CONTENTS
Thursday, March 23, 1995
Mr. LeBlanc (Cape Breton Highlands-Canso) 10859
Bill C-78. Motions for introduction and firstreading deemed adopted 10859
(Motion agreed to.) 10860
Mrs. Stewart (Brant) 10860
Mrs. Brown (Calgary Southeast) 10860
Mr. Harper (Calgary West) 10861
Mr. Harper (Calgary West) 10862
Mr. Harper (Calgary West) 10862
Mrs. Brown (Calgary Southeast) 10875
Mr. Harper (Calgary West) 10877
Mr. Mills (Red Deer) 10885
Mr. Leroux (Shefford) 10891
Mr. Leroux (Shefford) 10892
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 10897
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 10897
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 10898
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 10898
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 10898
Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais 10900
Mr. Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville) 10900
Mr. Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville) 10900
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 10904
Mr. Gauthier (Roberval) 10904
Consideration resumed of the motion 10905
Motion negatived on division: Yeas, 62; Nays, 125 10922
Motion for Concurrence 10923
Motion agreed to on division: Yeas, 125; Nays, 62 10923
Bill C-79. Motion for first reading deemed adopted 10924
Motion for second reading 10924
(Bill read the second time and the House went into committee thereon, Mr. Kilger in the chair.)
10924
(Clause 2 agreed to.) 10924
(Clause 3 agreed to.) 10925
(Clause 4 agreed to.) 10925
(Clause 5 agreed to.) 10925
(Clause 6 agreed to.) 10925
(Clause 7 agreed to.) 10925
(Schedule agreed to.) 10925
(Clause 1 agreed to.) 10925
(Preamble agreed to.) 10925
Motion for concurrence 10925
Motion for third reading 10925
(Bill read the third time and passed.) 10926
Bill C-80. Motion for first reading deemed adopted 10926
(Bill read the second time and the House went into committee thereon, Mr. Kilger in the chair.)
10927
(Clause 2 agreed to.) 10927
(Clause 3 agreed to.) 10927
(Clause 4 agreed to.) 10927
(Clause 5 agreed to.) 10927
(Schedule A agreed to.) 10927
(Schedule B agreed to.) 10927
(Schedule C agreed to.) 10927
(Schedule D agreed to.) 10927
(Schedule E agreed to.) 10927
(Schedule F agreed to.) 10927
(Clause 1 agreed to.) 10927
(Preamble agreed to.) 10927
Motion for concurrence 10927
(Motion agreed to.) 10928
Motion for third reading 10928
(Bill read the third time and passed.) 10928
Bill C-288. Motion for second reading 10928
Mrs. Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata) 10928
Mrs. Brown (Calgary Southeast) 10931
10859
HOUSE OF COMMONS
Thursday, March 23, 1995
The House met at 10 a.m.
_______________
Prayers
_______________
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
[
Translation]
Mr. Peter Milliken (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of
the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Madam
Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36(8), I have the honour to
table, in both official languages, the government's response to
20 petitions.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Peter Milliken (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of
the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I am pleased to table, in both official languages, a
number of order in council appointments made by the
government.
Pursuant to the provisions of Standing Order 110(1), these are
deemed referred to the appropriate standing committees, a list
of which is attached.
* * *
Hon. Ron Irwin (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, under the provisions of
Standing Order 32(2), I have the honour to table, in both official
languages, copies of a special report entitled ``Treaty Making in
the Spirit of Co-existence'' prepared by the royal commission
on aboriginal people.
* * *
(1005)
[Translation]
Mr. Francis G. LeBlanc (Cape Breton Highlands-Canso,
Lib.): Madam Speaker, I have the honour to present the second
report of the Standing Committee on Human Resources
Development concerning Bill C-77, which was adopted with
amendments.
* * *
[
English]
Hon. Herb Gray (Leader of the Government in the House
of Commons and Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.) moved
for leave to introduce Bill C-78, an act to provide for the
establishment and operation of a program to enable certain
persons to receive protection in relation to certain inquiries,
investigations or prosecutions.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed.)
* * *
Mr. Peter Milliken (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of
the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Madam
Speaker, in light of the serious rail strike afflicting the country
which has been going on all week, I move:
That, notwithstanding any standing order, at the conclusion of Private
Members' Business this day the House shall continue to sit in order to consider
the report stage and the third reading stage of Bill C-77, an act to provide for the
maintenance of railway operations and subsidiary services; that, for the
purposes of this order, notice of any report stage amendments may be submitted
to the Clerk no later than 5.00 p.m.;
That during the consideration of the aforementioned business no divisions
may be deferred to another sitting day; that immediately after disposing of the
third reading stage of the said bill the sitting shall be suspended to the call of the
Chair, when it shall be reconvened for the sole purpose of a royal assent;
That, when the House returns from the said royal assent, it shall be adjourned
until the next sitting day, provided that if a royal assent has not taken place by
9.00 a.m. on March 24, 1995, the House shall be reconvened for the sole
purpose of being adjourned until 10.00 a.m. on that day.
I seek the unanimous consent of the House for this motion.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): Does the parliamentary
secretary have unanimous consent?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
10860
Some hon. members: No.
Mr. Blaikie: Madam Speaker, on a point of order. I would like
to make it clear that in view of the changes made by the
government to the legislation in committee last night in
response to suggestions I made during question period
yesterday, the NDP would like to go on record as giving
unanimous consent this morning to the request by the
government.
[Translation]
Mr. Duceppe: Madam Speaker, this is not a point of order. I
realize the hon. member for the NDP in engaged is some
face-saving, but this is not a point of order.
[English]
Mr. Milliken: Madam Speaker, I will try something else
which might be more acceptable to members of the House. If
they do not wish to sit late tonight to deal with the bill, I am
going to seek now by way of a motion that we deal with the bill
tomorrow. I move:
That, notwithstanding any standing order, the report stage and third reading
stage of Bill C-77, an act to provide for the maintenance of railway operations
and subsidiary services, may be taken up on March 24, 1995, provided that no
divisions requested during the aforementioned business may be deferred to
another day.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): Does the parliamentary
secretary have unanimous consent?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
[Translation]
Mr. Duceppe: Madam Speaker, we have already told the
government that we are prepared to settle this matter very
quickly. In this case, as far as parliamentary procedure is
concerned, if the government had the decency to consult us
beforehand, we could talk about it. Since it did not, for the time
being, the answer is no.
(1010)
[English]
Mr. Blaikie: Madam Speaker, on the same point of order I
would like to make it clear that the NDP gives its consent to this.
I urge the Bloc to reconsider its position.
Mr. Milliken: Madam Speaker, I will try another technique.
If members do not wish to deal with this bill tomorrow, I move:
That, notwithstanding any standing order, the House shall sit at 9.00 a.m. on
March 25, 1995 and at 1.00 p.m. on March 26, 1995 for the purpose of
considering Government Orders and, if necessary, for the purpose of attending a
royal assent ceremony.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): Is there unanimous
consent?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
Hon. Alfonso Gagliano (Secretary of State (Parliamentary
Affairs) and Deputy Leader of the Government in the House
of Commons, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I move, pursuant to
Standing Order 56(1):
That, notwithstanding any standing order, the House shall sit at 9.00 a.m. on
March 25, 1995 and at 1.00 p.m. on March 26, 1995 for the purpose of
considering Government Orders and, if necessary, for the purpose of attending a
royal assent ceremony.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): Will those who object to
the motion please rise?
And less than 25 members having risen:
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): Adopted.
(Motion agreed to.)
* * *
Mrs. Jane Stewart (Brant, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I am
tabling two petitions in which the petitioners request that
Parliament support legislation which will improve public safety
and reduce the criminal use of guns.
Mrs. Jan Brown (Calgary Southeast, Ref.): Madam
Speaker, I rise once again to present another petition in this
course of action undertaken on behalf of constituents who wish
to halt the early release from prison of Robert Paul Thompson.
The petitioners I represent are concerned about making our
streets safer for our citizens and they are opposed to the current
practice of early release of violent offenders prior to serving the
full extent of their sentences.
The petitioners pray that our streets will be made safer for
law-abiding citizens and the families of the victims of
convicted murderers.
(1015 )
Mr. Tony Valeri (Lincoln, Lib.): Madam Speaker, pursuant
to Standing Order 36, I wish to table two petitions. One is signed
by the constituents of Lincoln and the second is signed by the
constituents of Hamilton East.
The petitioners request that Parliament not amend the
Canadian Human Rights Act or the Charter of Rights and
Freedoms so they would provide for the inclusion of the phrase
sexual orientation.
Mr. Ronald J. Duhamel (St. Boniface, Lib.): Madam
Speaker, these petitioners believe that the inclusion of sexual
orientation in the Canadian Human Rights Act will provide
certain groups with special status, rights and privileges.
10861
They also believe that it will infringe on the historic rights of
Canadians, such as freedom of religion, conscience, expression
and association. They oppose any amendments to the Canadian
Human Rights Act.
Mr. Morris Bodnar (Saskatoon-Dundurn, Lib.): Madam
Speaker, I wish to present a petition wherein the petitioners
request that Parliament ensure that the present provisions of the
Criminal Code prohibiting assisted suicide be enforced
vigorously and that Parliament make no changes in the law
which would sanction or allow the aiding or abetting of suicide
or active or passive euthanasia.
Mr. John Solomon (Regina-Lumsden, NDP): Madam
Speaker, I have two petitions to present today pursuant to
Standing Order 36.
The first petition is from a number of residents in my
constituency of Regina-Lumsden and pertains to the Criminal
Code of Canada, section 241, which states ``everyone who
counsels a person to commit suicide or (b) aids or abets a person
to commit suicide, whether suicide ensues or not, is guilty of an
indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not
exceeding 14 years''.
The petitioners request that Parliament not repeal or amend
section 241 of the Criminal Code in any way and to uphold the
Supreme Court of Canada decision of September 30, 1993 to
disallow assisted suicide and euthanasia.
Mr. John Solomon (Regina-Lumsden, NDP): Madam
Speaker, my second petition is signed by a number of
constituents as well as people from Quill Lake, Saskatoon, and
parts of Regina, Saskatchewan. This pertains to the Senate.
The petitioners do not believe the Senate is accountable, is not
elected, has become the home of patronage appointments of
Liberal and Conservative Prime Ministers and it costs the
taxpayers about $60 million each year. They request that
Parliament abolish this institution which they feel does not
provide Canadians with anything.
Mr. Elwin Hermanson (Kindersley-Lloydminster, Ref.):
Madam Speaker, I have three petitions to present, pursuant to
Standing Order 36. The certifiers must be very busy because
they have just listed the pages and not the total number of
signatories.
The first petition says that because of the inclusion of sexual
orientation in the Canadian Human Rights Act it will provide
certain groups with special status, rights and privileges; and
because these special rights and privileges would be granted
solely on the basis of sexual behaviour; and because inclusion
would infringe on the historic rights of Canadians such as
freedom of religion, conscience, expression and association, the
petitioners call on Parliament to oppose any amendments to the
Canadian Human Rights Act or the Canadian Charter of Rights
and Freedoms which would provide for the inclusion of the
phrase sexual orientation.
The signatories come basically from the Langham, Asquith
and Saskatoon area.
Mr. Elwin Hermanson (Kindersley-Lloydminster, Ref.):
Madam Speaker, the second petition is signed by people in the
Unity-Lloydminster area.
The petitioners state that as citizens of Canada they wish to
bring to the attention of the House that Canadians are already
overburdened with taxation due to high government spending
and that the federal government is considering high tax
increases in the next federal budget, which of course has already
passed.
They pray and request that Parliament reduce government
spending instead of increasing taxes and implement a taxpayer
protection act to limit federal spending. Of course that part or
the petition still applies.
There are 24 pages of signatures on this petition.
Mr. Elwin Hermanson (Kindersley-Lloydminster, Ref.):
The third petition, Madam Speaker, is from the
Kindersley-Luseland area in my constituency but also from
parts of Manitoba.
The petitioners request Parliament to consider that Robert
Latimer was sentenced to life imprisonment for second degree
murder with no chance of parole for 10 years. They state the law
should be flexible and based on the individual. They further
state his sentence is unfair and out of proportion and petition
Parliament to grant Robert Latimer of Wilkie, Saskatchewan a
pardon conditionally or unconditionally for his conviction of
second degree murder in the death of Tracy Latimer, his
daughter.
(1020 )
Mr. Stephen Harper (Calgary West, Ref.): Madam Speaker,
I have five petitions to present on various subjects. The first
petition is signed by 318 residents of the city of Calgary. I
understand it is part of a much larger petition involving the
signatures of 64,000 Albertans.
It calls for changes to the Young Offenders Act. The
petitioners want an act serious enough to deter young people
from committing crimes and tough enough to provide real
justice. They ask Parliament to amend the Criminal Code of
Canada and the Young Offenders Act accordingly.
10862
Mr. Stephen Harper (Calgary West, Ref.): Madam Speaker,
the second petition is signed by 50 residents of the city of
Calgary.
The petitioners pray that Parliament ensure that the present
provisions of the Criminal Code of Canada prohibiting assisted
suicide be enforced vigorously and that Parliament make no
changes in the law which would sanction or allow the aiding or
abetting of suicide or active or passive euthanasia.
Mr. Stephen Harper (Calgary West, Ref.): Madam Speaker,
the third petition is signed by 50 residents, principally of the city
of Calgary.
The petitioners call on Parliament to act quickly to amend the
Canadian Human Rights Act to prohibit discrimination on the
basis of sexual orientation, and to adopt all necessary measures
to recognize the full equality of same sex relationships in
federal law.
I have also received a petition on the same subject matter from
37 residents of the city of Calgary that asks that Parliament not
extend spousal benefits to homosexuals living together as a
couple in order to prevent further damage to our already
overburdened benefit system.
I have 37 signatures from residents of the city of Calgary that
ask that Parliament not include the phrase sexual orientation in
the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, or in the human rights code,
or in the Canadian Human Rights Act, in order to preserve the
equality and personal freedom of all Canadian citizens and in
order to safeguard the economy of our country.
This is obviously a very contentious issue in the city of
Calgary, given the conflicting nature of the opinions expressed
in the last three petitions.
Mr. Tom Wappel (Scarborough West, Lib.): Madam
Speaker, I have three petitions this morning. The first petition is
signed by about 70 residents of the western portion of Toronto.
It prays that Parliament act immediately to extend protection
to the unborn child by amending the Criminal Code to extend the
same protection enjoyed by born human beings to unborn human
beings.
Mr. Tom Wappel (Scarborough West, Lib.): Madam
Speaker, the second petition is signed by constituents in
Scarborough West.
It prays that Parliament ensure that the present provisions of
the Criminal Code of Canada prohibiting assisted suicide be
enforced vigorously, and that Parliament make no changes in the
law which would sanction or allow the aiding or abetting of
suicide or active or passive euthanasia.
Mr. Tom Wappel (Scarborough West, Lib.): Madam
Speaker, I have a petition with a number of signatures from the
southern Ontario area.
The petitioners pray that Parliament not amend the Human
Rights Act or the Charter of Rights and Freedoms in any way
which would tend to indicate societal approval of same sex
relationships or of homosexuality, including amending the
Human Rights Act to include in the prohibited grounds of
discrimination the undefined phrase sexual orientation.
* * *
Mr. Peter Milliken (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of
the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Madam
Speaker, I ask that all questions be allowed to stand.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): Is that agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
_____________________________________________
10862
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[
English]
Mr. Jack Frazer (Saanich-Gulf Islands, Ref.) moved:
That this House condemn the government for failing to commission a broad
and public inquiry with a mandate to investigate the government's failure to
hold senior officials at the Department of National Defence accountable for
command and control shortcomings, deteriorating morale, and decisions which
diminished or have failed to improve Canada's defence posture.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): Since today is the final
allotted day for the supply period ending March 31, 1995, the
House will go through the usual procedures to consider and
dispose of the supply bill. In view of recent practices, do hon.
members agree that the bill be distributed now?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
(1025 )
Mr. Frazer: Madam Speaker, Canada has a glorious history
of defence matters starting with the Boer war, the first world
war, the second world war and Korea. Now I think the tradition
continues in our commitment to UN obligations in several parts
of the world.
People have very mixed views when it comes to matters of
defence. In the defence committee and our travels around the
country, we had representations from groups which called for a
10863
very strong or strengthened defence position. We also heard
from others who said that there is no threat and no need for the
armed forces, so let us do away with the defence department.
The defence department is much like an insurance corporation
in that we do not really want to pay the cost of its protection but
we recognize that there comes a time when we may need it. It is
like a fire department or a police department. It is obvious to
anyone who thinks about it that a country that does not have the
ability to control its boundaries, its sea approaches, its air and
its interior territory cannot really call itself a sovereign country.
Therefore, without question, there is a need for defence.
The problem is that in our current fiscal constraints, Canada
must get the very best value for each dollar that is spent on
defence. That is really the purpose of the motion this morning.
What I would like to do is provide an overview of happenings
in the defence realm since the government assumed power in
October 1993 and then deal with some of the perceived
shortcomings that we see. I will then leave it up to my
colleagues to expand on specific areas within that group.
I will start with October 23 when the government was elected.
Shortly thereafter, it fulfilled a red book promise and cancelled
the purchase of the EH-101 helicopter. In February, it brought
down a budget which downsized the regular forces from 74,900
to 66,700, the reserves of 29,400 people remained at 29,400
until 1998, and the civilian component was downsized from
32,500 to 25,200.
The government closed bases at Cornwallis, Chatham,
Moncton, Calgary and Langley. It closed the Collège militaire
royal at Saint-Jean and Royal Roads Military College in
Victoria.
There was an announcement of a peacekeeping school to be
formed at Cornwallis. The government commissioned the
special joint committee on defence and the special joint
committee on foreign affairs. In March, the government
renewed the commitments for the Canadian forces to remain in
Bosnia and Croatia. It also announced that Canadians would
provide assistance to Haiti.
In September 1994 came the release of the Lagueux report. In
response to queries requiring an inquiry into the incidents in
Somalia, the minister refused, saying that the investigations to
date had been adequate.
Again in September, the commitments to Bosnia and Croatia
were renewed.
At the end of October the government received the defence
review report. In November, Major Armstrong, the surgeon who
was in Somalia, brought forward evidence that finally
compelled the minister to say: ``Yes, there would be a full public
and open inquiry into events in and surrounding the Somalia
issue''.
On December 1 the minister presented the defence white
paper. Four days later in that same month the Colonel Oehring
report was made public.
Moving into January, the airborne videos, first and second,
emerged. In February we saw the airborne video plus naval
hazing videos. In that same month the minister announced the
disbandment of the airborne regiment.
The 1995-96 budget was introduced in February. It further
reduced the forces, regulars to 60,000, the reserves to 23,000,
and the civilian component to 20,000 to be achieved by 1999.
(1030)
The budget closed Chilliwack, Jericho, Calgary, Air
Command Winnipeg, Toronto, London, Land Force Command
St. Hubert, Moncton, and Maritime Command Halifax. It
reduced Canadian Forces Base Cold Lake, National Defence
Headquarters and Canadian Forces Base Bagotville. Also, the
government announced a forthcoming study on reserves.
In March of this year the airborne regiment was formally
disbanded. A couple of days later the Jeffries report was made
public.
To return to discuss some of the issues that were forthcoming
in the area of defence, the cancellation of the EH-101 was a
promise made by the government and it fulfilled that promise. I
question whether sufficient in depth study had been given to the
prospect of what should have been done. Unquestionably, the
search and rescue helicopters and the shipborne helicopters had
to be replaced; they were experiencing further and further
fatigue. Although I think they are quite safe to fly, they
definitely need replacement.
The cost of the EH-101 was misrepresented, initially by the
media, but it was then picked up by the Liberal Party in its
election campaign. The actual cost of $4.3 billion was
transposed into the inflated cost at the end the cycle to $5.8
billion. It was always this $5.8 billion that was quoted as
opposed to the appropriate $4.3 billion which was the real
figure.
The EH-101, granted, was an expensive helicopter, but it also
incorporated components that enabled it to interface with the
frigates. The judgment of the defence committee and of anybody
in the defence department has been that the frigates are basically
severely constrained and in fact, much reduced in their usage
unless they have a helicopter aboard.
Whatever helicopter the government eventually decides to
buy to replace the EH-101, it will have to be able to interface
with a frigate. I will be watching very carefully to see what the
final price tag on that acquisition will be.
10864
The additional thing to the EH-101 cancellation is that it
basically did away with a whole lot of very high tech jobs. For a
government that proposes jobs, jobs, jobs, this was an area
where Canada had really forgone the ability to become more
deeply involved in the high tech area.
Of the EH-101s to be built worldwide, 10 per cent of each one
would have been built in Canada. Of the initial buy for Canada is
that more than half would have been built in this country. The
benefits of that would spread from coast to coast. It seems to me
the government may have been very short-sighted in deciding to
do away with that helicopter without adequate study.
In the February 1994-95 budget the government also reduced
the size of the forces to 60,000 permanent people. This is 6,700
below the actual minimum the review committee had
ascertained was the required number. The review committee
basically said that if you go below that number, you must
identify some capability you want to give up. The government
has not as yet recognized which capability will be forgone.
The decision to place the Lester B. Pearson peacekeeping
school at Cornwallis is, I think, a purely political one based on a
promise made by the Liberal Party during the election
campaign. The location is rather questionable as is the plant on
the base. It is going to require a substantial upgrading of
facilities. I believe better alternatives were available to the
government which could have been pursued at a far better
service to the country and also at less cost to the country.
The formation of the special joint committee on defence and
the special joint committee on foreign affairs was again a
promise made by the government that was fulfilled. I commend
the government on that.
(1035 )
However, it is obvious to anyone that the committee on
foreign affairs should have been given a mandate which required
its report to be tabled at least three months prior to the tabling of
the defence report. As it was, they ran concurrently. There was
some consolidation of the reports, but it would have been far
better for the defence review committee if it had been able to see
exactly where the foreign affairs committee said Canada should
be going before the decision was made to table the defence
report.
The white paper of December 1994 said that the report of the
special joint committee played an integral role in shaping
Canada's new defence policy. Virtually all its recommendations
are reflected in the white paper. I would like to question this by
pointing out those recommendations of the report which the
government did not institute.
First is that Canada retain enough military personnel to do the
job Canadians expect of their military, a force of sufficient size
to cope with eventualities that cannot be predicted.
As I said a few moments ago, the cut from the defence
committee's recommended absolute minimum of 66,700 was
violated to the tune of 6,700 personnel. The question is: Does
Canada now have sufficient forces to fulfil the recommendation
of the report? I do not think so.
The white paper said that the committee's recommendation
concerning the size of the regular forces was judged to be
inconsistent with the financial parameters within which the
Department of National Defence must operate. Of course,
defence was cut to $10.5 billion in 1994 dollars, which was the
recommendation of the committee as a minimum. The white
paper stated that cuts to the defence budget deeper than those
envisioned by the committee would be required to meet the
government's deficit reduction targets.
The Reform Party is on record as recommending and insisting
on fiscal responsibility. We do not question this. We just think
that if the government is going to cut, it should identify where
those cuts will take place and what effect they will have on the
outcome.
At the same time the government was reducing funding in
these areas, the white paper also committed Canada to expand
the program of exchanges and extended scope to other countries.
It stated:
To this end, we will increase substantially the budget devoted to the Military
Training Assistance Program to build up contact programs with Central and
Eastern Europe, the Commonwealth of Independent States, Asia, Latin
America, and Africa.
Also the Department government will sponsor peacekeeping training at the
Centre for military personnel from countries participating in NATO's
Partnership for Peace and developing countries under the Military Training
Assistance Program.
I have had personal experience with the military training
assistance program. It is a good program. It results in people
from other countries being exposed to Canadian standards in
military training. However, the results of the military training
assistance program come down to assisting the relationship
between Canada and the other country. I saw it in Tanzania
where as a result of Canada training Tanzanian officers there
was a very warm feeling for Canada. That affected the relations
between our countries dramatically. Therefore, I would
recommend that the military training assistance program, rather
than being in the defence budget, be in another place, preferably
in foreign affairs.
The defence review report recommended that headquarters
strength be reduced by one-third, that is, from 37 to 25 and that
personnel be reduced by 50 per cent, that is, 4,000. The white
paper stated:
The command of military operations will continue to be exercised by the
Chief of the Defence Staff-normally through a designated operational
commander-and one layer of headquarters will be eliminated.
The intent of the defence review was to reduce the
proliferation of headquarters across the country. The
recommendation was that there be one joint headquarters in the
west, one located
10865
centrally, and one in the east. This would have enabled the
command and control to have been effective and would have
done away with a proliferation of unneeded headquarters staff.
(1040 )
The defence report also recommended that National Defence
Headquarters be studied to determine if it should be returned to
separate military and civilian headquarters. The white paper
says: ``The government can see no compelling reason that would
justify reversing the civilian-military integration of National
Defence Headquarters''. Yet in testimony, the defence
committee heard much from many people saying that there were
crossed lines of command. There was blurred judgment. There
were concerns about who was really in charge.
We did not say that NDHQ should be done away with and
separated into Canadians forces headquarters and National
Defence Headquarters. We said to look at it and study it. The
government refused to do this.
The committee recommended that the government create a
standing joint committee of the Senate and the House of
Commons on defence with appropriate regional representation.
The government has been silent on this one. The aim of the game
here was to give Parliament some ability to monitor and control
what went on in the defence department. The government when
in opposition was in favour of this, but apparently when in
power it does not seem to see the need for it. I contend this
should happen.
We think DND's annual capital plan should be tabled with the
new joint committee. If the government in its wisdom should
say that a standing joint committee is not required, we think that
capital plan should be tabled with the Standing Committee on
National Defence and Veterans Affairs.
We asked that the committee be informed when all capital
products over $30 million pass defence program management
milestones so it can examine cases it considers significant. The
government has again been silent on this. Once again, we are
looking for Parliament to be able to have a little more
knowledge and control over what goes on.
We asked that the Minister of National Defence deliver a
comprehensive annual defence review and assessment by the
minister. It would set out the minister's view of the global
security environment and within it the specific challenges to
Canadian policy and interests, issues that the minister believes
will require parliamentary attention or a government decision
over the coming months. This report would also be referred to
the standing joint committee. Once again, there has been silence
on this, although it may be the government's intention to do so. I
would be delighted to hear that is its intention.
