Parliament must be permitted to debate and ratify overseas deployment of Canadian troops to combat missions, something for which we have asked time and time again in the House and have been turned down by the government.

As part of a comprehensive reform of Parliament, the House of Commons standing committee must be empowered to review the following: the annual spending estimates of DND in a comprehensive fashion with the power to increase and decrease funding for specific programs within the boundaries of the overall defence spending envelope determined by the government; all major crown projects valued at more than $100 million proposed by DND, as recommended by the House of Commons defence committee procurement study of June 2000; the appointment of the chief of defence staff should have a legislative mandate to appear before the defence committee on a regular basis.

The Standing Committee on National Defence and Veterans Affairs must be provided with the resources and staff to carry out these activities effectively. Members of Parliament assigned to the defence committee and all other House committees should serve on that committee for the life of Parliament.

Recommendation No. 8: A Canadian national intelligence agency to coordinate existing intelligence from all sources should be established to provide the prime minister, senior ministers and officials with national intelligence information and assessments. A committee of senior government and official opposition MPs, sworn to secrecy as needed, should be established to scrutinize and oversee the activities of the national intelligence agency, utilizing confidential and in camera sessions as required. The head of the national intelligence agency should be confirmed by Parliament and should appear before the committee as required.

We have heard a lot about defence capability requirements in the last little while. The expansion of Canada's special operations capability should be a priority in the war on terrorism. Measures should be put in place to ensure that the prime minister is directly engaged in command and control decisions concerning the activities of the JTF2.

The Canadian army should restore the airborne regiment and establish it as a core of an elite, air transportable rapid reaction force that could deploy anywhere in Canada or overseas on short notice. Such a formation should have enhanced helicopter assets, including attack and heavy lift helicopters.

The Canadian army should be capable of deploying and sustaining a combat effective brigade group in medium to high intensity operations overseas. This is something that did not happen during the Afghan war. The army should employ a realistic procurement plan that replaces obsolescent equipment as soon as practical. Where necessary and feasible, some equipment acquisition could proceed by buying or leasing effective equipment “off the shelf” from allies. That option should be available to the armed forces but not everything should have its own build specifications. We should be able to buy “off the shelf” equipment.

Consideration should be given to modernizing all of Canada's existing CF-18s and Aurora aircraft in order to meet domestic and international commitments. Flying hours, particularly for the Aurora aircraft, should be increased to ensure adequate protection of Canadian sovereignty.

DND should examine options for enhancing its ability to monitor Canadian territory and protect against unauthorized incursions. Satellite surveillance, over the horizon radar, unmanned surveillance aircraft and radar warning aircraft should all be considered for this purpose.

Canada should upgrade its participation in the multinational F-35 joint strike fighter project to that of a full partner as soon as possible in order to ensure timely replacement of the existing CF-18 fleet.

The air force should maintain adequate stocks of modern precision guided munitions, air to air and anti-ship missiles, to be able to respond to possible overseas deployment requirements, and do it quickly.

Canada should immediately initiate a project to replace its older C-130 transport aircraft. Such a project must include the acquisition of at least some heavy lift transport aircraft to meet both domestic and international requirements.

I had the pleasure to fly up to Alert and Thule, Greenland a year or two ago on a C-130. The crew were exceptional. They were flying an aircraft that had 40,000 hours on it. It had been rewinged and re-engined. Thank goodness for the engineer on that plane because if a light bulb had not been working he would not have let the plane fly. He became a pretty good friend of mine because I had put all my faith in him. Just think that a crew has to do that on a weekly basis on one of those ancient aircraft Their lives are at risk as they fly, as are certainly the people who they are delivering the goods to and the replacement people who are going in. It is an incredibly important function that our air force has and it is doing it with outdated and antiquated equipment.

Consideration should be given to converting all five A310 airbus aircraft to the strategic tanker role in order to facilitate the deployment of Canada's CF-18s, both within the country and abroad.

In order to meet all naval commitments and ease the strain on ships' crews, naval personnel levels, as well as funding for training operations, should be increased so as to maintain all 16 existing warships at full readiness.

The Canadian navy should examine options for acquiring under ice capable submarines to help protect Canadian sovereignty in the Arctic. The used submarines that we bought from Great Britain have turned out to be less than desirable. Millions and millions of dollars will have to be spent on them to make them worthy. It is completely unacceptable and is turning into a real farce as we progress. Day after day they find more things wrong with the equipment. The Arctic is ours and we need to patrol it. If under ice patrols are the way to do that, we should have that capability.

The Canadian submarine fleet should be expanded to allow for the deployment of at least three submarines on each coast. At the present time we are unable to do that.

The government should immediately initiate a program to acquire four new operational support ships to allow two to operate from each coast. This would ensure adequate underway support for operations in national waters and overseas.

A project should be immediately initiated to replace, on a one for one basis, the navy's four existing Iroquois class destroyers with a new class of destroyers capable of exercising command and control, as well as air defence functions.

A program to replace our existing Sea King helicopters, on a one for one basis, must be initiated immediately. This is long overdue.

The government should initiate a littoral, ship to shore, warfare project with a view to acquiring: at least one dedicated helicopter-light carrier for the Canadian Navy; sufficient amphibious shipping to transport as well land troops in trying conditions which, if judged feasible, would coincide with the acquisition of new operational support ships discussed in recommendation 22; and heavier naval guns and land attack missiles for the navy, which would most logistically occur as part of the acquisition of a new destroyer to replace the Iroquois class discussed in recommendation 23 and through the projected modernization of the Halifax class frigates.

The strength of the regular force should be progressively increased to at least 80,000 personnel to implement the force capability goals proposed.

The strength of the reserves should be gradually increased to about 60,000 personnel, of which about 45,000 would be army reserves or militia. The militia would be given primary responsibility for most internal defence tasks but would, to the greatest extent possible, be trained to regular force standards and properly equipped. Measures should be taken to protect the jobs of reserve members when serving on either a voluntary or compulsory basis on active duty.

Recommendation 27 of the paper deals with esprit de corps and morale. The size of the officer corps in the Canadian Forces should be reviewed for efficiency and appropriateness on a regular basis.

The personnel evaluation report system of promotion must be simplified, evaluating candidates on merit, valour and operational effectiveness considerations alone.

The rank structure of the Canadian Forces should be reviewed. Enlisted ranks above the rank of private ordinary seaman should be designated as leadership positions, promotion to which would be based on merit, valour and leadership considerations alone.

Recruitment and promotion of the Canadian Forces should be based on merit and operational effectiveness considerations. All persons recruited to serve in any capacity in combat or combat support units should be expected to meet and constantly maintain the highest possible training standards. Parliament should use all necessary means to ensure that Canadian Forces is not affected by potential judicial or quasi-judicial rulings which compromise this position.

The civilian and military components of national defence headquarters should be separated with the chief of defence staff responsible for military and operational matters in the Canadian Forces.

The distinct identities of the Canadian army, the Royal Canadian Air Force and the Royal Canadian Navy should be restored, but functional integration under a single command structure headed by the chief of the defence staff retained. This will require the passage of appropriate legislation.

Finally, an office of inspector general should be created to uncover waste, duplication and abuse of power within DND and the Canadian Forces. The office of military ombudsman would be part of this branch and would be responsible for investigating complaints made by military personnel.

I believe the issues I just mentioned are far more important to Canadians than the issues addressed in Bill C-35.