We also asked for an annual debate on defence policy. This is
vital if Canadians, the public and parliamentarians, are to be
aware of what is going on in defence.
Finally and perhaps most important, we said that full
parliamentary debate should be invoked before any deployment
of Canadian forces abroad. We now have commitment. I
understand they are going to renew our commitment in Bosnia
and Croatia. We have not been informed formally yet, but the
time is getting fast to the point where it must have been made.
We have deployed troops to Haiti and there has been no
parliamentary debate on that. I think this is a shortcoming.
Mr. Collenette: We are having it now.
Mr. Frazer: I appreciate the member's intervention. He will
note undoubtedly this debate is prompted by the opposition, not
by the government where it should have originated.
The Lagueux report, while confined to a relatively narrow
area within the defence department, revealed that there are very
great discrepancies in the command and control over there. It
revealed there was harassment, there was misappropriation or
questionable use of funds, that projects were hidden or appeared
to be unrelated. Yet the government has not seen any
requirement to intervene, to have a look at what is going on in
the defence department and ascertain what can be done to
correct it.
To conclude, without question we have to commend the
government on doing some good things. It inherited many
problems. There is no doubt in my mind-and I question the
minister when he continually says he trusts his leadership, he
trusts everything that is going on-there are obvious errors and
problems within the Department of National Defence.
(1045)
We believe an inquiry must be called to examine and
hopefully recommend solutions.
Mr. Fred Mifflin (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
National Defence and Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.):
Madam Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague from Saanich-Gulf
Islands if not commend him for the motion and the debate on
defence today. I always welcome a debate on defence, as I think
all members of the House do. He raised a number of questions.
He gave some credit and I thank him for it. He also raised some
areas that are worthy of discussion and debate somewhat later
on.
I want to bring forward two matters in the question and
comment period. I will try to do it as quickly as possible. I have
to remind the hon. member that things have changed since 1990.
He alluded to it at the end of his presentation. He recognizes it.
10866
In the less than 18 months since the government has come to
power we have had more debates in the House of Commons than
took place in the preceding five years and in the four years
before that. We have done more in 18 months than the previous
government had done in nine years. I do not think that is a big
issue because we should be debating defence. Defence is more
of an issue today than it has been in the past.
For the first time in recent history the government undertook
to have a standing joint committee of the House of Commons
and the other place look at, from the bottom up, the requirements
of defence and what Canadians wanted their Canadian forces
and their young men and women in uniform to do.
I consider that was a successful debate. It was a successful
report. The hon. member knows that as he was a very valuable
part of it. His expertise and distinguished career in the Canadian
forces allowed him to have an input and a credibility that were
most valuable to the report.
The fact that the report took place and the discussion took
place at a very conscious level in Canada and with our allies is
something that cannot be forgotten and cannot be minimized in
the House. The fact that less than two months later it resulted in
the white paper on defence is also something that should be
noted.
On my first point I find it very difficult to understand why the
hon. member is complaining that the Minister of National
Defence has not come forward with an annual report on defence
when we have just actually come out with a white paper. Perhaps
next year his criticism will strike home a bit more.
On the second and more substantive point I am almost
incredulous that the motion today condemns the government for
failing to commission a broad and public inquiry. The Minister
of National Defence tabled on Tuesday, two days ago, a report
into the Somalia business, the Somalia inquiry. It is the broadest
commission ever commissioned in the last 50 years. To my
knowledge the last similar commission was the Mainguy
commission which I believe goes back to 1949.
The opposition complains that we are not having a broad and
public inquiry. It could not be broader and it could not be more
public. The three commissioners are outstanding Canadians.
Not one of them is a serving member of the Canadian forces.
They have 19 points which allows them basically the broadest of
the broad. I find it inconsistent, untimely and somewhat
confusing that the main motion is what is sparking the debate
today. We will be voting on it later, I understand.
Why did the hon. member not address this aspect in his
presentation?
Mr. Frazer: Madam Speaker, the question of debates to
which the hon. member has referred is interesting. I recognize
quite freely that there have been far more debates in the House
of Commons on defence than in the previous nine years or ten
years or twelve years, for that matter.
The problem with the opposition parties is that the debates are
a foregone conclusion. The decisions have already been taken.
Yes, we are debating so we are able to say something, but we are
not impacting or affecting the decisions that are taken. I believe
that is not only frustrating but it is not right.
(1050)
Again I recognize that the Minister of National Defence
responded quite rapidly to the receipt of the special joint
committee's report. That of course implies that he had
reasonably good information as to what was coming in the
report. That was inevitable and it was good. He did respond
quickly. As I pointed out, though, there are many
recommendations made within the report which he did not see
fit to include.
My problem is that I believe very many Canadians do not
appreciate or conceive of the commitment that Canadian forces
personnel make when they sign on the dotted line. They are the
only Canadians who commit themselves to put their life on the
line at order. The fireman, yes, he can get himself involved in a
problem but he does it voluntarily. A policeman is the same. If
he involves himself he does it because it is his job and because
he personally chooses it. A serviceman does not have that
choice. If his or her superior says ``you go there'', regardless of
the situation that requires he or she to put themselves in they are
required to go without question.
Because of this commitment we owe it to our servicemen to
provide them with the very best possible leadership and
concern. That is my concern here. The inquiry that the hon.
member has referred to as broad is really constrained to talking
about the airborne deployment before, during and after. It has to
do with the command and control that went into that. However it
does not branch into the areas that we have talked about: the
overall command and control in National Defence
Headquarters. Should it be civilian? Should it be separated into
civilian and military? Are the young officers and young
non-commissioned members being adequately trained?
We have reports from Colonel Oehring and from General
Jeffries, both of whom point out that there is a shortfall in
confidence in Canadian servicemen. They question whether
their officers are really concerned with them or whether they are
concerned with their own careers and they are looking up rather
than down.
10867
We owe it to our service people to give them the very best
leadership, command and control that we can possibly provide.
[Translation]
Hon. David Michael Collenette (Minister of National
Defence and Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Madam
Speaker, it is a pleasure to take part in this debate this morning. I
think this is a good opportunity to discuss all aspects of national
defence policy.
I notice the hon. member asked why there had been no debate
on our future commitment in the former Yugoslavia. Quite
frankly, we did intend to have a debate on the future of our
commitment in the former Yugoslavia, but it does not really
make sense to have a debate initiated by the government, since
the opposition gives us a chance to discuss the matter today.
[English]
In other words, the hon. member has berated us for not
providing opportunity to talk about future Canadian forces
engagements in the next few weeks. It has been our intention to
have that dialogue with the House, but given the fact that the
opposition has culled today with defence as the subject matter,
the government will consider today's debate, the opposition
motion, as an occasion for all members to express their views
not just generally on defence policy on the Somali inquiry but
also on the future engagements of the Canadian forces.
I beg to differ with the hon. member. The decision to redeploy
for a further six months has not been taken by the government
and therefore what is said in the House today will be very useful
for the cabinet when it makes up its mind.
I share the concerns of my colleague, the parliamentary
secretary, who did such a terrific job for me in the special joint
committee and was really one of the reasons that we were able to
meet our deadlines and get a white paper out. The whole process
was managed very well. Members should recognize the
contribution my parliamentary secretary made to the process.
(1055)
The parliamentary secretary raised a point that the motion
today condemning the government ``for failing to commission a
broad and public inquiry with a mandate to investigate the
government's failure to hold senior officials at the Department
of National Defence accountable'', et cetera, was put on the
Order Paper. However, the hon. member did not really address
the subject matter.
I was rather amused yesterday evening when I read the
opposition motion because I wondered why on earth such a
motion would be put down, given the fact that two days ago I
announced a full public inquiry under part I of the Inquiries Act
to look into all aspects of the Canadian forces deployment in
Somalia in 1992.
When we talk about the pre-deployment phase and the
post-deployment phase going back to November 28, 1994, that
is a period of almost two years when perhaps one of the most
important missions every undertaken by the Canadian forces
will be examined by an independent inquiry, headed by a Federal
Court judge.
The inquiry is not solely restricted to what was actually in the
order in council. We made it broad. We included a clause at the
beginning which gave the commissioners great latitude. If the
hon. member looked at that he would know that all aspects of
command and control as they relate to the Somalia deployment
will be subject to the inquiry. If one is examining that particular
deployment, one can also draw conclusions on the general state
of command and control within the Canadian Armed Forces. I
am sorry he did not really address the matter in detail.
I am very grateful that he agrees with the government that the
inquiry should have been under part I of the Inquiries Act rather
than the National Defence Act. As I explained in my press
conference the other day, it was our intention to have the inquiry
under the NDA originally but we felt that we were somewhat
constrained especially with the rules of evidence and the
compelling of witnesses. Therefore it will be held under part I. I
note that both opposition parties and people in the country
generally have advocated that type of inquiry. We are providing
the vehicle with three prominent Canadians to lead that
discussion. We have put a time limit on it, not for any nefarious
reason but simply to get the job done.
We have been somewhat constrained. Judicial proceedings
have gone on for the last year and we have been unable to
convene the inquiry. Now the inquiry is under way and will look
into all aspects of the deployment to Somalia. In doing its work
it will also reflect upon the general state of command and
control within the armed forces, the leadership, the
effectiveness of decision making and so forth.
It has not been an easy 18 months since I took over this
portfolio. One thing that has troubled me as Minister of National
Defence is how an institution such as the armed forces, which
has an enviable and wonderful reputation that Canadians have
admired for years and years and which has served us so well, has
come under such negative public scrutiny.
The hon. member opposite for Saanich-Gulf Islands is a
former member of the Canadian forces, but I invite other
members who have not been in the forces to come with me some
day to defence and go through a normal day or visit a base such
as the one I visited last Friday at Val Cartier, Quebec; I am going
to Borden on Friday. They would see an incredible dedication.
These men and women are prepared to serve their country.
Contrary to what the hon. member says, when they join the
armed forces they sign on for any conceivable duty. They know
they may have to go to some of the world's most dangerous
zones. They know that the job is not simply pushing pencils.
There is humanitarian work and work helping Canadians cope
10868
with natural disasters. At the request of a local community last
week we sent the army to a village in Quebec to help with
problems resulting from an avalanche.
(1100 )
The armed forces are available at any time. Domestically, it is
available at any time to go abroad.
Tragically last weekend a number of young people went
missing on Lake Ontario. The Canadian Armed Forces out of
Trenton, the search and rescue helicopters and the Hercules
planes led the search.
Those people who serve in the armed forces are prepared to do
the rewarding domestic work in terms of search and rescue,
helping communities that have problems such as the one in
Quebec with the avalanche. They are also prepared to go to
places like Somalia, Haiti, Bosnia and Croatia, the Golan
Heights, Cambodia, everywhere else to serve their country's
interests. Canada's interests are ones the United Nations
articulates in terms of bringing peace and civility to various
parts of the world.
The dedication in the armed forces is second to none. I am
amazed given the fact that we have now had about six successive
budget cutbacks. I am glad the Minister of Finance left before
my speech because he would not welcome some of the things I
say. He has a tough job to do and we are solidly behind him.
The armed forces has had to go through about six successive
budgetary cutbacks. During the 18 months we have been in
office we have cut about $10 billion in projected and actual
expenditures from the budget. That is tough to manage.
There was a wage freeze on for all public employees. The
armed forces has traditionally lagged. I find that unacceptable
and I am trying to find ways with my colleague, the President of
the Treasury Board, to see if we can address the compensation
problem within national defence and within the armed forces
without undermining the program of financial restrain of the
government in general. We are working to do that.
We recently put in motion a means by which privates can be
accelerated into the corporal rank and therefore by about six
months gain some kind of advantage in terms of getting to the
next salary rung.
We have a group of people who had to move around as bases
closed and have had to serve in difficult parts of the world and
had to do their jobs at a time of profound social change.
In the last number of years the charter of rights has been
enacted, the Privacy Act and human rights legislation. The
armed forces, like all other government departments, is under
the microscope on a daily basis.
When we compare the Canadian Armed Forces and the way it
is dealing with these challenges of being deployed in some of the
world's hot spots, of having to deal with budget cuts, of having
to be under public scrutiny with respect to changing social
mores, and the expectation the forces must at least try to
accommodate changing social mores, we find the Canadian
Armed Forces is second to none.
Take for example the very controversial issue of sexual
preference within the armed forces. The President of the United
States must wonder in amazement how the Canadian armed
forces changed its policy and allowed people of various sexual
preferences to work openly and with dignity within the
Canadian Armed Forces and integrate this within our
operations.
In trying to get the United States armed forces to accept the
same changes, he found out there was such incredible resistance
it really has been one of the things that has helped to undermine
his presidency in his early years. How could Canada do it and
not the U.S.?
I have had these discussions with my counterpart Bill Perry
and some of the others in Europe, Malcolm Rifkind and François
Léotard and Volker Ruer. They are amazed at the adaptability of
the Canadian Armed Forces, the flexibility, the willingness to
accommodate ideas and changes in very difficult circumstances.
(1105)
One of the frustrations I have had is we have had some people
who have left the Ministry of National Defence and have not
been happy. They have taken certain information away with
them and they have grievances. Some would say they are
seeking retribution. Against whom, I do not know.
They were not employed there since this government has been
in office. Maybe they want retribution against senior officials or
the chief of defence staff. I do not know.
This information is being leaked to the opposition and to the
media. It is publicized and it gives the impression the armed
forces is in a state of chaos. The armed forces is not in a state of
chaos.
I will do anything possible to walk my colleagues through the
lives of men and women in the armed forces on a daily basis. We
will take members of Parliament to bases. We will have brief-
10869
ings. We will let them find out once and for all that the armed
forces is in pretty good shape. There are some morale problems
and they have surfaced in certain memoranda. They have to do
with financial restraint, with budget cutbacks, with the changing
role of defence in the post cold war era and adapting to changing
social mores.
There will always be personality differences in any
organization. Do all the generals like each other? I hope so. I am
sure there are rivalries. Does everybody in the House of
Commons like each other? I am sure we all do, although from
time to time we may have some rivalry.
We are looking at the largest quasi-corporate organization in
the country, an organization that at a moment's notice can
deploy troops anywhere in the world. It can discharge its
obligations with such quality that our allies, even our opponents
such as the three factions in the former Yugoslavia, say
Canadians are the best.
Ask the Serbs, ask the Croats and ask the Muslims who are the
best. They will say the Canadians. They do not want us to leave
because they know we are fair, we are impartial and we are
tough. We are professionals.
We are that way because it is a reflection of Canadian society
and it is also a reflection of the cumulative leadership in the
organization over decades. It goes back to the Boer war, to the
first world war, to the second world war. The military tradition
in this country is rich. It is alive. It is going to continue to stay
rich and alive even in a changing world.
It is my job to answer the hon. member's criticisms and to
assure Canadians the tax dollars being spent on defence are done
so effectively and that operations are conducted properly. I will
do that every day of the week. However, I get frustrated because
many of the points raised are not thought through properly. They
come from disgruntled people. They come from people with a
lack of information, people who do not have full knowledge of
the institution or know the full scope of the department's
activities. These events are magnified on a daily basis.
The chain of command as it pertains to the deployment in
Somalia will be looked at by the inquiry. In principle I want to
assure my colleagues in the House and all Canadians that we
have outstanding leadership in the Canadian Armed Forces. We
have men and women who have gone through rigorous training,
who are well educated, who have served in many different
theatres of conflict. These people are true professionals.
As the Prime Minister and I have said, we have full
confidence in the chief of defence staff, John de Chastelain. We
have full confidence in the other members of the high command
of the Canadian Armed Forces. We have full confidence in the
institution. That does not mean to say the institution should not
and cannot be changed. Sometimes there is resistance.
(1110 )
After all, I am a Liberal. We look at the political perspective
through certain lenses. The opposition has different views. That
is what democracy is all about. It may very well be that the
course of action the government wishes to follow will not be
accepted by everyone within the department or within the
forces. They are loyal Canadians and they recognize that the
government is elected to direct the affairs of the state and they
obviously will follow and implement the policy decisions of the
government.
When we disbanded the airborne, General Reay, the head of
land forces, and General de Chastelain, chief of defence staff,
said to me: ``You have our recommendations. You might not
wish to follow our recommendations''. We did not. We
disbanded the airborne They said: ``Whatever you decide, we as
loyal members of the armed forces will implement that decision
faithfully and honestly''. To their credit they have done that.
General Jeffries, the brigade commander at Petawawa, and Lt.
Col. Kenward, the former commanding officer of the airborne
regiment, did an outstanding job in difficult circumstances when
we made a decision for which I will not apologize and which I
will defend from now on. They did an admirable job in
explaining this decision to their colleagues. As the chief of
defence staff said, the airborne had achieved much over 25 years
and had to be disbanded with dignity. It was disbanded with
dignity.
We do not have a problem in the Canadian Armed Forces. Like
all organizations, difficulties arise from time to time. I urge
members when they stand in their place to give criticism, which
is their due, they should also try to stand back and look at the
reputation, the integrity, the experience Canada has had with the
best armed forces in the world today. Let Canadians know they
are behind the men and women who serve them so well.
Mr. Jack Frazer (Saanich-Gulf Islands, Ref.): Madam
Speaker, I thank the minister for his very illuminating remarks.
Everything he said good about the performance of the
Canadian Armed Forces I would back in spades. They are
tremendous bunch of people. They put up with an awful lot of
discomfort, danger and they perform superbly in very instance.
The minister talked about this being a debate on Bosnia.
Obviously it is not a debate on Bosnia, because that is not the
subject that we are dealing with. We may hit it peripherally, but
there is no opportunity here. I would also point out to the
minister that this is March 23. Unless I remember incorrectly,
the mandate for our commitment in Bosnia runs out on March
31, eight days from now. Is this the time for us to debate or
should it have been done in December or perhaps January, so
that we could have had some impact on whether or not we are
going to renew our commitment in Bosnia? I think this istoo late.
10870
Also, if this debate were to be on Bosnia, it should have been
instigated by the other side.
The airborne inquiry I think has been well laid out. The
minister has elected to stop the inquiry proceedings as of
November 28. In keeping with his remarks about standing by his
decision to disband the airborne, I suggest that he should have
extended the mandate of that inquiry to March 6, when the
airborne was disbanded and thereby allow the inquiry to
determine whether or not he was justified in so doing.
Also I question whether the airborne inquiry is related to the
forces as a whole. It will of necessity confine itself to incidents
around the airborne itself. I question whether that is in fact
relatable to the whole armed forces.
The minister talked about the prevailing negative scrutiny on
the armed forces. I very much regret that.
(1115 )
As he said, I have spent many years in the forces. I think they
do good work. It is unfortunate that they come under adverse
publicity.
However, in the case of Shidane Arone who was tortured and
murdered in Somalia, this individual was under that torture and
hollering his lungs out for the better part of six hours. I would
say he would have been shouting for two of those hours. Where
was the commanding officer when that was taking place? Where
was the company commander, the platoon commander? Where
were the senior NCOs who were allowing this to happen? They
could not have avoided knowing that something was going on
but they did not intervene.
It will obviously come out in the inquiry that the leadership
was not there. Why was it not there? It is because it had not been
instilled somewhere else. That is the concern I have when the
minister says that everything is great in the armed forces. I do
not believe it is great. There are a lot of problems.
The minister mentioned the matter of compensation for the
forces and I laud him on that. When we have sailors on welfare
there is something wrong in the armed forces.
The minister, basically though, talked about the personnel in
the forces and I support him 100 per cent on that. The problem is
he did not address the command and control problem which is
the one at which this motion is aimed.
The reports from Colonel Oehring and Brigadier-General
Jeffries point out very plainly that there is a command and
control problem and a morale problem but the minister has not
dealt with that. He said that anything is possible. If anything is
possible how about commissioning an inquiry to have a look at
the overall thing outside the Somalian inquiry. If it is good,
congratulations, but if it is not good then let us do something
about it because our people are in jeopardy.
An hon. member: How many inquiries do you want?
Mr. Frazer (Saanich-Gulf Islands): In response to the
member's question, I would like to see two inquiries at the
moment, one on Somalia and one on the command and control in
the armed forces.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): I would request that the
hon. member address his questions to the previous speaker.
Comments on the floor are not heard by the public.
Mr. Collenette: Madam Speaker, I would like to comment on
one point. The hon. member for Saanich-Gulf Islands berates
me for saying that this is not a place to debate our
re-engagement in Bosnia and Croatia.
I want to emphasize that although we are prepared and all is in
motion to send people to those two countries, the final decision
by cabinet has not been taken. He said it was not the place to
debate that. However, he spent most of his speech not addressing
his own motion. He talked about everything but defence policy.
What is good for the goose is good for the gander. If he can talk
about anything to do with defence policy then any other member
can and that includes whether or not we should re-engage in
Bosnia and Croatia.
Another point is that the hon. member did not look at the text
of the remarks I made the other day on establishing the inquiry.
November 28, 1994 was the date chosen because that was the
last date a member of the chain of command caused anything to
happen with respect to the Somalia deployment. That was
putting in train the court martial process for Captain Sox which
was completed this week. It is why November 28, 1994 was
chosen, because it dealt with the last action of a member of the
chain of command.
The inquiry will answer a lot of the concerns that Canadians
have had with respect to the operations of the armed forces. Hon.
members would be wise to let the commissioners do their jobs.
They have the right to subpoena witnesses and to hear all kinds
of evidence. At national defence we will make everything
available to them: military police reports and all other kinds of
investigations. Members of the forces and civil servants may be
called on to testify. We will co-operate in every way.
For the good of the forces and the good of the country, why
can we not let the inquiry do its job? We will not have much
longer to wait. I ask the hon. member, please, to consider that.
Mr. Leonard Hopkins (Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke,
Lib.): Madam Speaker, I want to ask the minister a couple of
questions. The motion today deals with the public inquiry.
10871
(1120 )
That public inquiry will be centred on something that went
wrong. As a result, the entire Canadian forces will be aimed at
that during the course of the inquiry and that is sad for the forces
as a whole.
I ask the minister today if he could explain to the House in
very brief, general terms at least some of the positive things that
went on in Somalia. I have a whole sheaf here listing things that
the Canadian forces and the Canadian Airborne Regiment did
during their posting in Somalia.
When the incident that received so much publicity happened
in Somalia, in my opinion whether rightly or wrongly our own
defence headquarters at the time handled it very poorly. The
minister was not around. He was off enjoying a much more
leisurely type of life in those days. However, he is here to see the
end of this difficult era for the Canadian forces.
I am glad he mentioned General Jeffries and Colonel Peter
Kenward. They are tremendous people. The forces have done a
great job of coming back and correcting things that were wrong.
However, in all this there has to be something positive.
I wonder if the minister would explain the role of the forces in
Somalia; in schools, on roads, on helping them to build up their
own police and their own security within their community. As he
knows, his department has received many letters complimenting
them on that very thing-
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): I am sorry. I want to
give the minister time to respond.
Mr. Collenette: Madam Speaker, I am glad the hon. member
raised it. He has Petawawa in his constituency and he is a very
knowledgeable individual.
I am sorry that time did not permit me to talk about the good
that was achieved in our deployment to Somalia. I will leave it to
him and to other members to talk about it. He is absolutely right.
While there were incidents that occurred that have brought some
cloud over the Canadian Armed Forces, let us not forget that our
participation there was very beneficial to the United Nations'
mission. There were a lot of accomplishments. Those
accomplishments will be recognized by those people who
served. We are in the process of preparing a medal for the people
who participated in Somalia.
Let us not judge the whole of the mission by the troubling
incidents that occurred. They will be investigated.
[Translation]
Mr. Jean-Marc Jacob (Charlesbourg, BQ): Madam
Speaker, from the outset, I want to say that I will keep to the
motion tabled by the hon. member for Saanich-Gulf Islands. I
intend to support this motion so long as it meets the demands of
the Bloc Quebecois. In this regard, I indicated my approval at
the Minister of Defence's announcement of the establishment of
the commission of inquiry and I congratulate him for setting it
up. I also congratulate him on his choice of commissioners.
However, as I indicated to the press, I find the mandate of the
commission relatively limited and I will explain why. We would
clearly tend to support a request by the hon. member for
Saanich-Gulf Islands to broaden the commission of inquiry's
mandate. However, before I go on to explain, I would mention
that I was listening earlier to the Minister of Defence praising
and very clearly applauding the fine actions of the Canadian
military over the years. He expressed surprise that members of
this House tended to frequently criticize the army and find fault
with it without perhaps knowing much about it.
(1125)
I would like to respond to the Minister of Defence by saying
that, unfortunately, at times, the better one knows a subject, the
more one tends to criticize. The reason is that, like everyone
who has spoken on this matter, I believe the armed forces have
performed courageous feats of arms and have a reputation for
pride and courage earned on a number of occasions.
However, some people try to hide behind the fine reputation
of the armed forces. In my opinion, they must be weeded out,
like bad apples.
For a number of months, I believed that the Minister of
Defence really intended carrying out what we might call a purge
at the Department of National Defence. But when I heard him
talk this morning, I was a little less sure and was disappointed to
see that he does not intend to take the issue any further than he
has.
To prove my point, I traced back the development of the
Airborne Regiment in Petawawa since it was founded in 1968.
From the very beginning, it has welcomed infantry soldiers from
three other regiments. Now I will get into how military tradition
and reputation shaped the regiment.
Normally, it is the officers and commanding officers who
mold a regiment to their image for a specific mission. One of the
Airborne Regiment's first commanders was General Vernon,
who served in the years 1975, 1977 and 1978.
In the early 1980s, many problems were reported around the
base at Petawawa. I regret, by the way, that the hon. member
who represents the base did not give us any examples. In fact,
police reports show that many brawls and fights were caused by
members of the Airborne while they were under the influence of
drugs or alcohol.
I will continue reciting the regiment's evolution. The pranks
and escapades which have occurred there from day one were
10872
never any secret. By the way, on a few occasions, they were even
brought to the minister's attention here in the House.
The Petawawa base is not only home to the Airborne
Regiment, but also to other members of the military and other
soldiers who are not necessarily part of the Airborne's second
commando. On this base, people have been seen marching
around carrying white supremacist flags or wearing Ku Klux
Klan armbands and there have even been disgraceful scenes,
skirmishes and fist fights, in the officers' mess, to the full
knowledge of the commanding officers of this base. I found no
evidence whatsoever that anyone of rank was ever reprimanded.
For the sake of troop morale, it would be a little difficult for
officers to lay blame on one soldier in particular when they
themselves were not always innocent. As I said earlier, and I
stress, a regiment generally is the reflection of the officers who
command the soldiers and who train them for certain operations
or missions.
In light of the mission it was to undertake, the Airborne
Regiment is an elite, overtrained regiment with superior
physical and mental endurance.
When we learn of incidents like those that occurred in
Somalia-it is important to underline that some events occurred
before the Airborne was deployed-, what I find disturbing
about the board of inquiry set up by the minister is that these
events will probably be overlooked, as I understood from the
board of inquiry's terms of reference.
(1130)
The board's mandate is limited to the deployment of the
regiment in Somalia, before departure, during the mission and
afterwards. But the regiment did not spring up overnight. It
evolved over the years.
I wish to remind you that one of the individuals accused of
misconduct in Somalia, Captain Rainville, had previously been
responsible for an incident at the Citadelle in Quebec City,
which had been reported by that city's municipal police. He held
a command post in Somalia, and after he returned, there was a
military police investigation, weapons were found at his home,
and he was fined. When he appeared before a court-martial, the
Citadelle incidents, which demonstrate this individual's violent
and aggressive behaviour, were never brought up.
I think that these things should not be forgotten. When the
regiment was deployed in Somalia, it was under the command of
Colonel Morneault. Again, some documents show that Colonel
Morneault recommended that the Airborne not be sent to
Somalia because it was not yet ready. According to Colonel
Morneault, the regiment's training and its moral or
psychological strength were such that it was not yet fit to
participate in such a mission.
What did they do for Colonel Morneault? They dismissed
him. They went ahead and sent the regiment to Somalia. One of
the first incidents in Somalia occurred in early January 1993. In
January 1993, the military hierarchy was notified of leadership
problems and of cases of misconduct within 2 Commando in
Somalia. In particular, Major Seward, who was first fined for
accidentally discharging his weapon and later served a written
reprimand for promoting too aggressive action against the
Somali.
Curiously enough, when HQ officials tour Somalia with
former deputy minister Fowler a month or two later, in February
or March of 1993, no problem was found, in terms of leadership
or misconduct. On March 4, five or six days after HQ officials
left, the famous video of a Somali man being killed and another
one tortured was shot.
I have great trouble understanding that seasoned individuals
in a position of authority, such as generals and deputy ministers,
never realized there was something wrong with these regiments.
It might be very difficult to admit that the very people who
command and give our troops a sense of what is expected of
them were unable to detect the problem, although it had been
pointed out to them prior to their visit. The incidents occurred
one week after their visit.
My point is that all that the Airborne's history says is that
every commanding officer of the regiment was a good officer.
The minister mentioned earlier that Lieutenant-Colonel
Kenward, recipient of the Order of Merit, was among those who
commanded the platoon, at the very time of the unfortunate
incidents.
I find it strange that the commission of inquiry is limited to
specific events and not allowed to investigate the actions of the
officers who shaped this regiment and were followed.
It is also unfortunate that ultimately the only ones penalized
by the dismantling of the Airborne are the soldiers sent back to
other regiments, while the commanding officers have been
reassigned to headquarters here, in Ottawa, with more or less
unspecified duties.
(1135)
This is why I support the motion tabled by the hon. member
for Saanich-Gulf Islands. The minister should act, considering
the many instances of spending-which could almost be
qualified as ridiculous-within the Department of National
Defence. Let me just give you the example of General Mike
Vernon, the force commander in Ontario, who spent something
like $562,000 on furniture for his office. Again, his superior
officer covered up the whole thing.
10873
We find out such things when members of the armed forces
write to the official opposition critic for national defence issues,
such as this corporal who wrote: ``Be careful not to confuse the
effect and the cause. All these stories of suicide in the armed
forces, crimes in Somalia and hazing in the Airborne Regiment
are only the symptoms of a greater problem. The reality is that
the Canadian Forces, and particularly the combat units, are
demoralized''. There have been references to the poor
leadership displayed by some commanders, etc., 2 Commando
in Somalia, and 1 Commando.
When, within an army which a majority of people respect as a
whole, non-commissioned officers point out very obvious
problems, it is because a real malaise exists. There has been a lot
of talk about the morale of the troops. I am trying to put myself
in the shoes of a private. Several of them told me that it is
difficult for them to accept the fact that an officer lives in a
house valued at $650,000, and that the minister tells me that it is
because this officer must act as a host for foreign visitors or
generals. But generals here in Ottawa live in smaller houses than
the one Lieutenant General Scott Clements lives in, in
Winnipeg. The discrepancy between the treatment of combat
troops and that of senior officers is probably one of the major
causes of low morale in the armed forces.
When we consider, as the hon. member for Saanich-Gulf
Islands pointed out, that some seamen tried to go on welfare
because they had trouble making ends meet, and when we hear
some officers say that you do not join the army to get rich, and
we then look at the behaviour of senior officers and the way they
sometimes waste money, it is easy to understand why the morale
of the military is very difficult to maintain and why these people
have lost all motivation. If the department will not or cannot
clean up its act and get rid of some of its people, I do not think
the situation can improve.
To continue my speech, it is very often said, and the hon.
member for Saanich-Gulf Islands and the minister mentioned
this as well, that the Department of National Defence has
suffered many successive budget cuts. This is followed by some
obvious questions: How are they going to play their role? How
are they going to get equipment? How will they be able to carry
out their mission?
Initially, I found these arguments persuasive, but when we
examined the National Defence budget, the Auditor General
pointed out several items-infrastructure management, for
instance-where the Department of National Defence could
easily have saved between 100 and 125 million dollars through
better management. If we look at communications, between 325
and 400 million dollars could have been saved on total
procurement over a period of three years. Almost every time the
Department of National Defence orders or draws up an estimate
for the purchase of materiel or equipment or labour, there is
always a cost overrun.
(1140)
Two days ago, we were talking about the CSE in the House,
and I gave examples of estimates where the cost overrun had
been as much as 120 per cent on equipment purchased by the
Department of National Defence. I think the department should
start by cleaning up its management procedures and eliminating
certain individuals who are no longer performing as they should.
I may add that in the Canadian Forces, there are senior
officers and non-commissioned officers who would gladly see
the end of the situation that exists within the forces and get rid of
certain individuals they have identified, but not publicly,
because it would hurt their careers. I think it is very sad that
some people will not take this responsibility because it might
have an impact on their careers. I would say that the Canadian
Forces suffer from two evils that are eroding them from within.
First, the military bureaucracy. Nearly one half of the forces are
in their offices from 9 to 5 and must be paid a premium when
they are on a mission. Are they still soldiers?
Second,-and this is not flattering for politicians-the
politicization of the Defence Staff. Because it would hurt their
careers, they make no major decisions and will not criticize one
of their colleagues or subordinates because that might hurt the
individual or his or her career. When we have reached that stage,
I think the rot is widespread, but there are still some very good
people in the armed forces.
A recent poll conducted nation-wide revealed that 48 per cent
of Canadians are starting to have doubts about the quality and
value of our armed forces, since the latest revelations
concerning national defence. I think it is up to the government to
improve the self-esteem of the Canadian Forces by extending
the mandate of the commission of inquiry to cover all
individuals who in some way have tarnished the reputation of
the Canadian military.
[English]
Mr. Fred Mifflin (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
National Defence and Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.):
Madam Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for his
contribution to this important debate. I have a question which
really is for clarification.
A few moments before his conclusion the hon. member talked
about the civilianization and bureaucratization of the Canadian
forces. It is on this issue that I want clarification. I think the hon.
member used the expression of people working from nine to five
and asked whether they were really members of the Canadian
forces or whether they were really in the army. I am not sure
what he meant by that.
I am not sure this is what he meant, but if his suggestion is that
there are soldiers, sailors and airmen who punch clocks from
nine to five, I want to tell him that is not the case. I think he
knows it is not the case. He and I shared a tent in Bosnia. It is
very much a 24-hour a day operation, weekends and evenings. I
know very few members of the Canadian forces, those in
uniform and indeed many civilians in the civil service of the
Department of National Defence, who operate on a nine to five
10874
basis. It is very much a 24-hour a day operation, particularly for
those in uniform.
Therefore, I really am quite insistent on seeking clarification
for that aspect of his presentation. Otherwise I think it was
generally positive.
[Translation]
Mr. Jacob: Madam Speaker, I said civilianization and not
civilization. I will explain what I meant. When I talk of
civilianization, I mean that there are civilians working at
National Defence, but there are also members of the military
who work from 9 to 5. I have nothing against that.
(1145)
I would like to remind the parliamentary secretary that
Canada's peace missions, generally brilliantly conducted, use
less than 10 per cent of the total potential of our armed forces.
We did indeed go to the former Yugoslavia with the
parliamentary secretary and we saw soldiers working 24 hours a
day. They did an excellent job, and I congratulate them on it.
However, we must remember that, within the Canadian
Armed Forces, there are barely 9,000 privates and more than
32,000 corporals and sergeants. I will spare you the number of
colonels, lieutenant colonels and generals. Only privates,
corporals and sergeants go out in the field. These people, I grant
you, do excellent work, and I admire them. I have been able to
see this for myself, on site.
What I would like to say, however, is that, when people do
civilian work from 9 to 5, whether they push pencils or complete
forms,-I might make an aside here to point out that the Auditor
General said the army should remodel its administration due to
the many forms required for a decision to be made-this is what
I meant when I said that, when pencil pushers or 9 to 5 civil
servants are sent on a mission, on the seas, in the air or
elsewhere, they should be paid a bonus, because they have lost,
if you will, all their training, since they have become clerks and
not soldiers.
[English]
Mr. Jack Frazer (Saanich-Gulf Islands, Ref.): Madam
Speaker, I listened very carefully and with great interest to the
remarks of the hon. member for Charlesbourg.
I think I heard correctly but I ask for confirmation that he was
speaking about overcommitment in the armed forces and about
bureaucracy. I wanted to ask him if in the bureaucracy he was
speaking of he included the head man in the shop, the minister.
Does the member for Charlesbourg see the minister being
responsible for some of the bureaucracy and some of the
problems that are created for the armed forces? In other words,
does the overcommitment result from decisions taken from the
top?
[Translation]
Mr. Jacob: Madam Speaker, I will answer the hon. member
for Saanich-Gulf Islands, perhaps with a grin. I do not claim
that the minister can be lumped in with the bureaucracy of the
Canadian Armed Forces, except on a level of responsibility,
because everyone and anyone knows that ministers are
responsible for the decisions made in their departments.
Regarding this issue, I would like to refer you to the Auditor
General's 1992 report, which pointed out several administrative
problems and bureaucratic shortcomings in his critique of the
national defence administration.
The Auditor General repeated the exercise in November 1994,
pointing out several shortcomings in the Canadian army. In this
sense, I think that the minister should be held responsible for not
having trimmed the bureaucracy enough and fixed the
administrative problems at National Defence, and for having
missed out on potential savings in his last budget. Instead, he
went full tilt in the direction of closing or reducing bases, but
nowhere is there any evidence that he really intends to address
the problems within the administration, which employs
approximately 70,000 military staff with 30,000 civilian
support staff to back them up at the Department of National
Defence.
When I see a member of the armed forces getting paid more to
do the same job as a civilian, I wonder about the administration,
or, rather, its efficiency. That is why I was saying that there are
many problems with the administration of the Canadian Armed
Forces and they are brought up very rarely. Very often, we hear
members of the government say that all is well in the army, that
there is no problem and they never criticize the army.
(1150)
In closing, I would just like to quote an English newspaper
article on the armed forces, which was run about four or five
months ago. The journalist said that ``armed forces know no
master''.
[English]
Mr. Fred Mifflin (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
National Defence and Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.):
Madam Speaker, I thank both members who contributed to the
debate.
I mention one point by way of a comment to which the
minister's presentation alluded. We are talking about
bureaucratisation. I remind the House that in the last 10 years
the Canadian forces have been subjected to a number of very
dramatic changes that have been fundamental to their
organization. I believe the hon. member for Saanich-Gulf
Islands will agree because he and I both went through it.
10875
First there was the Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms.
There was the Privacy Act and there was the Canadian Human
Rights Act. They are all great acts, but they are legislation which
required a fundamental change in the way the Canadian forces
did things. That caused a tremendous amount of
bureaucratisation and reporting by military and civilian people
up the chain of command about how changes were to be made to
the Canadian forces and how they responded to these items. I
underscore the sometimes traumatic experience this caused
people whose main job was to be prepared to fight for Canada.
I say this by way of comment. Perhaps I will include more of it
in a general sense in my presentation later this morning.
[Translation]
Mr. Jacob: Just a short comment, Madam Speaker. There has
indeed been much restructuring within the Canadian Forces. I
wish to point out to the parliamentary secretary that in
December 1994, the Auditor General and a few generals
appeared before the supply and services committee-on which I
sat-to talk about the awarding of certain contracts. I asked then
Auditor General Peter Kasurak, who deals with national defence
data, if it was conceivable that better management could save
close to $1 billion. I asked him to give me a yes or no answer. He
said yes.
Therefore, I think that there are still improvements to be made
and that is what the departments should try to do.
[English]
Mrs. Jan Brown (Calgary Southeast, Ref.): Madam
Speaker, it is a real honour for me to rise to speak to the motion
today. I state at the outset that my comments will reflect a
contribution to the debate in a reasoned manner. We all come
from different ideologies and perspectives on the issues and I
believe my remarks reflect that.
As I speak today I will be considering what I see as a lack of
strategic planning from the government regarding its
management and administration of the Canadian forces. The
government perhaps has let partisan politics interfere with the
operations of our military.
Our national defence force is the guardian of our freedoms
and a reflection of our values. It is being neglected by a
government that does not appear to understand the meaning of
an overall strategic plan for military operations in Canada and
abroad.
Many examples come to mind. The disbandment of the
Canadian airborne regiment for political expediency, base
closures, relocations and open-ended peacekeeping missions
are stark evidence of what it means to have no plan. I will be
referring to these examples to demonstrate my point that the
government has an obligation to the armed forces which
includes accountability for planning and expenditure of tax
dollars.
The decision to disband the airborne regiment seems to have
been an overreaction on the part of government for politically
expedient reasons. There is no question that the videos were
disturbing. Many Canadians felt as I did, but I question whether
the actions of a few individual soldiers merit the elimination of
an entire regiment.
The airborne had a long and distinguished history. Airborne
soldiers served gallantly in many of the world's most troubled
areas in military and peacekeeping capacities. This fact should
not be overlooked. Judging the airborne on its long and valued
service, disbandment because of the actions of a few hardly
seems rational. To add insult to injury, I have learned that the
soldiers serving in the airborne regiment in Somalia, who for the
most part performed brilliantly, have not yet received their
medals.
(1155)
A quick reaction force which the airborne represents is still
needed in Canada. At this point the Minister of National
Defence acknowledges but has yet to propose a replacement for
the airborne. His lack of action leaves Canada without an
important and necessary element to our national defence. This is
an unacceptable situation for Canada.
One wonders what the long awaited public inquiry will
uncover. By disbanding the airborne perhaps the government
hoped to avoid answering some of the more troubling questions
that have been raised with regard to high level cover-ups
resulting from Canadian conduct in Somalia.
How readily will lower ranked soldiers come forward and tell
what they know? What effect could such actions have on their
future careers? Could they be subject to later intimidation by
higher ranking officers?
The decision to close down and relocate CFB Calgary to
Edmonton is another example of where our military needs have
not received the highest priority. Is Calgary being punished
because it elected only reform MPs in 1993? There have been
allusions to this very point.
Calgary Herald columnist Don Braid wrote on Tuesday,
February 28: ``Documents obtained through access to
information show that there are no sound economic or military
reasons for this move''. He went on to express the opinion of
many others that closing CFB Edmonton may be less costly than
the closure of the Calgary base.
Cost benefit analysis would be useful to determine the
wisdom of the decision. However without any analysis available
I for one remain skeptical of the motive. Past experience has
demonstrated that predicted relocation costs have proven to be
wrong.
10876
In last year's budget the Harvey barracks which housed the
Lord Strathcona's Horse, the Royal Canadian, was slated to
move to Edmonton. At the time of last year's budget the defence
minister estimated that the cost of the move would be roughly
$23 million. He has since admitted that the cost will be nearer
$70 million with some speculating that the final amount could
reach $150 million.
These high costs for the relocation of one part of the base lead
me to wonder how much the final tally will be to relocate the
entire base to Edmonton. The lingering impression is that of
political expediency.
I do not want to leave the impression that the Reform Party is
against the reorganization of our military forces. However the
reorganization must be done for the right reasons, namely cost
efficiency within our forces while maintaining effective
military capability. Strategic necessity dictates that government
cease using the Canadian forces as the political football.
Calgarians will accept the base closing if it can be proven that
the $300 million cost of consolidating the bases in Edmonton
will save money in the long run. However if no true economic
savings results in the consolidation, Calgarians, those from my
riding of Calgary Southeast and all other Albertans will
remember. The national energy program disaster has not been
forgotten in the west.
Any base relocation should be undertaken on the basis of
planning and efficiencies. Detailed cost analysis studies should
be completed to determine what bases should be kept open and
which should be closed.
Another point is directed to our peacekeeping commitments
around the globe. In my maiden speech in the House I spoke of
the tragic conflict in Bosnia and the involvement of our
Canadian soldiers in a war without end. My fear at the time was
that the Canadian presence in Bosnia was not lessening the
fighting but sustaining it. The aid we were providing was often
stolen by the warring factions thus feeding the fighting that
Canadians were trying to end. A bottomless IV bag sustaining a
killing machine was my expression of the problem at the time. I
still hold the same opinion today.
Canadian soldiers remain in a war zone with no peace to keep
nor make. We have committed a Canadian presence in the region
for an indefinite period of time and for an indefinite
expenditure. Our cash strapped government has yet to
implement a long range plan for such open-ended
commitments.
Canada needs a clear set of guidelines for foreign
intervention. We must continue our longstanding tradition of
keeping peace in the world's troubled spots but after a conflict
has been resolved. Canada's contributions to sustaining peace in
the world's conflicts have been second to none. However, in a
time of budgetary restraint, open ended missions costing
staggering sums of money should be carefully reviewed.
(1200)
Since the end of World War II Canada has spent tens of
billions of dollars on peacekeeping. Logically questions arise
for all of us to consider. What is our role in the volatile area?
What is the potential length of the mission? What will such
undertakings cost?
I do not want to leave the impression that I do not salute or
acknowledge the valuable endeavours of our military the world
over. However, we cannot conceivably embark on missions
which last for decades at a time. Canadians were in Cyprus for
30 years. Our soldiers had been keeping peace between India
and Pakistan for 45 years. Recently more Canadians have been
sent to Haiti.
Members might argue all of these tours of duty are necessary.
If that is so, how do they suggest we finance these commitments
when we have no military plan?
We have a responsibility to all Canadians to spend their
money wisely. Therefore, the missions Canada undertakes must
be planned according to cost, in those places where Canadians
can securely and effectively keep the peace within a timeframe
for withdrawal.
I impress on all members that in a still dangerous world where
governments have less and less money Canada's armed forces
must adapt to fulfil its basic responsibilities in Canada and
abroad. For this to happen government must manage the forces
in a strictly professional manner, free of political manipulation.
The government must develop new operational techniques to
ensure the military uses its financial resources in the most
efficient way possible. This fits into the larger context of
strategic planning which should be incorporated into all aspects
of military activity so that our honourable military tradition
continues untarnished.
Mr. John Bryden (Hamilton-Wentworth, Lib.): Madam
Speaker, the hon. member for Calgary Southeast made allusion
to the disbanding of the airborne regiment which I would like to
comment on. The member connected the disbanding with the
hazing videos and suggested the videos were the reason the
regiment was dismantled.
I cannot speak for the Minister of National Defence or his
parliamentary secretary on this issue but it was not the hazing
videos that led to the disbanding of airborne regiment. It was the
killings in Somalia.
When we look at this issue we have to remember, just as the
member for Calgary Southeast said, that Canada's military has a
role in sustaining peace worldwide. The image of our
peacekeepers abroad is vital. What happened in Somalia led to a
situation in which the airborne regiment will be forever haunted
by that incident and would never get away from it and that
incidents such as the hazing videos would turn up time and time
again and bring back the memory of what happened in Somalia.
10877
I do not think the government had much choice with respect to
the airborne, tragic as it was. What happened in Somalia
involving the airborne is like losing a major land battle as far as
our national image is concerned. I do not think we had much
choice on that.
Mrs. Brown (Calgary Southeast): Madam Speaker, I thank
the hon. member for his comments. Are the videos a mere
coincidence?
I have a constituent who was part of the airborne regiment. He
has called me a number of times. He is heart sick over the events
of the disbanding of the airborne regiment. He said to me: ``You
cannot imagine how it feels to know that with a tradition that has
lasted for decades, I am one of the members of the airborne
regiment which in a sense has been dishonoured in the Canadian
context of the military tradition. I have to live with that
always''. It is a very unfortunate and tragic result.
(1205 )
In the year between these events and now much happened
within the airborne regiment to clean it up. It is unfortunate that
was not acknowledge or recognized as the decision was
undertaken.
I raise the issue on behalf of the constituent who was part of
the airborne regiment and because of the military tradition for
which Calgary is noted. I hope the Minister of National Defence,
as he prepares another reaction force and a ready force to protect
Canadian soil, will acknowledge the tremendous contributions
and traditions of the airborne regiment. It is an absolute
sacrilege that it was disbanded.
Mr. George Proud (Hillsborough, Lib.): Madam Speaker,
some of the member's statements are right about the great
history the regiment has had and there is no doubt about it.
During the consultations we had last year from April through
to the end of October on the defence review I suggested, as had
other members as we talked about Canada's shrinking budgets
or shrinking military, that it was possible to do other things. We
do not have a huge sealift or airlift capability. We suggested that
maybe we could use the airborne regiment to go into certain
areas. They tell us they do not like to use that in peacekeeping
operations.
I asked them why we needed an airborne regiment at this time.
If we ever need one there are a lot of people out there who are
very capable and who would come back in and form a regiment.
If that is the case, why do we need one?
Mrs. Brown (Calgary Southeast): Madam Speaker, I would
like to clarify something once again for the member. I do thank
him for his question.
The focus of my presentation today was on strategic military
planning for the Canadian Armed Forces. That included
examples of the airborne, the open ended peacekeeping
missions and the closure of Calgary CFB. Those examples were
drawn specifically to demonstrate the lack of and the need for
long term strategic planning within the military.
Mr. Stephen Harper (Calgary West, Ref.): Madam Speaker,
I am rising today to speak on the motion concerning the
Department of National Defence and the problems of
accountability in it. I want to especially thank the member for
Saanich-Gulf Islands for having raised this motion today.
I have raised a number of issues regarding things that have
transpired in the Department of National Defence; whether they
were the problems that came out of the airborne's service in
Somalia or events in Bosnia and Croatia, CFB Calgary,
problems of command and control, general morale problems. I
have raised all of these issues.
To government members who have touched upon this, these
questions have not come from opposition research. These
questions did not come from the media. In most cases these
stories and these concerns came to us from active military
people of all ranks who are very concerned about what is
occurring in the Department of National Defence.
I want to spend my time mainly on the issue of the
infrastructure rationalization and Calgary's role in that. In doing
so I do not intend to dispute in any way the need for defence cuts
and the need for government spending cuts in general. All
parties in the House have recognized that, although the Bloc
Quebecois is very open to defence cuts as long as not a penny of
it is in Quebec. I do not share that view. I do not share a not in my
backyard approach to government spending reductions.
(1210)
I am concerned in terms of infrastructure about the decision
making process behind these cuts and specifically that
application in the Calgary case. The base in my constituency,
CFB Calgary, is going to be closed along with the base in
Chilliwack. The member for Fraser Valley East is going to
address that later. The plan is apparently to save infrastructure
costs by centralizing and consolidating the forces in Edmonton.
The history of defence consolidation and centralization over
the past generation has not been efficiency or cost saving. It has
created probably the most top heavy armed forces in the western
world.
In looking at the announcement of the closure of CFB
Calgary, in the 1994 budget it was announced that eventually the
Harvey barracks, one of the two major portions of the base,
would be closed. The Lord Strathcona's Horse and most of the 1
Service Battalion were to be moved to CFB Edmonton in
10878
1996-97. The regional medical depot there was to be relocated
within the city of Calgary.
Originally, as the member for Calgary Southeast mentioned,
the cost for this move was estimated by DND at $23 million. Six
months later the official cost estimates had escalated to $44
million and sometime after that they escalated to nearly $70
million.
As little as a few weeks before the budget letters were going
out from the Department of Finance assuring local taxpayers in
Calgary the cost of the move was only $23 million. External cost
estimates, which frankly were much more detailed and credible
than those released by the department, placed the cost for this
move at about $142 million.
It is true that in the year 2005 leases for some parts of the
Harvey barracks will begin to expire but it is also true that
portions of this land have very favourable leases running to the
year 2050. I have trouble believing a compromise was not
possible. It would have compared favourably to moving men
and equipment and constructing facilities to house them at CFB
Edmonton.
Let us say that we can even for a minute accept the
department's own revised figure of $44 million and a projected
savings of $6 million annually. Considering the time value of
money it would take over 12 years for taxpayers to break even on
the cost of this move. Obviously that cannot be justified as a cost
saving.
We have to ask what is the real motivation for the move.
According to documents we obtained through access to
information the primary justification was to compensate
Edmonton for the decision to move that city's air squadrons to
Winnipeg, which in and of itself is probably worth investigating,
when these inconsistencies are examined on a case by case basis.
I called for an impartial review in the case of CFB Calgary. If we
look at these moves across the country in combination with the
obvious leadership deficit in the department, the review is more
imperative.
There were 30 such changes announced alone in the 1994
budget. My guess is that if each of these cost saving measures is
as expensive as the changes to CFB Calgary, we will have a very
serious problem.
In the 1995 budget it was additionally announced that the rest
of the base, Currie barracks, the 1st Battalion Princess Patricia's
Canadian Light Infantry, the 1 Canadian Mechanized Brigade
Group headquarters and Signal Squadron, the 1 Field
Ambulance, the 1 Military Police Platoon and the 1 Intelligence
Platoon will also move from Calgary to Edmonton. Additionally
the medical depot, which last year was to be relocated within
Calgary, will now also be moving to Edmonton.
In the budget there are no cost estimates available at all, not
even the bad ones we had last year. We have since the budget
seen media reports that say the base move will cost about $300
million now that the government is closing the entire base.
Other reports quote defence officials as saying they have no idea
of what the cost will be, that the cost analysis will not even be
completed until later this summer.
Again, this lack of financial information must lead to the
conclusion that the decision was not based on cost criteria.
(1215 )
One wonders whether this two stage announcement means
that the defence minister's cuts have no focus and no strategy, or
whether really he has a political strategy rather than a military
strategy. We know there is something going on. The minister
himself was quoted on March 6 in the Calgary Herald as saying:
``In the long run, we were going to close Calgary anyway. We
did not really say that last year because we did not want to upset
people any more than we had to''.
This is very distressing in light of the calls my office is now
receiving, calls about expensive upgrades to the base facilities
over the last year and even calls about ongoing work. More than
a week after the base closure was announced these renovations
were still proceeding. New siding was put on some of the
buildings and the Currie barracks received new
water-conserving toilets.
I should mention that the minister said they had already made
this decision a year ago. About a year ago I attended the opening
of a brand spanking new headquarters building, the Waters
building on the Currie barracks at CFB Calgary. Maybe that
explains why the announcement was not made last year. It is
pretty hard to announce the closure of a base when opening a
brand new headquarters building on it.
I have asked for the following minimum information on this
decision: How much will it cost to clean up the entire base? How
much have similar clean-ups cost in the past? I want realistic
projections. I have asked for an accounting of all the renovations
and improvements done over the last year. How much, in effect,
did we pay for the minister's decision not to release his
announcement one year ago?
I have also asked the government for a complete breakdown of
the costs to move equipment and personnel from CFB Calgary to
Edmonton and for estimates for the subsequent construction that
will be needed at CFB Edmonton. I also want to know what other
renovations and maintenance costs are likely at CFB Edmonton
since saving these kinds of dollars was cited as part of the reason
for the move from Calgary.
I also note a number of issues have not even been addressed
yet. CFB Calgary remains the marshalling point for emergency
operations to the province of B.C. in the event of an earthquake
or some other catastrophe. Those kinds of problems have to be
addressed.
10879
I would point out in closing that Calgary is not a government
town; it is a town of entrepreneurs and business people. Calgary
will survive this loss but not without pain and regret, in
particular, not without some regret on the loss of a valuable and
longstanding military tradition.
Contrary to some mythology, Calgary was not founded by the
guns of outlaws, nor was it founded by the guns of private
citizens enforcing their own laws. Calgary was founded by a
police detachment of the North-West Mounted Police, then a
paramilitary force. A year after Calgary was officially
incorporated, the Alberta Field Force was formed at CFB
Calgary to help provide units in the Riel rebellion. In 1900 the
Lord Strathcona's Horse was founded to serve in the South
African war. Since then, various regiments have trained in both
world wars. Calgary has been one of the most popular sites for
garrison posting.
I end by saying that I have invited the minister to come to
Calgary not just to meet privately with officials to discuss land
but to meet publicly with concerned citizens from all walks of
life on the base. He would be able to discuss this decision and to
reveal fully to them the costs and the reasons for the decision,
both economic and military.
[Translation]
Mr. Jean-Marc Jacob (Charlesbourg, BQ): Madam
Speaker, I would like to comment on what the hon. member for
Calgary West said.
He indicated in his remarks that the Bloc Quebecois was very
open to defence cuts as long as there are not made in Quebec's
back yard. I would like to tell him that for nearly 15 years,
Quebec has been hit by every new set of defence cuts. I would
also like to point out that a study commissioned by Canadian
Forces General Addy at National Defence Headquarters and just
released in December 1994 shows Quebec's distinct
disadvantage over the past 15 years.
Even a 20 per cent reduction in overall DND infrastructures,
except in Quebec, would not correspond to Quebec's population
or contribution to the budget. I have had enough of this ``not in
our back yard'' business, because we have been at a
disadvantage for 15 years.
(1220)
Mr. Harper (Calgary West): Madam Speaker, it is not true
that all defence cuts were made in Quebec in the past. Cuts were
made in Summerside, for example, as well as in Penhold.
Several Canadian provinces were affected.
I generally agree with my colleague that while DND spends
less in Quebec and in western Canada than elsewhere in Canada,
cuts were steeper in that province. Note in this respect the
results of the last election. In Ontario and Altantic Canada,
where Liberals were elected, you have higher defence spending
and lesser cuts. This is a problem, I agree. But it was the Bloc
Quebecois that requested a 25 per cent reduction in defence
spending. It is hard to carry out a reduction of this magnitude
without making any cuts in Quebec.
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska-Rivière-du-Loup, BQ):
Madam Speaker, I will make a brief comment and then ask a
question.
As regards cuts in Quebec, we have indeed been penalized in
recent years, particularly since these cuts were not only
budgetary ones. Just think of the closure of the only
French-language military college in Canada. The impact is not
strictly financial, as shown by the drastic reduction in the
enrolment of French-speaking aspiring officer cadets since that
decision was made. Canada cannot be proud of that decision.
My question is as follows: Has he met, in his region, people
from the armed forces reserve who want the situation to be
cleared up because they feel that the things for which certain
elements are being blamed, as well as the fact that no light is
being shed on the issue, are hurting everyone? The result is that
people who were once very proud to be members of the reserve
or of the Canadian Forces now feel rather uncomfortable.
These people feel that things should be made very clear. We
support the Reform Party's motion because it asks that light be
shed on this issue. Can the hon. member tell us if members of the
reserve forces in his region feel the same way? Do these people
feel that the bad apples should be expelled, to avoid letting the
situation deteriorate even more?
Mr. Harper (Calgary West): Generally speaking, military
personnel are very concerned just now. They do not believe in
the government's ability to make cuts in a proper manner. It is
my view that, at present, the government does not care about the
problems confronting military personnel.
[English]
Mr. Fred Mifflin (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
National Defence and Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.):
Madam Speaker, as I said earlier in my question and comment, I
am pleased to participate in this debate. It is an important debate
and I welcome it.
In my presentation I am going to relate to the main purpose of
the motion. It essentially addresses morale and leadership, and
also concerns by its very nature the ambience of the times, the
kind of times we are in and how they develop.
Since this is the 50th anniversary of the victory over in Europe
by the allied forces, it is appropriate to go back to look at a
50-year parallel. I am not a military historian. I have not been
around long enough to be able to give firsthand 50 years of
military evolution. However I have studied the business and I
have been part of it for a long time, as have other members in the
House.
10880
(1225)
I would like to share with the House a parallel which I believe
we are seeing now in this day and age. Again, if I could take
some licence, I am more familiar with the naval aspect, but I
think what I say for the navy could also apply to the army and the
air force.
Let me take the House back to 1945, when we had the third
largest allied force. How that developed is important as well. Let
me take it from the navy perspective.
Canada started into World War II in 1939 with 10 ships and
2,000 people. By the end of the war, which for the sake of rough
calculation was close to 2,000 days if we take the lead up to the
beginning and the aftermath at the end, the navy finished up
from those 10 ships and 2,000 people with 400 ships and
100,000 people. That is 50 people a day and one ship every five
days. A tremendous expansion.
At the end of the war there was a demobilization. Those
people who joined to serve their country in many cases had no
intention of staying in and were quite happy to demobilize.
Another important aspect of this should not be lost. Between
1945 and the early 1950s history was in the making. The
strategic planners had run amock. It was not their fault. There
was no route; the hot war was over. Between the hot war in 1945
and the cold war in 1951, defence planners were in great
difficulty in providing direction to people in uniform.
To use a navy example, in 1949 a series of undesirable
incidents occurred on our capital ships of the day. This resulted
in the three man Mainguy inquiry. The inquiry was designed,
developed and commissioned purely to investigate the
undesirable specific incidents. The findings of that inquiry led
to a fundamental change in the way the navy went about its
business in the late 1940s, the early 1950s and on.
The difficulty in planning and in providing direction led to
some perturbations in the naval service and perhaps in the army
and air force as well. It led to an inquiry, which led to better
working conditions, better leadership and better direction. It
also happened that in 1951 we had what was called the cold war.
Since that time Canadian forces have been reducing in size,
reducing in mobility, and reducing in posturing in bases abroad.
The funding has been reduced as well. Is that surprising? It may
be undesirable for those who want to see more military
expenditures, and I happen to be one of those from time to time.
The whole world is reducing. We are now going from a cold war
to what perhaps is developing into a hot peace.
With the exception of the interregnum in the Korean days
from the early 1950s until about the mid-1950s, the forces
continued to decrease. I have a certain amount of sympathy for
the defence planners of those days, but we did have a recognized
enemy. We did have a recognized capabilities and intentions
method of defence planning.
In 1987 the government of the day provided a white paper
which was hailed to be the be all and end all. It was lauded by
those in the military, by defence planners and other defence
organizations, both allied and the other side. It provided things
like nuclear submarines for the navy, more aircraft for the air
force, more soldiers for the army, a completely new command
structure for the army, more reserves, and a further
determination to make the total force concept, that is the
amalgamation of the regulars and the reserves into one force.
(1230)
That document lasted three years. We all know the cold war
finished in 1990. We ran into the problem in the standing
committee on defence. We ran into it in the joint committee. It is
not as simple as perceiving an enemy, deciding what that enemy
may do and then planning a force structure to counter it.
Who is the enemy today? I am not sure who my enemy is.
What are its plans? If you do not know who the enemy is, it is
very difficult to figure out what its plans are. What do you do?
You do not stop planning. I disagree very strongly with my hon.
colleague from Calgary Southeast who says there is no plan.
There was no plan from 1987. I cannot blame that on the
government. It did not cause the cold war to stop. From 1990
until 1993 the Canadian forces were essentially without a white
paper. That was very serious, considering the tremendous
changes that had taken place in those years.
Every year there was an effort to reduce the budget and to
reduce the people. This was even accentuated after 1990 when
peace groups start asking Canada, where is your peace dividend?
A lot of us would say that we had our peace dividend when we
were paying 2 per cent of our gross national product for defence
in the last 20 years of the cold war, 1970 to 1990, when most of
our NATO allies were paying 5 per cent. I am not blaming that on
anybody. We happen to be in a very unique geo-strategic
position and perhaps we should not have been spending more
than 2 per cent.
In the years 1987 to 1993, the cry was that we should have a
good planning base. In that way deputy ministers, chiefs of
defence staffs, commanders and senior planners would know
what was in the budget and what was in the defence program, not
next year but five years from now. How can you plan for a force
when you do not know how much money is going to be there?
We are five years into this hot peace, as I like to call it. A little
over two years ago we had 4,700 peacekeepers committed in a
force that was shrinking. Since 1987 the Canadian forces have
10881
gone through a reduction of $21 billion, in capital expenditure
mostly, a reduction of 26,000 people in uniform and 16,500
civilians. The reserve force that had such grandiose plans in
1987 will be reduced to a lot less than was planned, to 23,000. In
any organization you cannot have such a shrinking philosophy
without it causing an effect on those people who serve.
I recognize there are difficulties. The minister recognizes
there are difficulties. There are always going to be difficulties in
an organization of 60,000 or 70,000 or 80,000 people. If you
have 10 people you are bound to have a problem with one or two.
That should not be surprising.
The Minister of National Defence announced the broadest
inquiry, certainly since the Mainguy commission in 1949. I want
to dwell on that for a few minutes. That commission was set out
to look at specific incidents in the navy, but it resulted in a
fundamental change in how the navy did its business.
(1235)
While in no way, shape or form would I preclude what kind of
findings the commission of inquiry into the Somalia affair will
conclude, the calibre of the people and their backgrounds would
lead me to believe that any of the recommendations and findings
of the commission certainly would have application not just to
the Somalia inquiry but to the downstream leadership, modus
operandi and maybe even the structure of the Canadian forces.
There is not much we can do after the fact but we can learn
lessons. I am not going to get specific about the inquiry, but
having read the 19 specific subparagraphs, it is very clear to me
that the whole range has been covered. It states in the preamble
that notwithstanding what is said in the general sense and what
is said in the specific sense, the inquiry has a pretty broad range
of matters it can look at. I take some comfort from the fact that
the problems are being addressed.
The hon. member for Saanich-Gulf Islands and I, with other
members, addressed in the joint committee on defence the issue
of morale. It was not an issue because members of the Canadian
forces were not appreciated by their fellow Canadians. It was
not an issue because members of the Canadian forces were
dissatisfied with the military reaction to the way of life. That is
in the report. More specifically, they were not dissatisfied and
morale we felt was not an issue not because of poor leadership
specifically. As the report went on to say, the excellence of the
senior ranks was evident as we went from bases to stations to
ships, operational forces, logistic forces and administrative
forces. That conclusion was reached on October 31.
I have difficulty understanding what could have changed so
drastically to lead one to conclude that we have command and
control shortcomings, deteriorating morale, poor leadership and
that kind of thing.
The chain of command is fundamental to any organization.
We all agree on that. I can assure the House that from my
knowledge of the hearings the last 10 months and my subsequent
involvement with the Department of National Defence, the
chain of command is there. However, it is like all chains, some
links are stronger than others. We have had incidents and
happenings in the last two months that indicate that.
On the business of leadership, I have talked about the
shrinking force. It started in 1945 and is still going on. What
kind of leadership does it take to keep the Canadian forces in a
good state of morale with all the things that are happening that
we have discussed here today: reduction in capital programs,
reduction in the size of the force?
For the last 10 years the Canadian forces have acted in many
ways like the social laboratory for some of the things that have
been happening, for the good of the country, but it is the law of
the land. I mentioned the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and
the Privacy Act earlier in my comments. All these things have
happened in less than a decade. If there was not good leadership
what would have happened to the Canadian forces?
One of the things we discovered in our deliberations was that
members of the Canadian forces were held in the highest
respect. That was not yesterday, that is today, last year and the
year before. Notwithstanding the shrinking size of the Canadian
forces, notwithstanding the tremendous pressure on the senior
and junior members of the Canadian forces, the unpredictability
of budgets and not knowing from year to year what is really
going to happen, and notwithstanding the tremendous
complexity of equipment in the last decade, the Canadian forces
continue to operate with the highest esteem of their allies and
their compatriots in other countries. On top of all this, I do not
know of any time in the history of the Canadian forces where the
people who serve in uniform have been under such scrutiny from
the media.
(1240)
I wonder if I could be permitted perhaps a minute or so on this
perspective. We recently had a program on our new Halifax class
ships. It was an investigative type of presentation. The tenor of
the program was to castigate in every way a ship that is
considered to be one of the best in the world.
I will take a personal side. One of the questions that was asked
of one of those who was castigating this class of ship and how it
was being brought into service, was asked by one of the
commentators: ``Would you send you son to sea in one of these
ships?'' He said no. If I had been asked the same question I
would have said yes.
10882
I have a son who has served and is still serving in one of those
ships. He left in August of last year and spent five months in the
Adriatic in HMCS Toronto as the combat systems engineer in an
organization that was enforcing the arms embargo in a 21-ship
organization representing 15 countries.
One of the commanders of that group, the commander of the
standing naval force, Rear Admiral Jim Stark, U.S. Navy, spent
a lot of time in HMCS Toronto, not just to visit but as his
command ship. The facilities of that ship allowed him an ease in
command and control that is a matter of public record for the
navy. In the five months that Toronto was in the Adriatic Sea she
was involved in 370 hailings of ships and 56 boardings. We have
seen what sort of traumatic experience is involved in boardings
in the recent capture and arrest of the Spanish vessel Estai on the
ninth of this month. They had one of those every three days as
well as other sightings and deflections.
I use this example to add to the kind of scrutiny that members
of the Canadian forces are under. I hope they are in the process
of being addressed. I am not going to repeat what I said about the
inquiry. I take comfort from knowing that the inquiry is under
way, who is serving on it and its terms of reference. I take
comfort from the fact that after six years of not knowing what is
happening for members in the Canadian forces, there is now a
bottom up study, that has been referred to many times here this
morning, in the standing joint committee and a white paper
which gives in output terms what the Canadian forces are
expected to do.
We have to look at this debate in the context of our own
society, in the changing times. We have been living too rich for
our own good. We are all cutting back. The Canadian forces are
no different. All government departments are cutting back.
We have gone from a hot war to a cold war, from a cold war to
a hot peace. We have more Canadian people, young men and
women, in the line of fire than we have had any time since the
Korean war and World War II, yet our young Canadian men and
women continue to provide the very best. They honour us every
day by their actions as peacekeepers. So do their regimental
sergeant-majors and their commanders and their admirals and
generals by their leadership.
It should not be surprising that a senior officer in a base that
has been targeted with the kind of scrutiny and difficulties that
they have had would comment on morale. He would be expected
to do that but twice in his internal letter, which was meant
essentially for the chief of the army, he said morale was good.
That is a reflection of his leadership and the leadership of others.
(1245)
There is need to look at morale. These issues are being
addressed and debates of this nature will lead to the resolution of
some of the difficulties we recognized in the report and which
the minister recognizes. Hopefully when these things are put
together everybody will be better off as a result.
Mr. Jack Frazer (Saanich-Gulf Islands, Ref.): Madam
Speaker, I want to thank the parliamentary secretary for his very
interesting remarks; a lot of history that perhaps was not exactly
on the subject of the motion this morning but certainly of
relevance.
I also would like to recognize the remarks made by the
parliamentary secretary that in fact the Liberal government has
introduced a white paper which I think was vital. It is not that I
agree with everything that is in it, but it is certainly a step in the
right direction.
I want to address the remarks he made with regard to the
change of mind I have had since the conclusion of the defence
review. Obviously I was a signatory to the report which said that
senior leadership in the armed forces is excellent. I do not doubt
that it is excellent in a lot of cases.
However, I have since been made privy to not one but two
reports from senior officers, one of them a gentleman we met in
Bosnia when he was the deputy commander down there, Colonel
Oehring. He makes it very clear that the problem with the
morale of our soldiers can be summed up in one short phrase, a
loss of confidence and trust. In a second report, from General
Jeffries, whom the parliamentary secretary has referred to, he
said referring to morale: ``While this side of the problem is
serious, it pales in comparison with the evolving lack of
confidence in the chain of command which every commanding
officer has identified. This confidence is the foundation of our
military system. If it is weakening, let alone in danger of
disappearing, it needs immediate attention''.
Basically this is what the motion is all about. It also involves
decisions that have been taken by the government which may
either diminish or not adequately address Canada's defence
needs. I believe the parliamentary secretary may have
overlooked that in some of his comments.
It is also worthwhile commenting that the chief of defence
staff has mentioned that he will be cutting 24 generals from the
senior ranks of the Canadian Armed Forces. This will still leave
well in excess of 70 generals to command an eventual force of
60,000 people. That is more than one general per thousand
people and I think that is excessive. I am not saying for a
moment that we do not have requirements to serve overseas in
NATO and NORAD where there is a requirement for a certain
rank level, but that can be addressed without the overabundance
10883
of senior ranks we presently have in the armed forces. That was
addressed in my remarks with regard to headquarters things.
I would say to the parliamentary secretary that I agree,
unquestionably, that things which come out of the inquiry on
Somalia will impact on other areas of defence. There is no
question about that. I ask him why, when we know there is a
distinct problem with morale and loss of confidence in the
leadership of the Canadian Armed Forces, is the minister so
unwilling to institute an inquiry to find out what is the problem.
Either there is a problem or there is not a problem. If there is
one, let us address it.
Mr. Mifflin: Madam Speaker, I am pleased by the comments
by colleague from Saanich-Gulf Islands. I know where he is
coming from.
There is no intention to hide either the first letter in December
from Colonel Oehring, whom he and I both met in the former
Yugoslavia, or the rather thorough letter from General Jeffries.
(1250 )
We have close to 100 generals and admirals in the Canadian
forces. We heard from one in a base that has been beset with
problems for the last two years. That should not surprise
anybody. If this is Canadian forces-wide, what is Vice-Admiral
Murray saying about this kind of thing in the navy? What is
Lieutenant-General Clements saying about this kind of thing in
the air force? What is the chief of reserves saying about this kind
of thing in the reserves?
I am not trying to be smart about this, but the hon. member is
very much aware morale is the first and foremost issue of any
military commander. If there is a smattering, if there is a smell,
if there is any indication that morale is not the best they can
make it, they are charged with the responsibility of doing
something about it. These are the examples seen in the two cases
mentioned.
I am trying to decry it. I am not trying to minimize it. I am not
saying what they are saying is not right. They are military
commanders. Clearly they know their system. One would have
to accept what they say has meaning.
However, do two letters meant for internal consumption
which were not leaked but given to the public set up cause for
inquiry into the whole outfit? Do we want to look at the navy, the
air force and other aspects of the army? I do not think so.
He asked me why the minister has not done it. I do not think
there is enough evidence to indicate that we have a forces-wide
problem. The hon. member has commanded units, as I have. If
one commands more than ten units, one will have a difficult
problem with at least one. In a force of this size with so many
units, so many generals, so many operational tasks, while I am
not trying to minimize it, some of the problems are already
known. There are some difficulties in the areas that were
discussed and we would expect the commanders to talk about
this and try to rectify the difficulty.
The hon. member talked about another inquiry. There were
complaints by the speakers this morning about
bureaucratization and encumbrances of the Canadian forces. We
must remember the purpose of the Canadian forces is to be
prepared to fight for the country. If we load down generals,
admirals and senior NCOs with inquiry after inquiry, what will
they be doing when they are supposed to be doing what they
were basically designed to do?
Let us do this inquiry. Let us find out what we get from this.
Let us move on to where we need to go in the future.
Mr. John Bryden (Hamilton-Wentworth, Lib.): Madam
Speaker, I thank the parliamentary secretary for his remarks
which I listened to very intently and enjoyed very much.
I have a concern in this debate that part of the reason for the
lack of morale is perhaps due to the failure to communicate
adequately with the armed forces how we as parliamentarians
and Canadians feel about it.
It is the question of the soldier who always like to have a letter
from home. In this day and age the media can no longer afford to
follow the activities of our peacekeepers abroad. Having heard
his eloquent remarks, is there any provision to his knowledge for
actually distributing the contents of this debate to the Canadian
forces both at home and abroad? I am sure it would love to hear
what we are saying.
Mr. Mifflin: Madam Speaker, I appreciate that question. It
was not planted. It is a good question.
The last part of the special joint committee's report talked
about the need for the Department of National Defence to reach
out to Canadians more. There is a need for better
communication. I think that is the word my hon. colleague used.
It was a fair comment. The department is in the process of
working on this. When do we know if communications are good?
It is a judgmental thing. A better job can be done.
(1255)
I enjoin every member of Parliament to take the Hansard of
this debate and send it to each constituent serving in the
Canadian forces. I have about 700 and every time there is a
major debate I send them copies of the debate with some
comments.
I thank the hon. member for his question. It gives me an
opportunity to encourage all members of the House to
participate in this communications and information exercise.
10884
Mrs. Daphne Jennings (Mission-Coquitlam, Ref.):
Madam Speaker, I do not usually speak on the subject of defence
but I thought it was important for me to take part in this debate.
I grew up in a home where during my early years my father
was away at war. He fought in four wars; World War I, the
Palestinian uprising, the Irish rebellion and World War II.
It was a great honour and pleasure to grow up in a family that
believed in peace and knew how necessary it was to fight so
others could enjoy peace in the world. My father was extremely
proud of his military career. However, I have often heard it said
that those who are involved in and see the terrible tragedies of
war rarely want to talk about it. Such a man was my father. He
had seen too much suffering.
After World War II when my father returned to us in 1945 he
became a member of the Canadian Legion, an organization
which has worked very hard and established a place for
ex-service men and women to meet and remember those who
did not return, their fallen comrades.
Later in the 1970s when my father passed away in a military
hospital in British Columbia, once again the Canadian Legion
came to serve our family. The Legion members provided Legion
ex-servicemen as pall bearers out of respect for my father's
position and rank while he served in the armed forces.
I was younger then and did not become involved with the
Legion and its activities at that time. However, since I have been
elected as an MP I was asked to become an honorary member of
the Legion out of respect for my father. I have come to see first
hand the wonderful programs and initiatives given by Legion
members to my community for everyone in the community to
enjoy.
Last year I spoke at the opening of a beautiful band shell in the
centre of the lovely town of Maple Ridge. Legion members
enlisted the help of the community to construct this band shell.
Those who supported the enterprise paid for it.
Legion members also run the annual Remembrance Day
ceremonies as well as the Canada Remembers program. We
planted thousands of tulips in the riding last fall. I am looking
forward to May this year when we acknowledge the freedom of
Holland on May 6 with all those wonderful tulips in bloom in my
community.
Last weekend once again I attended legion ceremonies being
held to honour two very special young cadets from Maple Ridge.
Cadet flight Sergeant Lesley Reitel received congratulations for
the top music award in Canada for her performance in a military
band. Flight Sergeant Andraena Tilgner received the award of
excellence for an all round outstanding performance as a cadet.
She was one of 12 recipients in all of Canada. Both were
students at Maple Ridge high school.
This recognition given to young people across Canada is yet
another service given by our legionaries, our ex-servicemen and
ex-service women, present and past members of the military
who encourage our young people in the highest schools of
achievement and work ethics.
Fortunately these legionaries did not have a government
disgrace their battalions, dismissing them as though they never
were. These ex-service personnel have a pride in their war
service to their country. It is a pride that develops because you
are giving to your country. You are defending a way of life we all
hold dear. You are following in the footsteps of brave men and
brave women who have gone before you, many who have given
their lives.
In World War I and World War II we had a large regular force
and a large vibrant reserve force. What has happened since that
time? Why the necessity for the debate today? Why have we put
ourselves in the position where Canada's military with its proud
traditions of courage and intervention on all fronts has to be
defended and lifted up, not by the government, not by the
recognized opposition party, but by the third party, the newest
party in the Chamber, the Reform Party?
Let us look to the history since 1945. Slowly but surely the
world changed. We had the cold war when were were dependent
on the United States for our protection should there be a nuclear
war. Fortunately that never came to pass. During the cold war
period it became evident that Canada could not defend its land
mass on its own without help from the United States.
(1300 )
Having come to this conclusion there were only three other
uses for our military: serve with the new peacekeeping ventures
organized under the auspices of the United Nations, give support
to the civil power within our borders and be ready to support our
NATO allies.
This could then lead to the decision to start to cut military
budgets. This was especially true during the Trudeau era. The
military budgets began to be cut as money was needed to keep
the deficit as low as possible. Government funds were being
used for extra social programs.
During the Conservative years the budget of the Canadian
forces was cut so severely that it became evident that our
military policy was actually being set by the Department of
Finance. However during this period our military maintained its
commitment to world peace. We sent peacekeepers whenever,
wherever asked. When a real war was imminent and finally
broke out in the Persian gulf our ships were there right behind
the United States navy.
All this is to the credit of Canada's armed forces. It really did
manage to do more with less. However in 1993 after the general
election it looked like things would change for the Department
10885
of National Defence. The government mounted two studies,
both carried out by special joint committees: one on defence and
one on foreign policy. We in the Reform Party participated in
both. Why wouldn't we? What an opportunity. After years of
being ignored members of Parliament were actually being asked
for their input on defence and foreign policy.
The committees met, held hearings and reported. In the case
of the defence committee we supported the majority view. One
of the main conditions we set forth for the report was that the
defence budget would not be cut any more than it was in the 1994
budget. Having drawn this line in the sand we compromised
even further. We decided to go along with the cuts in spending
which would total $1 billion over three years. This was our last
line in the sand. We even incorporated defence cuts into our
taxpayers budget.
Why do we believe the cuts should go no further than outlined
by the special joint committee on defence policy? Quite simply
we believe Canada should have a combat capable multi-purpose
armed forces.
With a budget lower than that recommended by the Senate
joint committee we will have to start cutting capabilities. We
will not be able to continue to meet our international
commitments. We will have to start saying no when the nations
of the world come calling for help. We will have to start picking
and choosing when new peacekeeping and peace building
requests come from the United Nations. In the event of another
gulf war we could join in but only if the war lasted for a
considerable period of time; it will take us a while to get ready.
Let us look within the country to see the effects of the cuts. It
is difficult to explain the anger and alienation felt in certain
parts of the west over the treatment by government which has its
heart and soul in central Canada. The government has taught the
west another lesson with the last two budgets. It is a lesson
westerners learned well during the Trudeau years. The lesson is
simply that Liberals do not understand the west. They play old
style politics with us. ``If you didn't return any Liberals to
Ottawa we will get even with you'', say the Liberals. ``In this
case we will close your bases''. Witness Calgary, Chilliwack,
Cold Lake, Jericho Beach and added to last year's closures
especially Royal Roads. The government has decimated the
military in the west.
Land forces for western Canada will now be located in
Edmonton. That will certainly teach all westerners a lesson:
vote Liberal or a Liberal government will hurt them severely.
The closure of the bases will mean hardships for many living
in the communities, but in the cases of Chilliwack and Calgary it
makes little economic sense. It will cost millions and millions of
dollars to move the two bases to Edmonton. In my opinion
money will not be saved.
The problems between the government and the military go
much deeper than budget cuts. They go to the very core of the
problems with the Prime Minister's government. The
government does not understand the military. I am referring to
the disgraceful treatment of Canada's airborne regiment at the
hands of the Prime Minister and the Minister of National
Defence.
No one condones the killing of the Somali youth. No one
condones the hazing rituals shown so graphically on our
television sets. However, why punish the entire Canadian
military by disbanding the regiment? The young men and
women who thought their futures were with the regiment have
had their dreams dashed, have been uprooted and moved away
all because the government was too weak kneed to deal
appropriately with superior officers, those in the senior ranks
who because of their very position are supposed to pay the price
if something goes wrong in the trenches. It is not supposed to be
the other way around. Then we have the spectacle of the
Minister of National Defence stating daily as soon as the courts
martial are over that he will establish an independent inquiry.
(1305)
The minister disbanded the regiment and is to hold an inquiry
into what? It does not exist any more. It is interesting to
speculate on what would happen if the inquiry results in the
finding that a few highly placed officers were to blame but the
regiment was fundamentally sound. Will the minister breathe
life into the airborne, bring it back? If not, why not?
The government does not understand the military. We in the
Reform Party understand and we will fight hard to ensure there
are no more cuts.
I am proud to be a Canadian and I am proud of the country's
military heritage. I would have thought the Prime Minister, with
his years of experience, could have fought hard to keep our
military a multi-purpose combat capable force.
Mr. Bob Mills (Red Deer, Ref.): Madam Speaker, as a matter
of introduction I feel it is important for us as members of
Parliament to scrutinize our federal bureaucracy.
Just two days ago the foreign affairs committee tried to
examine former deputy minister Bob Fowler. I did a lot of
research and checked out a lot of information about the matter.
One area we wanted to examine in detail was management skills,
fiscal restraint, organizational abilities and morale building.
These major issues should be discussed when we look at the
organization of a particular department.
I found many media allegations about Mr. Fowler and his
management of DND. As I did more and more research starting
in the early part of January, I found the disturbing clouds of five
and a half years as deputy minister certainly brought forward a
lot of concerns I know Canadians would like to hear about.
10886
Most of the problems were fairly obvious and had been dealt
with in detail. I felt it was very important to show that there was
no problem and there must appear to be no problem. Perception
is everything in this area and is vital to the public's
understanding of what is happening.
What perceptions concerned us? If we look at the appointment
that had taken place and the very rapid departure of the Mr.
Fowler on December 23, that was a concern. It was a concern
that our committee was examining Mr. Fowler on the last day
possible. It was a concern that the minister chose that time, the
middle of that examination, to announce the Somali affair. It
was a very poor perception when the press had to be called out of
the hearing so they could meet with the minister.
What about the research? What happened? There were
shocking and surprising revelations. There were many media
stories. Another concern, and it is still ongoing today, is the
number of people coming forward who are saying that there is
something wrong with DND, that there has been something
wrong for a long time with the management. That is why we are
having such morale problems. That is why we are having the
public problems of which most Canadians are aware now.
We need to look at the issue. We need to get into more detail.
We need to look at the management skills involved and the cut in
the size of DND that is occurring. The rising debt and deficit
have made that necessary. All of us would agree that we must do
more with less. That is the reality.
In 1984 the debt was under $200 billion. It increased until
1993 to $489 billion and today to $550 billion. As it escalates
out of control we must look at all departments including DND.
DND was cut from 87,000 soldiers, 34,000 civilians and a $12
billion budget a few years ago to new targets of 60,000 soldiers,
20,000 civilians and less than a $10 billion budget.
(1310 )
We also have to look at what was happening in the
management of DND for the last five and a half years. We came
up with a number of very interesting points that should be
emphasized.
We came up with the deputy minister's office that has been
totally renovated. Its size was increased by more than 65 per
cent. The renovations were $250,000 plus, ranging upward to
estimates of $500,000. When some of the troops in the field did
not even have helmets to wear and had 30 to 40 year old
equipment this kind of spending was going on at management
level in Ottawa.
While some privates were reported in the media to be going to
food banks, which may or may not be true, the deputy minister's
salary went from $145,000 per year to $170,000 per year. The
senior bureaucracy ballooned. DND went from four ADMs to
eight ADMs, a doubling of the amount of senior bureaucracy at
that level.
There are other items we should look at in terms of
management such as real estate deals. In 1991, DND entered
into a 25-year lease on the Louis St. Laurent Building in Hull.
The annual payments were based on negotiated value of the
property at $73 million. Two separate appraisals were done on
the building which came in at $62 million and $65 million. The
Auditor General said that DND insisted on a long term lease
which public works then negotiated. Six months after the lease
was signed DND decided it did not need the space for 25 years.
The Auditor General called this a lack of due regard for the
economy. I call it a scandal and a loss of $8 million to $11
million.
Basically we have to question that kind of decision from the
top of DND. We have questions about the decommissioning of
bases. We have questions about moving expenses, which I know
will come out later today. The biggest question most of us will
ask about is the airborne, a proud regiment. It is a glaring
example of management gone wrong.
If we would have acted sooner, if the guys at the top would
have known there were discipline problems and would have
acted on them, I do not think we would have had what we are all
ashamed of. If the information had not been covered up and had
been opened to the public, the public would have forgiven and
would have understood. However, because of the way it was
handled it did not and the airborne does not exist today.
We need to talk about the deputy minister's rich lifestyle. We
need to talk about a $60,000 per year chauffeur. We need to talk
about flowers for generals' wives. We need to talk about lunches
twice a week paid for by the taxpayer. We need to talk about
extensive travel and overseas military operations done by the
deputy minister's office. We need to look at these concerns but
as those who attended the hearings will know none of them were
answered.
We have to look at the controversy and ask who is responsible
for much of it. We had a deputy minister who was prepared to
say: ``None of it was my responsibility. It was totally that of the
politicians''. He made none of those decisions even though in
the five and half years he went through six ministers. If he was
not the guy in charge I do not really know how the six ministers
could be held responsible for everything. If the top dog will not
accept any responsibility, it is no wonder we have problems
today.
We have other examples. Micheline Clairoux was hired as the
director of facilities management. She has been a very
controversial person in her office. We could talk more and more
about that.
10887
(1315 )
Let us end on morale and where that is at. In 1993 a survey of
DND employees found sufficient widespread dissatisfaction to
warrant immediate corrective action. One pollster said that if
DND were a private corporation, it would have been bankrupt
long ago.
In December 1994 Colonel Oehring wrote a report revealing
just how desperate and abandoned Canadian troops feel. A
report written by Brigadier General Jeffries recently surfaced
saying much the same thing. Both blamed the problem on a
deterioration of senior leadership. Jeffries was blunt. He said
that political agendas and careerism have replaced leadership in
the defence hierarchy. He warned about a rapidly developing
crisis in confidence in the ability of the chain of command to do
its job. I would say that those are fairly condemning comments
made by reputable people.
Mr. Fred Mifflin (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
National Defence and Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.):
Madam Speaker, the hon. member for Red Deer was somewhat
repetitive in reciting a litany of media reports of which all of us
are aware. I will not grace that with any comment.
I am very disappointed that he would use the opportunity of
this debate to castigate in the House a public servant whose
reputation and ability are outstanding. I do not think there is any
place for that in this debate. The actions of all people involved in
the Somalia affair will be looked at in great detail by the inquiry.
The hon. member knows that and I regret he has used this debate
for that reason.
Also, the third party cannot have it both ways. It cannot all of
a sudden change its mind on the things it wants. It wants to
reduce the deficit to zero, but it does not want the defence
department to be cut.
The Reform Party wants to have an inquiry after the last court
martial. When the minister of defence called a press conference
the day after the sentencing, the member complained that the
minister did it because it was the same day the deputy minister
of defence, who is now our United Nations ambassador,
happened to be in front of the foreign affairs committee.
The third party cannot have it both ways. If it asks for
something and the government responds, then it has done a good
job in opposition, but do not ask for more. It should not castigate
the government for doing what it has asked the government to
do.
The Reform Party asked for an inquiry into the Somalia affair;
an inquiry as broad as it could get, with three outstanding
Canadians and a broad mandate. Now it wants more. Then it
complains about bureaucracy and morale. Inquiries are great.
They do wonderful things. However, they do not do a great deal
for morale when they are ongoing.
Mr. Mills (Red Deer): Madam Speaker, if everything was so
honourable, as was mentioned with the deputy minister, I think
there is a fair amount of disagreement about that. That was
proven because this investigation is needed.
As far as the day it was announced, I find it a little hard to
understand why it had to be at 10.00 a.m., at the very same time
that the cross-examination was occurring. Why would it not be
at three o'clock right after question period? It is the appearance;
it has to appear to be above board.
Mr. Mifflin: Madam Speaker, it was because the minister was
anxious to respond to the opposition parties.
Mr. Harper (Calgary West): Madam Speaker, I rise on a
point of order. The questions and comments are directed to the
speaker, not to a questioner or commenter. If there is additional
time, I would ask that you allow additional questions and
comments to the hon. member for Red Deer.
Mr. Mifflin: That is what this is about. I would like to address
the comment of my hon. colleague from Red Deer.
(1320 )
It was tabled at 10 o'clock because it was the earliest possible
time the minister could table the inquiry after the courts martial
were finished. The press conference was held immediately after
so it could be done in response to what the opposition and the
third party wanted. That is the answer to the question.
Mr. Mills (Red Deer): Madam Speaker, I would just like to
say that many times after question period is when press
conferences are held. I do not understand why it had to be at 10
o'clock in the morning of the very day that the deputy minister
was to appear before the committee. To me the perception of that
is totally wrong. The point I am trying to make is that the
perception is wrong.
Mr. Leonard Hopkins (Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke,
Lib.): Madam Speaker, I want to say to the hon. member for
Saanich-Gulf Islands who introduced this motion today that it
reminds me of a number of years ago when, as part of a NATO
parliamentary committee, I went to Europe. We visited
Baden-Baden and the hon. member was base commander there
and would you believe that he briefed us. I must say that the shoe
has dropped today because this is the day I want to brief the hon.
member and former commander of Baden-Baden.
The motion he has brought before this House today is all
inclusive. Having read all the material on the inquiry that is
coming up, it too is in depth. Today we have to keep our minds
on the issues here and on the fallout from these issues.
10888
I have been a strong supporter of the Canadian military
community all my political life and before that because I was an
educator on a DND base. I knew the families. Today some of my
former students visit me with their children. They even visit me
at times with their grandchildren, which sends a message of
sorts.
The motion about the inquiry also brings to my mind the hype
that was in the media about the Somalia incident and also the
recent media hype regarding the airborne regiment. It also
brings to my mind the very questionable handling by defence
headquarters of the Somalia issue when it occurred.
Exactly two years ago today I had open heart surgery. Two
years ago I did not know what was going on but I can say that I do
know what is going on today. The situation is that Canada's
military community is being hammered for particular incidents.
The entire role the military community has played for years and
is playing today is being ignored, not only to its detriment but to
the detriment of this entire nation.
It is time that each and every one of us in this House and
across Canada, yes including the national media, remembered
what the Canadian military community has meant to Canada and
to the world. We have not been the powerbrokers, but we have
certainly been the diplomatic brokers, we have certainly been
the communicators on the international scene. If we, as
Canadians or the media, continue to downgrade and slam the
military community of this country, this nation is going to lose
an asset that will take years to rebuild.
(1325 )
Canada has put a positive step forward in many crises around
the world. At this time military personnel are being tried in
courts and they were tried by the mass media of this country. I
must say that it is a time for us to take a look at the flip side of the
coin as to what this really means to us as a nation and to each of
us as Canadians.
The minister mentioned chain of command on many
occasions. I want to see the chain of command totally included
in the upcoming investigation. I want to see senior people in the
defence department take a seat and answer questions.
I remember watching television in my hospital room two
years ago and being so frustrated because I could not be in the
House of Commons to defend those people I knew deserved to
be defended. They are the mass numbers of people in our
Canadian forces who did no wrong, who simply performed their
duties and became victims of the desecration. That is what I fear
is happening to our military community today.
The defence review committee did address some of the issues
that are mentioned in this motion today. We addressed the
discipline. We talked about morale. We talked about defence
headquarters. I think we were dead-on with the issues we
discussed in the defence review committee. Some of those have
been addressed in the white paper. I expect they will continue to
receive serious investigation and attention.
I mentioned the world image. I would also like to mention that
Canada is not a military minded state. All of us know that and
many Canadians express it. However, it can be when it must be,
and it has been when it had to be.
I want to say something about the airborne regiment. There
are many people in that regiment who are not to blame for what
occurred. It was a handful of people. Massive destruction was
caused by information in the media across this country which
stressed the negative aspects while ignoring any positive
aspects. That is what really started the whole ball rolling.
Let us go back to 1974 when the Canadian airborne regiment
was in Cyprus on peacekeeping duty. Things were very tense
over there at that time. The airborne regiment played a vital role
in the following actions.
It successfully evacuated 386 tourists from the Ledra Palace
Hotel under sporadic fire, and subsequently occupied the hotel
and caused its neutralization in the conflict. It successfully
evacuated 50 residents of the United Kingdom High
Commission area under fire at that time. It preserved the
integrity of the green line confrontation area under heavy fire.
That is the line between the two combatants.
It assisted the contingent commander of DCOS and United
Nations forces in Cyprus in arranging a ceasefire at Nicosia
airport, subsequently occupied the airport and caused its
neutralization. This was done by the Canadian airborne
regiment, by the Canadian forces. It stopped the Turks at that
time, as my hon. friend has said. During the protection of the UN
base camp Kronborg, it saved the lives of two Canadians while
under fire. It provided relief assistance to 600 refugees at the
blue beret camp. It helped locate and recover 86 Canadians who
were stranded in various parts of the island.
(1330)
It assisted general relief and security of 200,000 refugees as
part of the total United Nations forces in Cyprus effort.
Canadian casualties during the period from July 15, 1974 to
the September 10, 1974 were 2 killed and 19 wounded.
In humanitarian operations it came to the relief of the United
Kingdom High Commission and United States embassy. It went
to the United States embassy on two occasion to help it out. The
United States ambassador in 1974 was killed at his embassy in
that local conflict. All other staff members were saved by the
Canadians.
10889
There are many other incidents too numerous to list which
characterize an outstanding performance by the airborne
regiment in Cyprus. Most of these actions were conducted under
fire, most often while caught in a crossfire.
I want to bring other examples to the attention of the House
that the Canadian forces have accomplished. This is what we are
discussing today. That is why I am putting the emphasis on these
things today. Let us in our discussions not destroy. Let us correct
and get on with the useful and positive things our Canadian
forces have been known to do and will continue to do in years to
come.
There is a letter to the commander of the Canadian forces in
Somalia:
On behalf of the members and the supporters of the United Somali Congress in
general and the people of Hiran region in Somalia in particular and on my own
behalf, I would like to extend to you and through you to members of your forces
that have operated generally in Somalia and particularly to those troops of yours
who have operated in Hiran region, our cordial thanks and gratitude for the
humanitarian services you have rendered to the people of that region.
Please also convey my personal thanks and that of the people of Hiran region
to the government and to the great people of Canada for what their forces have
done here. As a matter of fact, the people of Hiran region did not know anything
about Canada before your forces arrived in the city of Baledweine, and I want
you to know that all the children of Hiran region are writing on the walls of the
city the name of Canada with the charcoal.
In addition, we have received countless appeals from people of the region to
ensure your stay. This shows how the people of Hiran were truly satisfied with
your stay in the region and humanitarian assistance you extended to them.
In the other parts of Somalia where the ex-UNITAF and now UNOSOM
troops of other nationalities were operating we did not receive from the natives
anything rather than complaints.
Canada more than carried its load. I have a letter from a
school system in the region which is really forward in its thanks
to the Canadians for what they did with building elementary
schools, high schools, helping teachers, helping people to farm.
It is all here, written by Somalians to Canadians. It is not some
press clipping that has been taken and written up today for
today's consumption only.
(1335)
The Hiran education committee states:
Really, we cannot forget the Canadian forces who came from far country to
assist our people as humanitarian relief and security basis. The Canadian forces,
besides the school repairing, are handling now the security problem in Hiran.
We are limitlessly grateful to how much Canadian forces have done to restore
hope with responsibilities sharing our community, especially the students and
teachers, endless jobs.
I remind the House and all Canadians that as the courts
martial went on in Canada, as the inquiry now goes on in
Canada, for heaven's sake remember what our forces did in their
commitments to humanitarian measures and of peace in the
world. Do not take the negative message that everyone is going
to hear day in and day out. Let us act very responsible in this
matter.
I want to quote partly from a letter by Gen. Johnston,
commander of the U.S. Marine Corps in Somalia:
In those early days the Canadian forces had few vehicles and conducted many
of their operations on foot under very trying climatic conditions. The
temperatures were most often 100 degrees Fahrenheit and the constant blowing
dust was a challenge to the best of soldiers. I was impressed then by the high level
of motivation and professionalism exhibited during those early operations. Once
the Canadian vehicles arrived, the regiment began widely expanding operations
to the far reaches of the HRS boundary combining aggressive long range patrols
observation posts and helicopter RECCE.
As an infantry officer, I had considerable appreciation for the skill with which
they conducted business. The HRS Belet Ven has been a challenging operating
area in part because of the close proximity of major militia formations of three of
the most powerful faction leaders and because of its proximity to the Ethiopian
border.
We have to remember what was there as their challenge at that
time.
Our military community and capabilities are some of the
greatest assets the country possesses. There will be, as in any
organization, corrective steps from time to time. Do not throw
the proverbial baby out with the bath water. Let us not destroy
our past history. These people have been strong underpinnings
in our image around the world and at home.
I talked about the good relationships when the issue of the
airborne regiment was on. I was interviewed on ``Newsworld''
by Norm Perry. Everyone knows Norm Perry. I talked about the
great relationships that existed in my home community of
Petawawa between the civilian community and the military
community and how that worked in recreation, in business and
in many ways.
He said: ``Are you trying to tell us the people of Petawawa
believe in the incident that went on in Somalia? Are you telling
us the people of Petawawa believed in the hazing incident?'' I
almost said to Norm Perry, an experienced reporter who should
know better, that is the stupidest question I have been asked in
my 30 years in public life.
(1340)
The people of Petawawa do not agree with what went on any
more than any other Canadian. I do not want my home
community targeted by the incident. I want it to be targeted as a
community which supports the military community in the good
things that it does around the world, in the hours its people put in
training and in the hours spent learning discipline. Discipline is
very important in the forces. It is part of the important training.
10890
We must remember those people are there to be assigned to
difficult situations around the world when they arise.
Let the inquiry take its course but let us have the inquiry going
into the headquarters of the military community, hauling those
people out for questioning as well. We talk about the chain of
command. Let us take the chain of command from top to bottom.
Let us use that as a corrective measure. Let us get on with the
positive things and remember that Canadians have done great
things in the past. Let us encourage them to continue to do so in
the future, not destroy them over one incident.
Mr. Jack Frazer (Saanich-Gulf Islands, Ref.): Madam
Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for his
comments. He has always been an impassioned and fervent
advocator of the military and once again I support his contention
that our military people are doing excellent work.
I did want to point out to the hon. member that while media
condemnation has undoubtedly played a part in the downfall of
the airborne regiment, the reports that I referred to do not come
from the media. They come from commanders, good
commanders. I refer to General Jeffries, who said that not only
he but all of his commanders were unanimous in reflecting that
leadership was a problem, that the lack of apparent concern for
leaders in their troops was a problem.
In the instance of the report from Colonel Oehring at land
forces headquarters, this is not a narrowly based report. This
report covers the army from coast to coast. He too identified a
leadership shortfall. While the media impacts, the media is not
the total cause of the problem.
With regard to the airborne regiment, I would also point out to
the hon. member that it was not the media which disbanded the
regiment. That was done by the Liberal Minister of National
Defence.
When the member referred to throwing the baby out with the
bath water, I would like to suggest that he consider that in this
light. I must say that if I had been the Minister of National
Defence I would have waited until I had the facts before acting.
He pointed out that some of the recommendations of the
special joint committee had been adopted by the government. I
agree with that. However, a number of what I consider to be
excellent suggestions have not been acknowledged.
If the aim of the game is to correct faults, as he pointed out,
does he not agree that is the point of this motion? We are trying
to establish that there is a need for an ongoing, in depth, open
investigation of what is wrong with the Department of National
Defence. If there is nothing wrong, let us put it out there and let
the media present that. However, if there is something wrong, let
us find it and fix it.
Mr. Hopkins: Madam Speaker, I do not know why the hon.
member mentioned General Jeffries' report. I did not refer to it
and I certainly did not talk about it in any of my comments. I am
sorry if he had a misconception of my comments in that case.
As I said during the course of my speech, there are always
corrective measures to be taken. Corrective measures have been
taken and they are ongoing. That is the course. Any organization
that does not continually correct itself when problems arise is
destined to failure. There is no question in my mind that these
questions will be addressed. I would like to see the defence
committee continue to work on this. There is a role for
well-informed members of the House to do that sort of thing.
(1345)
Let me clarify something for the hon. member. On the
television show ``Shirley'' out of Toronto, people were invited
to attend during the airborne issue. When they were on the
program they felt as if they were in the middle of a military
bashing show. The program was such that the person in charge of
the show said that the military had been invited to appear on the
show but obviously had not accepted the invitation because they
are not present.
That is totally unfair to the military community because as
everybody in the House knows, and Canadians know, military
people in uniform cannot go on TV shows to talk about their
views on military matters. That is not the Canadian tradition nor
is it the rules of the game.
This person was doing a great injustice to our military, as was
Norm Perry when he asked me that question about my home
community of Petawawa. I am not going to let him forget it. I am
not going to let the CBC forget it. Politicians are sometimes
accused of not defending themselves and not speaking up. When
we see something wrong, regardless of whether it will hurt our
image from time to time, we have a responsibility to tell it as it
is, whether they are the Norm Perrys or the Shirleys or whoever
they are. Fairness is fairness and that is what must be built into
the system.
They did not get a licence from the CRTC to convey
unfairness and misinformation to the Canadian public. They
should be talking about both sides of the issue. That is where the
train went off the tracks. In Somalia the positive side was
forgotten. All that mattered to the media was the issue that took
place there. That is what I am emphasizing. I know the hon.
member is very fair-minded and he will accept that explanation.
Mr. Fred Mifflin (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
National Defence and Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.):
Madam Speaker, I want to put a question to my hon. colleague. I
knew the member for Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke long
before I became a politician. While I do not know every member
in the House, I have to say that he is one of the strongest
defenders of members of the Canadian forces and has been
consistently known for that. The House in general would do well
to pay attention to his words of wisdom.
10891
It is because of that view that I would like to ask the hon.
member a question. As we did the special joint committee on
defence, what was his view on the state of morale and the state of
leadership in the Canadian forces?
Mr. Hopkins: Madam Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for
the question and for his very kind comments. As he knows, it is
not every day that one gets a kind comment around here. So I
will take it while it is coming.
When we were sitting as the defence review committee, the
hon. member and I, we did look at morale in the forces. I think
the state of morale was partly caused by economic
circumstances. Particularly, we heard about problems in the
lower ranks because of the pay structure. We heard about a lot of
real problems because of lack of equipment. I can tell the hon.
member and all members that practically as long as I have been
in the House that has been a complaint from the military; they do
not have enough equipment or the right equipment.
(1350)
Today that is changing somewhat because the new ships,
which we had a chance to visit and to have a good briefing on,
are state of the art. We learned in Bosnia, that our armoured
personnel carriers needed upgrading. We need new ones. The
committee, as the hon. member knows, was very supportive of
that.
We were very supportive about other items such as helmets
and flak jackets. We took into consideration all the things that
we heard from the people in the field, not someone coming in to
brief the committee sitting on Parliament Hill. We travelled
with our military for four days. We slept in the same quarters
with them. We ate with them. We travelled in the personnel
carriers. Members from both sides of the House had that
opportunity.
It was very important because it impacted on the minds of
committee members that if we are going to ask our troops to go
abroad into difficult positions, whether it be cultural
difficulties, the hatefulness that you run into in UN
peacekeeping duties, that those people have to have equipment
in order to perform their duties.
I am sure the hon. parliamentary secretary will agree with me
that by and large on the committee we had unanimous support
for this type of thing. The members worked very well together.
The report is certainly one of the best reports that has been
brought into the House on defence matters, not only in our time
but certainly in years past.
I encourage the members of the committee to be very positive
in the future in holding more committee meetings because, as I
said in my remarks, we must continue to discuss the problems
that arise, to take corrective measures and to make
recommendations. We made many recommendations in that
report. Many of them are already included in the white paper
that was brought in by the government.
I want to point out to the hon. member who brought the motion
before the House today that this is all part of the ongoing
scenario. A committee brings in a report, we meet people
firsthand and we agree they do have problems. Together we sit
down, write a report and make recommendations and the
government accepts those recommendations. Also, I am sure
that more of them will be studied and taken into consideration in
the future.
I want to thank the hon. parliamentary secretary who was very
good to deal with on that report. He is well informed. We were
very fortunate to have him as he is a retired admiral. The hon.
member for Saanich-Gulf Islands is a retired colonel. I must
say to the hon. parliamentary secretary that I was-
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): I am very sorry. The
hon. member has gone over time.
[Translation]
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): The period for questions
and comments has now expired. Resuming debate. The hon.
member for Shefford.
Mr. Jean H. Leroux (Shefford, BQ): Madam Speaker, if I am
not mistaken, I will be able to finish my speech after Question
Period.
Today, as always when I rise in the House, I think of the
people in the riding of Shefford who elected me. In fact, these
people put their trust in us, and when we speak in this chamber,
we do so on behalf of those who elected us.
(1355)
On March 21, the Minister of National Defence announced
that he was establishing a commission that will investigate and
report on the functioning of the chain of command, the
leadership, discipline, operations and decisions of the Canadian
Forces, and the actions and decisions of the Department of
National Defence, as to the deployment of the Canadian Forces
to Somalia.
Today, the debate in this House is on a motion introduced by
the hon. member for Saanich-Gulf Islands, and I will read it to
you:
10892
That this House condemn the government for failing to commission a broad and
public inquiry with a mandate to investigate the government's failure to hold senior
officials at the Department of National Defence accountable for command and control
shortcomings, deteriorating morale, and decisions which diminished or have failed to
improve Canada's defence posture.
The average person will want to know the difference between
these two positions. The minister announced he was establishing
a commission that will examine the problem of Somalia and the
Second Airborne Regiment, while the motion introduced by my
colleague wants to expand the scope of the commission to
include the entire department and gives us an opportunity to
discuss these problems here in the House. As you know, morale
in the Canadian military has reached a new low, and that is
because Canadians are increasingly reluctant to trust the people
at National Defence.
When we refer to the people who run National Defence, we
are not talking about the average soldier. They do not make the
decisions. We are referring to the people who make the
decisions, to the top level officials.
The Speaker: My dear colleague, you will have the floor
again at 3 p.m., after Oral Question Period. Since it is now 2
p.m., pursuant to Standing Order 30(5), the House will now
proceed with statements by members pursuant to Standing
Order 31.
_____________________________________________
10892
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
[
Translation]
Mr. Paul DeVillers (Simcoe North, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, in
1992, the general assembly of the United Nations proclaimed
March 22 World Day for Water, an annual event to remind us of
the importance and value of water in our daily lives.
Canadians could easily reduce their water consumption by a
third. We must return to basics, since water is the public service
most vital to our health and economic prosperity.
[English]
Water efficiency requires the full commitment and
co-operation of all water consumers. Watercan, an Ottawa
based non-profit organization, along with several partners has
demonstrated its commitment by organizing world water day
activities and by raising the public's awareness to use water
wisely.
The unveiling of a unique interactive water display called
Blue Watercan Caravan at Toronto's Eaton Centre will kick off
this year's activities. The caravan will also travel to Vancouver
and Montreal promoting water wise messages and will end its
tour in Ottawa May 3 to May 9.
[Translation]
Mr. Jean H. Leroux (Shefford, BQ): Mr. Speaker, on
Monday, in response to a question from my hon. colleague for
Red Deer, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of
National Defence confirmed that Canada is indeed negotiating
with Turkey at the moment for the sale of the CF-5 fighter
planes scrapped following the tabling of the latest white paper
on defence policy.
(1400)
Since the rules governing Canadian exports of weapons
technology are the responsibility of the Department of Foreign
Affairs, what assurance can the government give to the people of
Canada and Quebec that these Canadian fighter aircraft will not
be used against civilian populations as is the case at the moment
with Turkish offensives against the Kurds on the Iraqi border?
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Jim Gouk (Kootenay West-Revelstoke, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, it has often been said that great things come in small
packages. That saying is certainly true in my riding.
Salmo, a community of 1,300 enthusiastic people, wants to
give Canada a special present on its birthday. Noting that the
mint spends over $10 million a year replacing hoarded pennies,
Salmo hit on the idea of challenging communities and service
clubs across the country to gather in more pounds of pennies on
a per capita basis than it does.
Penny drops are now set up throughout the province and will
soon be in other provinces as well. It proposes that all pennies
collected will then be shipped to Ottawa to be applied against
the national debt on Canada Day. This project has caught the
interest of people all over B.C. and it is still growing.
Salmo challenges all hon. members to dig into their jars,
dressers, drawers and penny banks to collect more pennies on a
per capita basis than the residents of Salmo.
This patriotic project will not only reduce the debt by millions
of pennies, it will also save a substantial portion of the $10
million the mint spends to replace hoarded pennies.
Salmo, a small town that makes a lot of cents.
* * *
Mr. Gurbax Singh Malhi (Bramalea-Gore-Malton,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, Canada is a country of immigrants and a
tolerant one. However, Canadians were told this week by the
Canadian Human Rights Commissioner Max Yalden that there
10893
appears to be an undercurrent of intolerance around immigration
and Canada's changing demographic face.
I must urge my colleagues not to let any actions tarnish the
excellent image Canada enjoys around the world as a country of
tolerance and compassion. Let us not fan the flames of
anti-immigration for they will ultimately consume us all and
our good reputation.
In this respect, the timing could not be more perfect for the
Liberal government's decision to establish the Race Relations
Foundation.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Martin Cauchon (Outremont, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, one
of the Liberal Party's policies is to promote and support the
environmental industry in Canada to enable it to explore new
markets, broaden its activities and create new jobs.
I am delighted to announce that Environment Canada is taking
advantage of the opportunity presented by Americana 1995, an
event currently taking place in Montreal until March 24, for the
very purpose of enabling the promoters of environmental
technology funded by our various programs to learn more about
gaining access to international markets.
In addition, we have planned certain activities in order to give
these promoters an opportunity to meet members of the
international delegation invited to this event so they may
demonstrate their technological innovations to potential buyers.
Environment Canada, Industry Canada and the Federal Office
of Regional Development are partners in this event.
* * *
Mrs. Eleni Bakopanos (Saint-Denis, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the
Bloc Quebecois is continuing to do its blocking job in order to
prevent the government from passing the back to work
legislation for the rail industry quickly.
We must denounce this official opposition tactic because it is
prolonging a dispute directly affecting thousands of Canadians,
in addition to causing all regions of the country to lose great
amounts of money.
Perhaps we should remind the Bloc Quebecois of its
commitment to present and to defend in the House the report
which the organization Rural Dignity made public on June 16.
That report said that railway links are not a privilege but a right.
The organization said that the railway is a tool needed to
maintain and develop the regions.
It is time for the Bloc to be true to its words and to stop
blocking this legislation.
* * *
Mr. Michel Guimond
(Beauport-Montmorency-Orléans, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
Canadian National treated itself to full pages of publicity in the
dailies stating that its employees are paid to do nothing.
Egged on by the unfailing support the federal government has
given it from the very beginning, that company is using the
worst demagogy to achieve its ends, which is to stop the strike
and to erode working conditions. Some believe that the lower
the working conditions are, the easier it will be to privatize CN.
In fact, the federal government wants to line its empty coffers
with money taken from CN workers.
Does this kind of publicity show the Liberal government's and
the employer's good faith and will to settle the dispute? Not at
all.
(1405)
CN's ad this morning states that we are no longer in the 1980s
and that the company must adapt its employees' working
conditions.
For all intents and purposes, by denying the right to strike,
rejecting all negotiations and imposing their own conditions,
CN and the Liberal government are setting us back several
generations.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Jack Frazer (Saanich-Gulf Islands, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, 50 years ago tomorrow morning, on March 24, 1945,
the first Canadian parachute battalion made its last wartime
strike from the skies into enemy territory in a major allied attack
across the heavily defended Rhine River. The battalion had first
jumped into battle on D-Day in Normandy as part of the 6th
British Airborne Division.
Its air assault over the Rhine, which saw one of its members,
Corporal George Topham, win the Victoria Cross, was once
again marked by success.
The bravery of this hard-hitting unit, dropped in the midst of
a desperate enemy defending their homeland, should never be
forgotten.
Our Canadian airborne won the respect and hearts of their
comrades, joining an airborne brotherhood which transcended
all borders of the Commonwealth.
10894
Historically, Operation Varsity was the largest and most
successful airborne operation and is recorded among the battle
honours, borne on the colours of the Canadian airborne
regiment.
Dawn tomorrow will mark a special anniversary for
paratroopers who played a significant role in hastening the end
of World War II. We extend to them our sincere congratulations.
* * *
Ms. Albina Guarnieri (Mississauga East, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, on Tuesday my riding of Mississauga East was struck
by tragedy.
Flames evicted the most vulnerable members of our society
from their homes at Meadowcroft Place seniors residence on
Constitution Boulevard. The fatal blaze took the lives of three of
my constituents, while another 10 were left hospitalized. Many
more were left displaced and shaken by the experience.
[Translation]
I would ask all the members to join me in expressing our
sympathy for the families of the elderly persons who
unfortunately did not survive.
[English]
Our best wishes for the full recovery of the injured and all
other survivors. Our prayers and thoughts are with you.
* * *
Mr. Ron MacDonald (Dartmouth, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the
Bloc Quebecois' continuing blockage of legislation that would
put Canada's rail network back to work is clear evidence that the
official opposition cares little about Canada's economy or the
impact this strike is having on working men and women across
this country.
Each day this strike continues costs the Canadian economy
tens of millions of dollars. The port of Halifax alone has already
lost millions as ships are diverted to American ports such as
New York. The Bloc's actions are causing layoffs, shutdowns
and misery from sea to sea, including the province of Quebec.
This must not and cannot continue.
I urge Bloc members to recognize the impact their actions are
having on the Canadian economy. Their continued blockage of
the return to work legislation is just the latest example of how
truly out of touch they are with the desires of Canadians,
including the good people of the province of Quebec.
Mr. Stan Keyes (Hamilton West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I rise
to express my complete and utter disappointment with the
members of the official opposition and the members of the NDP.
They have seen fit to allow the people of Canada to be
economically devastated as a direct result of their unwillingness
to co-operate with the government and its attempts to end the
crippling effects of a national rail strike.
It is estimated that the national rail strike could end up costing
Canada $3 billion to $5 billion.
Certainly members can appreciate the necessity of the back to
work legislation tabled by the Minister of Labour on Tuesday.
Even the president of the Canadian Auto Workers Union states
that there is ``absolutely no advantage or reason for them''-the
opposition-``to delay the legislation''.
Given the economic harm this strike has already brought to
the people of Canada and in particular the good people of
Ontario, Quebec and the western provinces, I implore members
opposite to set aside their petty politics long enough to act in the
public interest for their constituents and to put an immediate end
to the chaos caused by the national rail strike.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska-Rivière-du-Loup, BQ):
Mr. Speaker, it is with great relief that the official opposition
learned that the mediator had managed to bring the parties close
enough to allow workers to return to work in the port of
Montreal. This is an encouraging sign that it will be possible to
solve that conflict through negotiations.
If the Minister of Labour had appointed the mediator earlier,
the strike might have been avoided or, at the very least, been
considerably shorter. The slowness of the minister in this
conflict clearly shows that the government neglects the
economic interests of Montreal. The success of the mediator
should be an inspiration to the Minister of Labour.
(1410)
Mediation can work when the parties can truly negotiate. It is
undemocratic and irresponsible on the minister's part to impose
arbitration so quickly in the rail strike and in the Vancouver port
conflict, without first giving mediation a chance.
10895
[English]
Mrs. Daphne Jennings (Mission-Coquitlam, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, yesterday in this House when I asked my question, a
Liberal member referred to me with the insulting word ``scum''.
Although this member apologized at the end of the proceedings,
the damage had been done and I did not have the opportunity to
reply.
I wonder if members of this House realize it is how we treat
one another which disgusts our viewing audience at home. This
childish display of verbal attacks on members of this House
during question period is an attempt to intimidate those very
members for whom the question period is designed. This display
shows a lack of respect for this House, a contempt for this
House-
The Speaker: Colleagues, I only intervene to point out that
this specific matter was dealt with yesterday in a point of order. I
believed at the time that it had been resolved and that is why I am
intervening at this time.
* * *
Mr. Morris Bodnar (Saskatoon-Dundurn, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, people from Saskatchewan, especially farmers, are
very concerned about the effects of the rail strike on their ability
to get their products to port.
Farmers across Saskatchewan were quite disgusted with
members of the NDP when they put the interests of their union
masters ahead of the needs of the grassroots farmers, whom they
claim to represent, when they did not give their consent to fast
track Bill C-77 on Monday.
As for members of the BQ, farmers are not surprised that the
Bloc would stoop to such tactics. No doubt they have realized
that the strong economic growth and the excellent government
provided by the Liberal Party are convincing Quebecers to
remain in Canada. Then the rail strike came and they realized
they could damage the economy of Canada.
Farmers and industries in Saskatchewan need the rail lines.
Without efficient rail service, any chance of economic growth
will be lost. I appeal to all members to allow the bill to proceed
as quickly as possible.
* * *
Mr. Simon de Jong (Regina-Qu'Appelle, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, among the many Canadian traditions lost by the
wayside in the Liberal budget was the tradition of fairness.
The new $975 fee imposed on every new immigrant and
refugee plus the existing fees will mean that a family of four will
need to pay $3,150 just to get into the country. This new form of
head tax will be a particular burden to immigrants and refugees
from poorer countries with low average incomes.
Canada needs new immigrants if it is to maintain its
population and economic base. Studies show that immigrants
put more money into the Canadian treasury in taxes than they
take out in services.
The government with this new discriminatory tax has created
a major obstacle for the newly arrived. Where is the fairness?
Where is the humanity?
No one denies the need to deal with the debt that former
Liberal and Conservative governments have created, but surely
we can have a leaner government without it becoming a meaner
government.
* * *
Mrs. Sue Barnes (London West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, today is
the sixth day of the national rail strike. Ontario's economy is
coming to a standstill. Hundreds of millions of dollars are lost
each day in this struggling economy because of the strike. It is
unconscionable for the Bloc Quebecois, with the exception of
one courageous member, to allow this strike to continue
knowing fully the damage it is causing.
Among the millions who have the Bloc and the NDP to thank
for this unnecessary strike are: 2,500 CAW members at Ford
Canada's St. Thomas, Ontario plant who have been sent home
because of a shortage of parts; 3,900 CAW members at Oakville
and Windsor who will be working only halftime this week for
the same reason; and at least 70,000 commuters in Montreal and
Toronto who are facing long delays in getting to and from work.
Although our official opposition does not care about the
Canadian economy, everyone else in this country does. It is time
to move and quickly.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Bob Ringma (Nanaimo-Cowichan, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I wish to congratulate Les éditions des Plaines, in
Saint-Boniface, Manitoba, for publishing a book on the Reform
Party leader, Mr. Preston Manning. We welcome the initiative of
that publishing house, which followed up on a request made by
French-speaking Canadians interested in finding out more
about the Reform leader and his ideas.
On behalf of the Reform leader, I thank the publishing house
for its objectivity and hope that the community of
Saint-Boniface, as well as all French-speaking Canadians, will
enjoy some good reading.
10896
(1415)
[English]
We understand from Les éditions des Plaines that it was
responding to a demand from French speaking Canadians and is
encouraged that more francophones are demonstrating a
willingness to inform themselves about the Reform Party and
our leader.
We wish Annette St. Pierre and her publishing house the best
of luck and a good read to the community of St. Boniface and
French speaking Canadians all over.
_____________________________________________
10896
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
[Translation]
Hon. Lucien Bouchard (Leader of the Opposition, BQ):
Mr. Speaker, I am convinced that all members of the House are
glad to see that the appointment of a mediator in the Port of
Montreal dispute has paid off by allowing the employees to go
back to work this morning while leaving the door open to a
negotiated settlement.
My question is for the Minister of Labour. Given the success
of mediation in the Port of Montreal dispute, where talks had
dragged on for 25 months, why is the government stubbornly
rejecting mediation combined with a return to work for the
railways, as the official opposition has been proposing since
Monday?
Hon. Lucienne Robillard (Minister of Labour, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, as Minister of Labour, I am very happy to see that the
mediator in the Port of Montreal dispute has succeeded in
bringing the parties to agree to a voluntary resumption of work,
without any act of Parliament. I hope that the mediator will also
help the parties negotiate a collective agreement and that we
will not experience another work stoppage at the Port of
Montreal.
As far as the railways are concerned, that phase is already
over. We have already tried to reach an agreement with the
parties. We went through several phases involving conciliation,
a conciliation commissioner, Department of Labour officials
and even the minister herself to help the parties reach an
agreement. Unfortunately, this did not happen and we must now
take action.
Hon. Lucien Bouchard (Leader of the Opposition, BQ):
Mr. Speaker, I must remind you that the minister forgot to tell us
that there was no mediation in the rail dispute and that mediation
at the Port of Montreal did wonders. The government should
apply the same approach to the railways, thus avoiding a
bludgeon law.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
Mr. Bouchard: The federal government can settle the dispute
in the next hour by being flexible and agreeing to mediation.
In this context, how does the Minister of Labour explain her
refusal to make any concession, when the Canadian
Manufacturers' Association begs her to be flexible and settle the
rail dispute immediately? Does the government want to settle
this dispute in the next hour, yes or no?
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
Hon. Lucienne Robillard (Minister of Labour, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I hope that both parties want to settle this dispute in the
next hour. It is up to them to settle this dispute in the short term,
thus precluding government action. However, if they cannot do
so, we will have to assume our responsibility. This has enormous
economic consequences from coast to coast; jobs are being lost
across the country. It is our duty to act.
I urge the Bloc Quebecois to take a very realistic look at the
situation and the jobs that are being lost.
Hon. Lucien Bouchard (Leader of the Opposition, BQ):
Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport.
Everyone knows that the only reason why the federal
government refuses to allow mediation for rail workers, as it did
in the Port of Montreal dispute, is that it intends to break the
unions so that it can sell CN for more money.
Does the minister not see that CN will be much harder to sell
if it is hampered by a rotten labour relations climate resulting
from a bludgeon law?
[English]
Hon. Douglas Young (Minister of Transport, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the hon. Leader of the Opposition seems to be
operating under a certain misunderstanding of the situation.
When we commercialize the operations and the assets of
Canadian National I will not be selling CN. The taxpayers of
Canada will be the ones who benefit from the commercialization
of CN.
(1420 )
That is why efforts are being put forward to make sure that CN
is viable and competitive and that it survives as a railroad from
coast to coast. I know the hon. Leader of the Opposition is not
very interested in what happens in Canada from coast to coast.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron (Verchères, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Deputy Prime Minister.
Kurds in northern Iraq have been under attack for several days
by the Turkish air force, supported by 35,000 troops. The United
Nations High Commissioner for Refugees expressed serious
concern over the fate of Kurdish civilian refugees. While
10897
Washington and Moscow chose to turn a blind eye to the Turkish
incursion, the European Union sternly denounced it.
Could the Deputy Prime Minister tell us what the Canadian
government's position is regarding the totally unacceptable and
reprehensible actions by this NATO military ally of Canada?
[English]
Hon. David M. Collenette (Minister of National Defence
and Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, in the
absence of the Minister of Foreign Affairs I should like to
inform the House that Canada views the ongoing developments
in Turkey with some degree of concern.
We believe that all our NATO allies, as with all countries,
should respect normal international rights, procedures and
respect of others. The minister is actively pursuing the matter. I
believe these views have been made known to our NATO allies.
It is subject to further discussion.
[Translation]
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron (Verchères, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
could the Minister of National Defence tell us if the negotiations
under way concerning the sale of Canada's fleet of 63 CF-5
fighter bombers to Turkey is Canada's way of protesting against
Turkish attacks on Kurdish minorities?
[English]
Hon. David M. Collenette (Minister of National Defence
and Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, a
number of years ago there was a memorandum of understanding
between the Turkish government and the Canadian government
about the disposition of surplus aircraft, the CF-104s, that
Turkey indeed received.
Obviously Turkey has defence requirements and it shops
around quite frequently. It understands that we have surplus
CF-5 fighter planes and has made inquiries of Canada. However
no deal has been arranged. No agreement has been concluded.
In any sale of surplus military equipment we have made quite
clear that the purchasing countries have to give us certain
undertakings on the use of the equipment so that it does not
infringe in any way upon the rights of others or the equipment is
not used in ways that Canada would not approve of.
* * *
Mr. Preston Manning (Calgary Southwest, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, since the February budget the President of the Treasury
Board, the Minister responsible for Public Service Renewal and
officials of the finance department have all predicted that the
federal deficit would be eliminated by the year 2000.
The Minister of Finance has yet to deny or confirm the
predictions publicly so I ask him if in his meetings with
Moody's yesterday, the bond rating agency, he gave a target date
for the elimination of the federal deficit.
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance and Minister
responsible for the Federal Office of Regional
Development-Quebec, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, what I said to
Moody's in the meeting yesterday was what I said I would say in
response to the leader of the third party's question yesterday, in
fact in response to same question the day before, and I believe in
response to the same question a week before.
I set out our very clear intention to balance the books. I also
said we would do so through a series of short term targets that
would keep pressure on the government which was by far the
best way of controlling our spending.
Mr. Preston Manning (Calgary Southwest, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the minister can keep talking about rolling targets all
he wants, but the fact of the matter is that if all the minister told
Moody's yesterday was what he said in the House or told
Canadians, he is simply inviting a downgrade of the credit of the
country.
Even today Dominion Bond Rating Service, a Canadian
agency, has reviewed its outlook on Canada's credit rating from
stable to negative.
I have a supplementary question. Is the finance minister
prepared to take responsibility for any downgrading of the
country's credit rating and all the negative effects that will flow
from that?
(1425)
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance and Minister
responsible for the Federal Office of Regional
Development-Quebec, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the leader of the
third party quotes DBRS. In fact the statement from DBRS is:
``We expect to be releasing something in the very near future, a
couple of day to a week or so. We have not made a decision on
the rating of the federal budget yet but we will be doing so
shortly''.
In fact it is not Moody's, not DBRS, not Standard and Poors;
the only person who keeps talking about downgrading the
country's credit is the leader of the third party.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
Mr. Preston Manning (Calgary Southwest, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the minister gets cheers in the Chamber for that type of
statement, but every time we stand in the House and demand
deficit elimination rather than deficit reduction it is investors,
lenders and rating agencies that cheer when we make those types
of statements.
10898
This is very straightforward. If Moody's does not downgrade
it is because the finance minister told it something he has not
told the House or Canadians. If Moody's does downgrade it is
because the minister's budget does not go far enough fast
enough to restore lender confidence.
The Minister of Finance has one way out of this box. Will the
minister end the secrecy and uncertainty and tell Canadians how
and when he intends to eliminate, not just reduce, the Canadian
federal deficit?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance and Minister
responsible for the Federal Office of Regional
Development-Quebec, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, what I told
Moody's is contained in the document I tabled in the House
when I presented the budget. It is called the budget.
I can understand that the leader of the third party has not read
it because when I presented it in the House he was not here. He
was out trolling for media clips.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Yvan Loubier (Saint-Hyacinthe-Bagot, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, yesterday, Dominion Bond Rating Service confirmed
the misgivings the official opposition and the Quebec
government had about Quebec and Ontario being hit hardest by
most of the cuts in transfer payments announced by the federal
government in its last budget.
My question is for the Minister of Finance. Will the minister
confirm the Dominion Bond Rating estimate that Ontario and
Quebec will have to absorb 71 per cent of the reductions in
transfers announced in the last federal budget?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance and Minister
responsible for the Federal Office of Regional
Development-Quebec, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, first of all, the
DBRS analysis did not take into account tax points, which play a
very important role in our transfers. Second, their projections
for 1997-98 are nothing but pure speculation because, as you
know, we did not indicate in the budget how the cuts would be
apportioned.
Mr. Yvan Loubier (Saint-Hyacinthe-Bagot, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, be that as it may, can the Minister of Finance deny that,
to preserve his own image as a good manager and his own credit
rating, he knowingly and deliberately jeopardized the credit
ratings of Quebec and Ontario by transferring his budget
problems to these provinces?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance and Minister
responsible for the Federal Office of Regional
Development-Quebec, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, perhaps I should
quote from the DBRS report-I will translate for you.
According to DBRS, justice, equity and improved efficiency are
the guiding principles of our reform, as far as transfers to the
provinces are concerned. In other words, DBRS is saying that
what we have done in fact is follow the principles of equity and
good management.
(1430 )
[English]
In terms of Quebec or Ontario there are models they could
follow.
For the first time since it has joined Canada, a Newfoundland
finance minister has tabled a balanced budget. Other provinces
could follow Newfoundland.
* * *
Mr. Dale Johnston (Wetaskiwin, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, in
April of last year the government commissioned Paul Fraser to
prepare an independent report on labour issues at CP, CN and
VIA Rail.
If this report is worth anything at all, why were the
recommendations not implemented in time to save the
collective bargaining process and have the parties come to an
agreement on their own without having to resort to back to work
legislation and a $3 billion hit on the Canadian economy?
[Translation]
Hon. Lucienne Robillard (Minister of Labour, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the minister's special advisor passed on his opinion
and advice on a regular basis as the situation evolved. I think he
has done his best to bring the parties together and, as we speak,
Mr. Fraser's mandate has not expired yet. Therefore, no report
has been tabled so far.
[English]
Mr. Dale Johnston (Wetaskiwin, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, it
would certainly be nice if Canadians could see Mr. Fraser's
report. We are becoming all too familiar with the secretive and
rather stalling tactics of presenting these reports in the House.
Will the Minister of Labour tell the House if this report
actually contains any anti-replacement worker legislation?
[Translation]
Hon. Lucienne Robillard (Minister of Labour, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I can only repeat that Mr. Fraser's mandate is not over;
therefore, he has not yet tabled his report.
* * *
Mr. André Caron (Jonquière, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Indian Affairs.
The federal government was criticized by the Canadian
Human Rights Commission mainly for doing nothing to curb the
alarming incidence of suicide in aboriginal communities.
10899
In light of the fact that the government was reminded time and
time again of how serious the problem of suicide among
aboriginal people is, how can the Minister of Indian Affairs
explain that, 16 months into his mandate, he still has not done
anything to remedy the situation, forcing the commission to take
him to task once more?
[English]
Hon. Diane Marleau (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, we have done considerable work with aboriginal
communities on the very serious problems that plague some of
them.
Let me remind the hon. member that despite some of the
communities we hear about there are many others functioning
very well. Health Canada has set up a number of initiatives to
address the very serious problem of aboriginal suicide in some
communities.
[Translation]
Mr. André Caron (Jonquière, BQ): Mr. Speaker, over a six
month period last year, in the Ontario reserve of Pikangikum
alone, out of a total population of 1,600, 50 young people aged
15 to 24 attempted to take their own lives and, sadly, five others
succeeded.
In the face of this tragedy, how does the minister explain his
stubborn persistence in uprooting young aboriginal people at a
cost of thousands of dollars instead of building a local assistance
centre, as requested by the community?
[English]
Hon. Diane Marleau (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, we are now in the process of selecting three sites for
solvent abuse treatment. We certainly hope to have some of
these sites selected by early this spring so that construction can
begin.
This is a very serious problem for aboriginal communities. If
hon. members have any other suggestions, feel free to come
forward. We will do whatever we can to address this serious
concern.
* * *
Mr. John Duncan (North Island-Powell River, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, yesterday Ovide Mercredi, national chief of the
Assembly of First Nations, released contents from the
minister's speaking notes surrounding his secret $5 million
policy paper on inherent right to self-government.
Can the minister confirm that after 16 months of consultation
his policy of self-government is based in the municipal style
espoused by the Reform Party?
(1435 )
Hon. Ron Irwin (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the question was whether our
concept is based on the municipal form of government as
espoused by the Reform Party? Certainly not.
Mr. John Duncan (North Island-Powell River, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I expected more of a complete answer.
Can the minister confirm that his $5 million policy paper
states that he is making provincial participation mandatory in
self-government negotiations?
Hon. Ron Irwin (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, what was proposed at the
Quebec conference of ministers and aboriginal leaders by the
federal government is that we would have a broad consultation
process. This is the $5 million alluded to by my friend.
Sixty-nine submissions were received by aboriginal people. I
have met with about half of the provinces. I am trying to gain a
consensus that there is a good starting document there and not a
document that will be repudiated from day one and wind up on
someone's shelf to be forgotten.
I am not looking for 100 per cent but certainly for some form
of consensus. If I do not get it I will come forward with the
policy as we proposed in our red book.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mrs. Maud Debien (Laval East, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the
situation in Burundi is deteriorating significantly and the risks
of a Rwanda-like genocide are increasing. The official
opposition is very concerned about this and has asked the
government several times to take the steps required to prevent
such a massacre.
How can the Minister of Foreign Affairs reconcile his
government's position on this matter with the comments made
this week on CBC by his representative in Bujumbura, who said
that everything was going well in Burundi?
Hon. André Ouellet (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I wish to remind the hon. member of what I said
before in this House, namely that Canada, too, was concerned
about what is happening in Burundi. In addition, I would like to
correct the hon. member, who attributes to our representative in
Burundi an assessment of the situation which is not the one he
gave.
On the contrary, he explained that the situation was difficult
but that, despite these difficulties, it should not be compared to
the situation that existed in the days preceding the massacre in
Rwanda. I think that, objectively, she should not ascribe to our
representative comments he has not made.
Mrs. Maud Debien (Laval East, BQ): Mr. Speaker, could the
minister tell us what steps the government has taken to help stop
the escalation of the ethnic conflict in Burundi and, among other
things, to promote the creation of an international inquiry
10900
commission on the October 1993 events, as the participants in
the regional conference on Burundi requested last month?
Hon. André Ouellet (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, again, I think it is important to remind you that the
government did not wait for the opposition to ask us a question
in this House before taking action. My colleague, the Secretary
of State, travelled to Burundi to attend a conference with
officials from other countries concerned about this matter and
about Rwanda.
Several weeks ago, we appointed a special roving ambassador
on these issues, Ambassador Dusseault, who, week after week,
visits Burundi, Zaire, Rwanda and other countries interested in
what is happening over there.
(1440)
Of course, Canada wants to avoid a bloodbath. Of course,
these ethnic conflicts are reprehensible, but I will remind the
hon. member that the representations we have made at both the
UN and the Organization of African Unity to try to convince
other countries to join Canada in taking action cannot be
attributed to Canada's lack of interest. On the contrary, we are
very interested, very concerned, but Canada alone cannot
resolve this persistent ethnic problem in Africa.
* * *
Mrs. Pierrette Ringuette-Maltais (Madawaska-Victoria,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National
Defence.
[English]
In previous years his department has been contracting
seasonal work to retired military personnel receiving a pension,
thus double dipping and leaving in the cold many Canadians
seeking employment.
Can the minister tell us if his department will continue to hire
retired military personnel or will civilians have a fair
opportunity to work at these seasonal jobs?
Hon. David M. Collenette (Minister of National Defence
and Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I would
like to remind the House that retired military personnel have the
same rights and privileges as all Canadians.
One set of guidelines we follow is federal legislation. All
Canadians have an opportunity to compete for these jobs. We are
monitoring the situation to see that there are no instances in
which people are being favoured because of their former
involvement in the armed forces. It is of great concern to us.
The hon. member should know that everyone should be
treated fairly, and they will be.
Mr. Garry Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, on Monday night 99 per cent of the members of the
Saskatoon Police Association voted in opposition to Bill C-68,
the Firearms Act.
Polls taken in Estevan, Prince Albert, Weyburn and Moose
Jaw show 95 per cent of the city police are opposed to this bill.
Who is the Minister of Justice going to believe, the chiefs of
police sitting in their offices or the real police experts out on the
streets catching the real criminals?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney
General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, like all other
information that derives from the gun lobby, I urge the hon.
member to check for the real facts.
Let us determine first of all how many officers in those
departments participated in the so-called vote. Let us find out
what they were asked and the reason for the meeting being called
in the first place.
The Saskatchewan Federation of Police Officers intends to
conduct its own poll and we shall see what happens when all the
police in the province are asked the full question.
There is no doubt there are individual police officers,
individual police chiefs, who do not agree with all parts of the
firearms bill. However, while it is not unanimous, we continue
to believe this bill has the support of the vast majority of
Canadians and police officers.
Mr. Garry Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, we have also had many chiefs of police contacting us,
vehemently opposed to more gun controls. The Saskatchewan
Association of Rural Municipalities is overwhelmingly
opposed. It had over 600 members at the meeting. The
Saskatchewan legislature is unanimously opposed to C-68 and
wants it withdrawn.
If the Prime Minister's claim is true that registering guns is no
different than registering cars, will the minister allow the
province of Saskatchewan to establish its own gun control laws?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney
General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, there is no doubt that in
this election year all sorts of things will happen in Saskatchewan
and in its legislature.
Perhaps the members opposite can look at the facts of this
case and examine the question that in Saskatchewan the fatality
rate from firearms is 50 per cent higher than the national
average. The suicide rate from firearms is twice the national
average. Let us talk about community safety.
10901
(1445)
[Translation]
Mr. Bernard Deshaies (Abitibi, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Indian Affairs.
A report from the Department of Indian Affairs on the
transport of food to the far north links the health problems of
aboriginal people to the lack of affordable nutritious food.
How does the minister explain that the millions of dollars
spent by his department still have not made a significant
difference, and that the price of food remains two to three times
higher in these regions than in the south?
[English]
Hon. Ron Irwin (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we will be allocating in the
range of $16 million toward food mail. The problem is
recognized. The hon. member for Saint-Jean repeatedly brings
it to the attention of the House.
We are trying to break up the food into a more definitive
process: perishable and non-perishable. It will continue to be a
problem. I can only commit to the member that my ministry will
be there. We will be lobbying governments and, hopefully, the
province of Quebec, which has a responsibility. The people
living there are not only citizens of Canada, they are also
citizens of Quebec. I would like to work co-operatively with Mr.
Cliche and with the premier to solve the problem in Quebec.
[Translation]
Mr. Bernard Deshaies (Abitibi, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my
supplementary is for the same minister.
In the last four years, over 400 pages of studies and reports
have been produced by that department on the Omnibus air
service and the nutritional status of the Inuit.
Based on these studies, can the minister explain why the cost
of food remains so high, in spite of substantial subsidies?
[English]
Hon. Ron Irwin (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the answer is quite obvious.
It is distance. It costs money to send food that far.
The alternative to living as Canadians in their environment is
to move everybody to Montreal, which we do not want. We want
them to live there. We want them to live peacefully in our
country and with good health. I am committed to working with
the hon. member, the Bloc party and the province of Quebec to
do a better job.
* * *
Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, earlier this
month the general manager of the National Capital Commission
proposed a grand plan which would cut 28 per cent from the
NCC's budget. But hear this, the 1994 public accounts indicate
that NCC's outstanding commitments for office space leasing
will increase from $1 million to $4 million per year thereafter.
How can the minister explain this 300 per cent increase?
Ms. Albina Guarnieri (Parliamentary Secretary to
Minister of Canadian Heritage, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon.
member knows that the National Capital Commission has an
arm's length arrangement with the ministry and is responsible
for the management of its funds.
Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the taxpayers
of the country have an arm's length relationship with their
money too, and they want answers.
Our research shows that the NCC leases no office space other
than the new NCC Chambers Building. I have a surprise for the
House. José Perez was handed the contract to build and lease the
Chambers Building with no tender. His competitors cried foul,
to no avail.
Why does the government not order a public inquiry into the
whole affair of Mr. Perez? What is to hide?
Ms. Albina Guarnieri (Parliamentary Secretary to
Minister of Canadian Heritage, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I will be
happy to relay the hon. member's concerns to the minister. Since
the question deals with a specific accusation, I would be happy
to provide more details.
* * *
Mr. Tony Valeri (Lincoln, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have had
many calls from small and medium size businesses that are
absorbing additional costs because of the rail strike. Other
constituents have called saying they will be laid off soon if the
rail strike continues.
Can the Minister of Industry explain to the House and, in
particular, to those Bloc members who are holding up this back
to work legislation just what this strike is costing Canadian
industry and what it is costing the business constituents in each
and every one of our ridings?
Hon. John Manley (Minister of Industry, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I am pleased that the hon. member indicates an interest
in this important question. Evidently some members do not
understand
10902
that as they delay passage of the back to work legislation they
are affecting the jobs and the incomes of Canadians across the
country.
(1450 )
According to the President of the Canadian Manufacturers
Association, this strike is costing Canadians over $3 billion per
week in lost profits and productivity. The jobs of Canadians are
in the hands of members of the Bloc and members of the NDP. I
would like to know where the premiers of the provinces of
Quebec, Ontario, Saskatchewan and British Columbia are. Why
are they not calling on the separatists and the NDP to get these
people back to work?
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier-Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, yesterday, the Prime Minister said in the House that
senior public servants working for or against political parties
were not governed by the act which prohibits them from
conducting such activities. Moreover, the Prime Minister
claimed that the Supreme Court had invalidated the applicable
legislative provision.
Can the President of the Treasury Board confirm that this
provision in the Public Service Employment Act is still in effect,
and can he tell us if the Treasury Board always applies the
legislation in an unbiased way?
[English]
Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton (President of the Treasury Board
and Minister responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the answer was given yesterday by the Prime Minister.
I think that is the valid answer.
[Translation]
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier-Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, the minister should have reminded us of that answer if
he remembered it.
My supplementary is for the Deputy Prime Minister. How can
the Deputy Prime Minister explain that the government's code
of ethics makes no reference to the political activities in which
senior public servants can engage?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister
of the Environment, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am not surprised to
see the Bloc Quebecois fishing for other problems, since it is
experiencing problems back home.
I might add that, to make a decision in that regard, we have not
found it necessary to hire American lobbyists, as the Parti
Quebecois is doing, to explain the referendum project.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh!
Ms. Copps: But I can tell you one thing, Mr. Speaker. I am
convinced that the CNTU, among others, supports the right of
public servants to give political opinions, in the same way that it
is doing concerning the referendum.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley East, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
my question is for the President of the Treasury Board.
The government's own Treasury Board manual requires that
reports be tabled in the House of Commons annually on the
status of contracting out. For two years now the government has
failed to release this important information, even though even as
far back as 1991-92 this involved over $10 billion in
expenditures, $3 billion of which was without competitive
process.
Why is the minister disobeying his own guidelines by
withholding these reports for two years running?
Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton (President of the Treasury Board
and Minister responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, there is no withholding of any information. In fact the
contracting out issue is under very careful scrutiny by the
government operations committee at the moment.
A wealth of information is being provided and the member
has full access to it as we attempt to address the whole question
and review the appropriateness of the contracting out of
government services.
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley East, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
one of the reasons we need this information is to do a thorough
job in the committee. We cannot do a thorough investigation
without the annual reports.
Contracting out can be cost effective and a good way of
performing government work. But without the proper
supervision, taxpayers and government workers are doubting
whether they are getting a good bang for their bucks so to speak.
Is the minister willing to release these rolling targets, as his
manual says he should. Could he tell us what day we can expect
to see those annual reports?
Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton (President of the Treasury Board
and Minister responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, we will ensure that what information is available is
provided to the hon. member and other members to help them
scrutinize this matter in an appropriate fashion.
Let me tell the hon. member that the government has and will
continue to ensure the efficient and effective use of taxpayers'
dollars. We want to make sure that we are getting good value for
the taxpayers' dollars.
10903
(1455 )
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg Transcona, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
my question-
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Speaker: Order. The hon. member for Winnipeg
Transcona.
Mr. Blaikie: Mr. Speaker, I thought I was at an anti-tax rally
for a minute.
My question is for the minister of fisheries. The minister
needs a break and to turn his mind from turbot to pickerel for a
minute. I would like to ask him a question about the future of the
Freshwater Fish Marketing Corporation.
The minister will know that recommendations have been
made by a committee that he struck in order to look into the
future of the Freshwater Fish Marketing Corporation.
What is the intention of the government with respect to this
crown corporation? Does he intend to privatize it or
provincialize it? Is he going to try to meet the concerns of some
native people and others who have had problems with the
corporation within the existing framework, which is what I
would recommend?
Hon. Brian Tobin (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the member for his question
on pickerel. I know he did not want to talk about railways any
more.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
Mr. Tobin: He was looking like a pickled pickerel.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Speaker: It is starting to sound a little bit fishy.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
Mr. Tobin: Mr. Speaker, I take your sanction. No more firing
from the hip.
I want to respond to the member by telling him that we are
examining the recommendation of the standing committee on
fisheries. We are seeking to find a way to give the native
communities concerned an opportunity to participate in the
fresh fish market, perhaps without some of the current
constraints that are in place under the FFMC.
At the same time, we are not going to move rapidly to
privatize or dismantle FFMC. We want to hear from all of the
fishermen who access its services and all the provinces that have
a concern about its future.
We are going to move slowly. We are going to consult clearly
and carefully. We are going to consult the member because we
find that in due course he usually comes to the right conclusion.
* * *
Mr. Geoff Regan (Halifax West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister for International Trade. Atlantic
Canadians are worried about the impact of the rail strike in our
economy. We are frustrated with the attempts of the Bloc and the
NDP to delay an end to the rail strike.
Small manufacturers, employees and exporters in Halifax
West want the trains moving again and now. Can the minister
please make it crystal clear to the opposition what the cost is,
what the impact of the strike is on our exporters and what it is
costing our country?
Hon. Roy MacLaren (Minister for International Trade,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, Canada reported a record trade surplus in
1994. Again in the month of January there were record export
sales. This underlines the importance to Canada of our export
trade which is now being adversely affected. It is a vital
Canadian interest being damaged by the prolonged rail strike. It
is evident to every Canadian except possibly the members of the
Bloc Quebecois and the NDP.
If we were to proceed to settle that strike, we could restore the
full flow of Canadian exports, including those to the United
States. Every working day some $200 million of Canadian
exports to the United States are being adversely affected by this
prolonged rail strike. We are determined to bring it to an end.
* * *
Mr. Mike Scott (Skeena, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, my question is
for the minister of Indian affairs. Ovide Mercredi and a select
group of Indian chiefs in Alberta seem to know more about the
minister's secret report on self-government than the House does
or the Canadian people do.
Will the minister table this report in the House today?
(1500 )
Hon. Ron Irwin (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member was at the
press conference and has presumably seen the write ups from
yesterday. This is not a secret report nor a cabinet document.
These are some discussion points that I have raised with
aboriginal leaders across the country.
After I have had these discussions with the aboriginal
leadership, as I undertook to do and as I will continue to do, and
with the provincial ministers, I will return to cabinet. The hon.
10904
member will then have a report as a cabinet document or a
government document before the House.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Paul Mercier (Blainville-Deux-Montagnes, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Transport.
The day before yesterday, in response to a question from the
official opposition, the Minister of Transport said that he would
check Air Canada's compliance with the Official Languages
Act. The minister's record as far as his department's services in
French are concerned is pretty shaky, since the air navigation
system still does not to provide services in French throughout
Quebec's air space.
Could the minister let us know the results of his enquiries with
respect to Air Canada and could he give us the assurance that the
future privatization of CN and the air navigation system will not
be used as an excuse for lax implementation of the Official
Languages Act?
[English]
Hon. Douglas Young (Minister of Transport, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, when another hon. member raised the question with
respect to ads placed by Air Canada looking for qualified
personnel, the ads clearly stated that bilingualism in one case
was required, a third language was an advantage to anybody
applying, especially for cabin crew. There is no doubt the
application of the Official Languages Act is essential to the
operation of Air Canada. It is part of its mandate.
I want to assure my hon. friend the obligation extends to being
able to provide service in both official languages on the flights
of Air Canada and we expect that will continue.
With respect to the second part of his question concerning the
commercialization of the air navigation system and the
commercialization of CN, we will undertake to ensure
Canadians who speak both official languages will continue to be
served in the language of their choice anywhere in the country.
* * *
The Speaker: I wish to draw the attention of the House to the
presence in the gallery of His Excellency Roberto Gonzalez,
Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of Cuba.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance and Minister
responsible for the Federal Office of Regional
Development-Quebec, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it was brought to
my attention by the Solicitor General that in my third answer to
the leader of the third party I made reference to his absence from
the House. It has been pointed out to me that was
unparliamentary and I wish to withdraw the remark.
I would also like to ask the House leader for an apology
because when I made the remark he said, for Hansard, the leader
of the third party was lucky, that he had to sit here the whole
time.
The Speaker: I hope I have a real point of order from the
Minister of Industry.
Hon. John Manley (Minister of Industry, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, while we are clarifying things said during question
period, it has been brought to my attention by the member for
Winnipeg Transcona that this morning while I was endeavouring
to get information on the impact of the rail strike on Canadian
industry it was not brought to my attention that the NDP had
changed its position and is now prepared to let the legislation go
through, for which I thank it. I apologize for my comment in that
respect.
Hon. Brian Tobin (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I want to correct the record as well. Given
what I just heard, the member does not look like a pickled
pickerel.
* * *
(1505)
[Translation]
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I would
appreciate it if the leader of the government would let us know
the business of the House for the next few days.
[English]
Hon. Herb Gray (Leader of the Government in the House
of Commons and Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I do not intend to make any comments about fish,
budgets, the press or any of those matters. Instead, I will get
right the point and provide the weekly business statement. Mind
you, I have a lot of thoughts on those subjects, but I am keeping
them to myself.
This afternoon the House will continue its consideration of an
opposition motion and there will be votes on the motion and on
the business of supply commencing at 5.15 p.m.
10905
Tomorrow the House will resume debate on third reading of
Bill C-73, the borrowing authority legislation.
On Saturday and if necessary on Sunday the House will deal
with report stage and third reading of Bill C-77 to end the
railway strike.
On Monday we will consider second reading of Bill C-72
regarding criminal intoxication, followed by report stage and
third reading of Bill C-69, the redistribution bill.
We will resume this business on Tuesday and when it is
complete we will resume debate of Bill C-68, the firearms bill.
We will continue with Bill C-68 if necessary on Wednesday. On
Thursday we will start debate on Bill C-76, the budget
implementation bill.
_____________________________________________
10905
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[
Translation]
The House resumed consideration of the motion.
Mr. Jean H. Leroux (Shefford, BQ): Mr. Speaker, as I said
earlier, the debate is on a motion, introduced by the third party,
in which the Minister of National Defence is asked to extend the
mandate of the commission of inquiry to cover all armed forces
and not only the military unit in Somalia.
I would like to explain the situation and the position taken by
the Bloc. For several months we have been asking the
government to consider the importance of establishing a
commission that would investigate the situation prevailing in
the forces at this time. The government, however, has decided to
establish a commission that will cover only part of what we see
as the real problem.
This is a very serious matter, and Canadians and Quebecers
have doubts about the credibility of those in charge of the
Canadian Forces and whether they are doing their job, and they
wonder whether all this could be improved. I worked in
education for more than 21 years. In my riding, we had four
cadet corps, two army and two navy, and I think the people who
are involved in these projects do a good job.
(1510)
Now, however, people are not so sure, but I think we should
not blame the entire military. As I said before Question Period,
it is likely that only some of the people who make the decisions
should perhaps change the way they do that. The Bloc Quebecois
supports the motion of the hon. member for Saanich-Gulf
Islands, and we think it would be useful for the government or
the Department of National Defence to expand the scope of the
study so that all this could be cleared up.
I think Canadians are now asking questions about the quality
of Canada's defence. As you know, this year Canada has
projected a deficit of $33.5 billion. On the Standing Committee
on National Defence, the Bloc Quebecois suggested cuts that
would trim the Defence budget to $10 billion, but the
government refused.
The government is going to make cuts. It will cut $1.6 billion
over three years, while we requested a cut of $4.8 billion over
three years. Right now, the Government of Quebec is about to
bring down its own budget. In that budget, ministers will each
receive an envelope, and they will have to operate their
departments with the funding provided in that envelope.
I think the Canadian government could have done the same
thing. When we sat on the joint committee with the senators, we
were told that Canada was going to buy submarines. Fortunately,
this is no longer the case. This is not a time of expansion, but
rather of reduction. This is a time of streamlining and of making
what we have as effective as possible.
In the spring I had the honour and the opportunity to visit our
forces in Bosnia-Hercegovina. We were able to visit Canadians
stationed in Gorazde and another group in Visoko. We were able
on site to see that the Canadian forces were doing a good job
there. Now what people want is an investigation to see what
could be improved. We are told that morale in the military is low
at the moment. Therefore would this not be a good time for the
government to set up a commission to look into all of this?
As I was saying, I am on the Standing Committee on National
Defence. Since becoming a member, I have noticed that the
committees-there are 22 of them-sit a lot during the week.
What is the real role of the committees? Is it not time in Canada
for us to review the role of our House committees? The
committees sit several hours a week and simply make
recommendations. Unlike in the American system, our
committees prepare documents, and often these documents,
after having been produced at great cost, are simply shelved and
never heard of again. It is as if the committees were used to
assess popular opinion and to find out what people were
thinking. However, the people on these committees, whether in
government or in opposition, work very hard. We have people
from Canada and Quebec appearing before us to express their
points of view. Very often, however, these committees have no
real power unfortunately. The power lies in the hands of the
ministers and cabinet. I think it would be a good idea, as we
suggested in our committee, for committees to have more power
so that the government and the opposition could together
develop a coherent Canadian policy.
10906
(1515)
In the past 15 years in Quebec, military investment has been
insufficient. There has been a shortfall in Quebec of $650
million a year. Quebec is not receiving its fair share. They say
that 23.5 per cent of Canada's defence budget comes from
Quebec. But only 17.4 per cent of the total budget for defence
and defence research goes to Quebec. As a direct result of this
budget, Quebec will lose 15,000 military and civilian jobs. And
this will create a spin-off and an indirect job loss of 25,000, in
addition to the 40,000 other jobs lost each year, a 40,000 job
shortfall for the past 15 years. While Ontario gets 73 per cent of
the defence research budget, Quebec must be happy with a
meagre 12.4 per cent. That is unacceptable, 12.45 per cent of
research spending for Quebec when 73 per cent goes to Ontario.
Only 15 per cent of all of Canada's military facilities are in
Quebec. The closure of the Saint-Hubert base, which was
announced in the last budget, will cause a loss of 600 jobs. Six
hundred people are going to be out of work. The total number of
casualties from the staffing cuts in Bagotville is 285 employees.
We cannot help but notice that, despite commissions, despite
studies, despite committees which try to strike a balance,
Quebec is getting less and less, and that is unacceptable.
Last year, the Government of Canada made probably the worst
decision it will make during its four year mandate, and that was
to close the Saint-Jean military college. And I must say that I
have often encountered senior departmental officials who tell
me in private and who will continue to tell me that it should not
have been done. But they did it anyway. They closed the military
college. I am telling you this not to reopen the debate, but to
make the point that there are 13,000 bilingual positions in the
armed forces, of which 7,000 are filled by unilingual
anglophones. Of the 13,000 bilingual positions, only 6,000 are
filled by Quebecers or others, and because we do not have
enough bilingual members of the armed forces, the 7,000 other
positions are filled by anglophones.
They talk about having a bilingual policy, but it is just a ploy.
If they ever were really serious about it, they never would have
closed the Saint-Jean military college because that was really
where they trained bilingual members of the armed forces. We
will see, but I do not think that Kingston will be able to fill this
need.
(1520)
I would also like to discuss defence conversion, because the
budget makes no mention of it. There are more than 650 defence
conversion businesses in Quebec, of all sizes. Quebec has lost
10,000 jobs since 1987 due to defence conversion. Between
1990 and 1994, 7,391 industry jobs were lost. It is unacceptable
that a government which claims to be responsible, as this one
does, has neglected to develop a policy on defence conversion.
The Bloc Quebecois will support the motion put forward by
our hon. opposition colleague because it is consistent with the
official opposition's repeated requests to broaden the mandate
of the inquiry on the deployment of Canadian troops in Somalia.
Both the official opposition and the third party have asked
questions many times, but we never received any answers. In our
opinion, this commission should have been mandated to also
look into all the other disturbing events not only in the
disbanded Airborne Regiment but also on the base at Petawawa
and everywhere else in the armed forces.
According to rumours, which are confirmed by videos and
other evidence, some members of the military go around their
bases displaying white supremacist flags and wearing Ku Klux
Klan armbands. This is totally unacceptable. If ordinary soldiers
behave in this way, it is because they are allowed to do so. Their
behaviour is accepted and may even be encouraged.
I think it is important to find out if our military bases and what
they teach our young people encourage racism, because if such
is the case, it is unacceptable. That is why the Bloc will support
my hon. colleague's motion.
Mr. Fred Mifflin (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
National Defence and Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
would like to say that, to have a precise idea of how much the
Department of National Defence spends in Quebec, you have to
look at the facts carefully. It is obvious to me that my colleague
opposite does not have all the facts.
It is true that defense expenditures will be cut in Quebec like
in every other province over a period of four years, and not one
year, as this was suggested.
At any rate, I would like to point out that defence spending in
Quebec, including salaries, operations and maintenance,
presently accounts for 22.2 per cent of overall defence spending
and that, after four years of cuts, this percentage will only have
been reduced to 21.5 per cent. This means that Quebec is being
treated equitably.
As far as capital expenditures are concerned, Quebec always
benefited from the larger share in Canada on account of its
industry.
[English]
Mr. Leroux (Shefford): Mr. Speaker, I completely disagree
with my colleague.
A recent study by a Quebec university says that for the last 15
years, Quebec's military budget is missing $650 million every
year. I think no one in this House is refuting that. It is important
to say that Quebec has never really received its share. All the
documents we have received prove that.
10907
The Liberal government had one chance to promote
bilingualism in Canada and it did not do it. It decided to close
the only francophone and bilingual school in Canada, which was
Collège militaire royal de Saint-Jean. The Liberals decided to
do that. I am sure that is the worst decision the government will
take in the four years it will be in government, if it ever goes to
four years. Who knows?
(1525)
[Translation]
I would have appreciated that my colleagues opposite on the
defence committee ask me questions on the importance, for
example, of having committees of this House that are effective,
committees with decision making authority. It is not the case, at
present, in Ottawa. We have committees that sit, gather
evidence, do all sorts of things, but when it comes to making any
real decision, any major decision, it is then up to the ministers
and the system. Ministers make decision and, often, all the work
done in committee is ignored. It is a shame. I wish the
government would take good note of that.
[English]
Mr. John Richardson (Perth-Wellington-Waterloo,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest to the hon. member
for Shefford. It is easy when you want to pick a target. It is like a
child with a bowl of candy wanting to get the best one out.
The reality is for those of us in Ontario, particularly those in
Toronto, there is no federal government presence in the city of
Toronto. There are 24 federal headquarters in the city of
Montreal. I have never heard the city of Toronto or the province
of Ontario make a big claim about that imbalance.
The argument that because a college is in Ontario it is not
bilingual, but if it is in Quebec it is bilingual does not wash. That
supercilious sort of sham reasoning has been given the lie direct.
They are working to have it work in Kingston. Further to that, a
kind of insidious logic is taking place here. It has no place in the
national assembly because it is being divisive.
We have had excellent and outstanding generals from the
province of Quebec, some of the very best and the finest both
during the war and after the war. Some of the the very best and
the finest of soldiers are from the Royal 22nd Regiment, and
from the artillery, from the 12e Régiment blindé du Canada, le
régiment de Trois-Rivières, l'autre facilité. Il y aura moins
d'argent pour la défense, but it is made up elsewhere year after
year with those 24 headquarters, the CBC, et cetera, in
Montreal. Nobody is asking that 12 of them be given to Toronto,
Vancouver or elsewhere. That kind of argument does not carry.
[Translation]
Mr. Leroux (Shefford): Mr. Speaker, I will simply answer
that, in the current system, if you are a francophone and you
want to get on in the Canadian Forces, you have to become
anglicized. You do not have a choice.
I will not mention by name the many generals I met who are
francophones but, as far as I am concerned, have become
anglicized because they had no other choice. If you look at the
composition of the Canadian Forces, francophones can be found
in numbers in the lower echelons, but there are fewer and fewer
as you move towards the top. Take Canadian generals for
example. Among the 136 general we have in Canada-by the
way it is inadmissible to have enough generals to lead 250,000
men when all we have is a small army-there is only a handful of
francophones. And these francophones had to be twice as good
as their anglophone counterparts to make general. And that is
unacceptable.
(1530)
It is true that we have more francophone generals in the army.
On the other hand, you will notice that there are very few
francophones among the top brass in the air force and the navy,
and that is a shame. Someone mentioned earlier that only in
Quebec can bilingual schools be set up. That is not true. We can
see what is going on in Kingston; it has received much media
coverage recently and the press does report hard facts. Kingston
is a city where it is difficult for francophones to live. It is so.
By contrast-I would like to point out to my colleagues who
may not be aware of this-in Quebec, the minority, which
accounts for approximately 20 per cent of the total population,
has its own elementary and secondary school system, its owns
hospitals, two major universities in Montreal, namely McGill
University and Concordia University. This minority also has a
university of its own in the Eastern Townships. There is no
comparison between the way Quebec has traditionally treated its
minorities and how the rest of Canada does.
The rest of Canada has a long way to go to catch up to
Quebec's way of treating its minorities since the beginning of
the Canadian Confederation. I think that the military college in
Saint-Jean is important as a symbol and, as such, if we are
serious about Canadian bilingualism, it should have been
preserved. I think it should have remained open. It was decided
to abolish it, to do away with it. I maintain that this may be the
worst decision made by this government. It could make even
worse ones; its mandate is not over yet. But this far, this is
certainly the worst. And the worst of it all is that they know it.
They know that this was a bad decision and they have to live
with it.
10908
[English]
Mr. John Richardson (Perth-Wellington-Waterloo,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to join in the debate. The
motion of the hon. member for Saanich-Gulf Islands contains a
lot of credible and worthwhile information.
Two days ago the minister tabled an inquiry on the
deployment of Canadian forces in Somalia that had broad terms
of reference including many of the valid and strong concerns the
hon. member for Saanich-Gulf Islands has put forward. The
terms of reference will allow the inquiry to go beyond what
happened in the Somalia incident and what took place in the
armed forces before and after the incident. It will go from the
highest to lowest levels in its questioning. I hope the inquiry will
exploit to the fullest its commission and will incorporate some
of the concerns voiced by the hon. member.
At times when the armed forces go through very wrenching
changes in life, changes in direction and changes in purpose, the
cement that keeps them focused is no longer present.
At one time the newspapers were full of the cold war. The
threat was present. It was real. It was easy to motivate, to
stimulate and to activate personnel in the forces. The reality
today is that with the disintegration of the Berlin wall, within the
partners for peace and throughout the world there is not the
tension that bonds, motivates and focuses the armed forces.
(1535 )
One thing that causes that is the professionalism of senior
leaders, officers and non-commissioned officers who serve
their country through the armed forces of Canada. In my opinion
there tend to be weaknesses when there is no stress to hold it
together. The weaknesses become magnified because the press
has time to focus on incidents. As a consequence they are
sometimes overmagnified.
We have the responsibility to execute and examine errors
when they occur or flaws when they are found. The commission
has the right, the full support of Parliament and the ability under
the Inquiries Act to go beyond the defence act. It has the right to
bring in witnesses from outside government and outside the
Department of National Defence. It has the right to bring in
civilian witnesses as well. That is what we have within the
commission tabled by the minister in the House two days ago.
The constant moving of families and postings that come about
with a small army, navy and air force put pressure on families
that we do not see in civilian life, except maybe at one time when
the banks had frequent postings. They have been reduced
considerably for a number of reasons, mainly costs. It puts
pressure on families. It puts pressure on children when they
move from school to school. It puts pressure on wives when they
are at home a long time and their husbands are away on
peacekeeping missions or at sea on manoeuvres. It is one stress
that is not found in a civilian occupation.
The stress was focused when the threat was meaningful and
ever present. People will often question why something is being
done and the stress is put on the family. As a consequence it is
difficult to maintain morale under those conditions.
The lack of threat sometimes makes it difficult for
governments to maintain levels of spending. Therefore
governments turn to the armed forces and begin to cut,
reasonably so because the hackneyed phrase, the peace
dividend, is there. Past and present governments have been
pushing back funds for defence, again putting stress on the
forces in terms of concerns about job security, their future
progress in the forces, et cetera.
Under stressful situations people begin to look at the
weaknesses in the system and speak out about them. The flaws
become magnified. The press picks up on it because it is the only
news in town. Then it becomes overmagnified. Those who are
disenchanted and slipping information out in brown envelopes
are those who are under stress or disenchanted. This is how the
leaks take place.
We have in this minister a minister who has exercised
executive quickness and has reacted with a great sense of
urgency and fairness. He has looked for and sought advice.
When he received the information and made his assessment he
made quick decisions in the best interest of the government and
the people of Canada. I cannot think of a minister in the last 25
years who has had more things tumble down on his portfolio
than this minister has had over the last 15 months. He has
continued to show fair-mindedness and good sense in his
judgments on behalf of the Canadian people and in his decisions
on behalf of the Department of National Defence.
(1540)
The minister saw that it was necessary to come clean and have
a full and thorough investigation through the commission he
established, based originally on the selection of the airborne
regiment to go to Somalia, its actions in Somalia, and the actions
thereafter. He is now free to let the commission loose with a
broad ranging mandate to seek answers to those and other
questions incorporated in the motion of the hon. member for
Saanich-Gulf Islands.
A broad ranging mandate has been given to the commission to
investigate the matter although its real purpose is to investigate
the airborne regiment in its preparedness, its selection and its
actions in Somalia, the actions thereafter, the actions at National
Defence Headquarters, the actions of politicians and all things
that go into training, morale building and genuine good
leadership within the forces.
10909
The government tabled a report on defence in the House
entitled ``Security in the Changing World'' which called for a
number of things. We would like to see one of them, an annual
debate in Parliament in both the Senate and the House of
Commons on defence. It would provide an opportunity to put
forward thoughts on defence. It would be important for it to be
held as quickly as possible after the defence estimates were
tabled so that it would be relevant, current and not at arm's
length or distanced from the realities of the budget at hand.
The report also requested that there be an ongoing standing
committee to review matters directly involving national defence
issues and that the committee report back to the House. As I
have said, the recommendations were clear. The annual defence
review and assessment would be one mandate that could be
given to the standing committee on defence, making it
meaningful and giving it purpose.
The report indicated that there was a role for the standing
committee to investigate and oversee the defence budget and
major procurement by the government dealing with defence
capital expenditures. The committee would be able to bring
forward expert witnesses. It could call upon the Auditor
General. It could call upon other learned persons within
government ranks for their expertise. Then the committee could
report to Parliament in a meaningful and forceful manner about
its findings.
I am very pleased to have joined in the debate today. The hon.
member for Saanich-Gulf Islands made some very valid
points.
(1545 )
Many of the points he wishes to see covered could be tumbled
into the commission that has been established by the Minister of
National Defence and picked up and reviewed as part of that
mandate.
The minister has been most energetic, forthright and
insightful in terms of the judgment he brings to the House. On
behalf of all Canadians he has worked on behalf of the armed
forces.
Mr. Jack Frazer (Saanich-Gulf Islands, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I listened very carefully to the member for
Perth-Wellington-Waterloo. I agree with many of his
comments. I am concerned with the repeated suggestion in the
House today from the government that the inquiry is broadly
based.
Mr. Speaker, if I may I would like to quote from the
committee directive:
-to inquire into and report on the chain of command system, leadership
within the chain of command, discipline, operations, actions and decisions of
the Canadian forces and the actions and decisions of the Department of National
Defence in respect to the Canadian forces deployment to Somalia and without
restricting the generality of the foregoing, the following matters related to the
pre-deployment, in theatre and post-deployment phases of the Somalia
deployment.
Unquestionably I agree that fallout from the report will
extend far beyond the Somalia commitment. I do believe that the
Somalia investigation will concentrate primarily on that and
will not expand its base to encompass the things I would like to
see and which the motion we have made goes to.
The problem I see is that I am not sure the Minister of
National Defence really appreciates he has problem. That is my
concern. The member mentioned the minister has been very
good at seeking advice. He has not sought advice from our party
on our commitment to Bosnia nor to Croatia. He has not sought
advice about committing 474 members of the Canadian forces to
Haiti. I suspect that he has not approached the members of the
official opposition either. Is this the way the minister consults,
gets input and appreciates the situation? I do not think so.
We are sitting right now with eight days to go before the end
of our current mandate in Bosnia-Croatia. The minister has not
consulted us about this. Are we going to extend or not? We are
told they do not know yet. Surely this cannot be the case. If it is,
it is a dismal failure on the part of the government.
Does the member think the minister of defence has really
consulted adequately? Does he think the minister has taken
every opportunity to allow parliamentarians to have input into
commitments which put the lives of our forces at risk?
Mr. Richardson: Mr. Speaker, it is a question of whether the
glass is half full or half empty. The government made a
commitment that before it would commit Canadian forces in a
foreign country and under the auspices of the United Nations the
House of Commons would be consulted. It was consulted. We
had debates and on that. That is a step forward and it could be
expanded.
When we commit our soldiers, our sailors and our air men
offshore in harms way, that kind of debate should be public and
in the House.
I do believe consultation can be improved. I also believe the
minister is genuinely concerned about receiving that type of
contact. I do not think he has been able to get off his bicycle
since the day he sat in the chair and he has been pumping hard
ever since.
(1550)
I cannot remember when such a tumultuous number of serious
issues has down in such rapid action as has happened while
during his tour. He has handled them well. I am proud of him.
If the hon. member seeks more consultation I am certainly one
in favour of seeing more consultation and I am sure he is. The
private member's bill which was drawn up before he brought in
10910
his bill is not uncomplementary because of the nature and
broadness of this bill.
In my discussions with the House leader he said this bill for a
commission inquiry is in the broadest sense the House can give a
commission. It can do more. It can call on anyone. It was given
the broadest sense of opportunity to interrogate and call
witnesses under this broad terms of reference. We can always
improve on advice from all sides.
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley East, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
appreciate the comments of the member. For the most part they
were a rational analysis of our military commitments and
responsibilities.
I would like to get his opinion on one other subject. In the next
couple of weeks or so a peacekeeping act I hope to introduce as
private member's legislation will be asking the government to
make some decisions on how we can commit peacekeeping
troops overseas.
The thrust of my argument in the bill I will introduce asks that
the government before we commit troops ask for authorization
for the specific mission of the peacekeeping service; to specify
the objectives, duties and role of the mission; to define the state
or area in which the mission is to operate; specify the date on
which that authority is to expire; specify the maximum planned
expenditure for the mission. It is to do all this before we commit
troops, especially overseas into some very dangerous venues.
Does the member think we should debate these subjects and
those kinds of details before we commit the troops? Sometimes
it becomes cynical when the debate takes place after the
commitment has already been made.
Should we debate those kinds of issues or at least debate them
before a commitment or after the minister has already made the
decision?
Mr. Richardson: Mr. Speaker, it would be a sham if we
debated after they were committed. It is then just an information
giving session.
I do not think that is the intention of the government. The
government is committed to having a debate in the House before
committing troops, as the hon. member has suggested.
We are looking very carefully at costs. In some of those
situations, for example in the former Yugoslavia at the moment,
the UN underwrites a considerable amount of the cost and in
others there is hardly any underwriting. It is only fair since it is
the public's purse that these things be discussed.
The minister is prepared to do that. It is all part of what has
been happening, to get this going so there is more transparency
and more input. I cannot fault the minister. He has made the
point and he will continue to make the point that he will listen to
that. The hon. member's point is well taken.
Mr. Fred Mifflin (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
National Defence and Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I want to compliment my hon. colleague from
Perth-Wellington-Waterloo for an excellent explanation of
aspects of this subject which I am sure all members of the House
found illuminating.
I still have difficulty understanding why members of the third
party are so insistent on broadening terms. We have now in our
possession and under way the broadest investigation and inquiry
in the public inquiries act which has been conducted in the
Canadian forces, if not in my lifetime certainly in 50 years.
What more can they ask? They have said morale is an issue.
They gave the reasons for the issue. They talked about the
excellent leadership.
(1555)
Any critic in any organization is expected to criticize. That is
the job of the opposition. I find it interesting that a critic would
make a comment that a minister may have problems that he is
not aware of when that a minister is with his department 24
hours a day. This minister has shown his acumen, his
preparedness to act and the tremendous ability he has in
controlling his department, notwithstanding the difficulties
which have occurred since he has been minister. That point was
made very well by my colleague from
Perth-Wellington-Waterloo.
How the opposition could say the minister may have problems
that he is not aware of when it relies on brown envelopes from
the media and the odd telephone call is difficult for me to
understand.
Mr. Richardson: Mr. Speaker, I have no more to say. I am not
going to fill the Chamber with hot air. I did welcome the
questions from the hon. member on peacekeeping and I thank
the House very much for the opportunity to participate in the
debate.
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley East, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
am pleased to have the opportunity to raise defence issues which
are vitally important to our national security.
The issue which affects me personally is the closure of CFB
Chilliwack. The closure is symptomatic of a greater problem
within the military, that of the subordination of military
interests to political concerns. Our military is becoming a blunt
political tool rather than a sharply honed fighting and
peacekeeping force that follows the dictates of strategic
efficiency and combat readiness.
The morale of the armed forces is being sapped by obvious
problems such as the burden of top heaviness where the top man
in the military collects $140,000 a year while the privates are
applying for welfare. The gap between the general and the front
line soldier is enormous. It speaks to me of diminishing
accountability and slackening military ideals.
10911
We have a problem with our peacekeeping forces where
political decisions replace military ones. Soldiers are put into
dangerous places for undefined periods where they are
sometimes, and have been recently, humiliated, held hostage
and left to deal with inadequate equipment so Canada's
politicians can save face on the international stage.
I have offered a rational solution to this problem in my
peacekeeping bill, which may soon be debated in the House. It
would help Parliament decide the parameters of peacekeeping
missions by requiring that members deliberate strategic military
considerations before plunging into these war torn areas.
There are so many problems in our military. No wonder a
nine-page memo from Brigadier General Jeffries surfaced last
week talking about the deterioration of the armed forces.
Soldiers are frustrated. Allow me to quote from it:
My commanding officers are unanimous in reporting widespread
dissatisfaction at virtually all rank levels. The bottom line appears to be a rapidly
developing crisis in confidence in the ability of the chain of command to do its
job.
The problem is leadership:
There is widespread belief that political agendas and careerism have replaced
leadership in the defence hierarchy. The loyalty and focus of senior military
leaders is directed upwards and not down, and that political expediency has led
to a reactive rather than a proactive posture.
Can we think of a possible reason the loyalty of senior
generals appears to be shifting toward careers and politics?
Could it have something to do with the salaries, the office
renovations, the houses, the perks, the golf vacations in Florida?
Another example of political interference was the disbanding
of the first airborne regiment. Because of some objectionable
hazing rituals and some racists in the military an entire regiment
was disbanded. I am the first to agree that the problems should
have been rooted out. Instead, the minister shut down the whole
regiment. The action was publicly opposed by the chief of
defence staff. Did he resign when the minister refused his
advice? He sat, tight lipped and accepted the humiliation of an
entire regiment; a regiment which had an illustrious history. It
was disgraced by politicians because of the actions of a few.
A new regiment will have to be created, probably at the cost of
millions of dollars, probably with most of the same personnel.
The decision to disband the first airborne was driven not by
political efficiency but by the dictates of political correctness.
This appears to be okay with the minister and the generals.
(1600)
Another political decision has been taken by the minister and
that is the decision to close CFB Chilliwack. I have publicly
objected to this decision, knowing that I would be criticized for
taking this not in my own backyard attitude. I want the public to
know that I have never opposed cutbacks. CFB Chilliwack
could be significantly scaled down without any protest from me.
I maintain that to close the base entirely is a strategic and
military error. It will reduce the capacity of our nation to
respond to various situations. Allow me to explain.
There is no other base in Canada in which the military can
train all year around. The topography is perfectly suited to the
varied training requirements of engineers as well as combat
troops. Part of the base is now moving to Gagetown, New
Brunswick. The military considered this option in 1956 but
considered it would be too costly and that Gagetown was simply
too cold in the winter for these activities that the engineers are
engaged in.
We have 105,000 acres of training range at CFB Chilliwack.
In Edmonton, where much of the base will be moving, there are
no ranges at all. The closest range is at Wainright, 150 miles
away, where troops and equipment will have to be regularly
transported at great cost. The logic of this escapes me.
CFB Chilliwack boasts 487 buildings worth $517 million,
with $40 million spent on upgrading over the last five years
alone. The minister hopes to save $300 million over the next five
years by the closure, but he has admitted that it will cost almost
that much to enlarge the base at Edmonton. I do not see where
the savings or the logic is in that.
CFB Chilliwack has not opened all the new buildings yet. It is
preparing to open a brand new $10 million training centre in
July, while at the same time other bases in Canada are spending
tens of millions of dollars to upgrade training facilities at others.
Obviously defence dollars are not being wisely spent when we
are still putting the paint on the walls in some buildings and yet
we are going to build others as well.
I have other concerns. CFB Chilliwack is situated 60 miles
from a population of three million people, sitting on a high risk
earthquake zone. In the case of an earthquake, troops and
equipment would have to be flown in from Edmonton, but to
what airport? The area could well be inaccessible by air, so they
say.
A California company, Risk Management Solutions, has
studied the seismisity of the Vancouver area and says the
probability of an earthquake there with a magnitude of 7.0 or
greater is 48 per cent within the next 30 years. This is only
slightly less than the risk in Los Angeles and San Francisco. It
would be devastating. An extraordinary response would be
required, but the loss of the base would be one less resource to
draw on.
The emergency preparedness people in Vancouver are
concerned about the base closing because of the engineering
capacity there and also because of the stockpile of medical
supplies. There are six 200-bed mobile hospitals housed there,
which would be vital in the event of an earthquake or other civil
10912
disorder, as well as other medical supplies. Vancouver would
have to go cap in hand to the Americans if the base closed.
We have a national defence force with installations in every
province. In B.C. we have developed a versatile base with
excellent facilities built over a 50-year period and located near a
major city and port. Now Canada's fastest growing province will
no longer enjoy any land force presence west of the Rockies.
This is an important issue of strategic concern to the former base
commanders I have consulted.
The military takes 50 years to develop a base and politicians
can throw it away in one term of political office. What if a
military problem should arise that requires the defence of our
western seaboard? Will the government then re-purchase new
land at astronomical expense in the same area to re-establish a
new base? It does not make sense when the installations are all
in place.
It appears that strategic important considerations are not in
parallel. Maybe there are other reasons. Perhaps the government
says B.C. is a wealthy province and it will not feel the effects too
much. I would counter that B.C., by proportion, already receives
$700 million a year less in defence spending than it should.
Closure will only heighten that regional disparity.
A cynical politician might say if we want to close down a base
why not close it down in an area where we have nothing to lose?
The Reform Party did well in the last election in B.C., so let's hit
them hard because we will suffer no political consequences. If
that was true it would be sad. Yet the government seems
reluctant to answer the questions which would put these rumours
to rest.
(1605)
On March 2, I wrote a detailed letter to the minister asking
him to respond to the concerns of British Columbians about cost
efficiency, emergency preparedness and military reasoning. It is
telling that the past five base commanders from CFB Chilliwack
have also raised their concerned voices from a military side.
They remain unconvinced, and have written letters to the
minister, that it is in the best interests of the military to close
CFB Chilliwack and leave British Columbia without a land force
presence.
It is clear that the decision to close CFB Chilliwack was one in
which politics outweighed strategic military considerations. As
a result, the capacity of Canada's armed forces to defend our
country and assist in situations of emergency will be
significantly reduced.
The minister is coming to visit our base on April 3 and I will
be there to greet him. It is an honourable thing for him to come to
the base at this time and explain to the military personnel and the
people of B.C. why he feels the base should be closed down.
I hope the minister also brings with him the top decision
makers in the military so they can perhaps inspect the facilities
at CFB Chilliwack, and even at this late hour, consider other
money saving and military options that would meet the concerns
of the civilian and military personnel that have contacted me and
meet the minister's own criteria for coming in under budget. If
he can do that, then the Canadian forces personnel, especially
those affected by the closure, will begin to be satisfied that they
are not being manipulated. That is another reason why the
minister should come post haste, make the explanations and
listen again to the concerns of the people of CFB Chilliwack.
Mr. Charlie Penson (Peace River, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
welcome the opportunity this afternoon to speak about defence
department policy and priority.
I have risen in the House before to talk about defence
department household moves. Somewhere with the bowels of
the defence department there are some 200 military men and
women who are performing a function that has absolutely
nothing to do with their training. They are not peacekeepers, not
ace pilots or tank mechanics. They are not sophisticated radar
specialists. These fine men and women are immersed in the
management details of packing dishes, moving couches and not
scratching the coffee tables.
Is this what Canadians want their military to be doing? Is this
a function the government should be handling because the
private sector cannot or will not handle without government
handouts? The answer is no. The private sector has been crying
out to get a crack at managing the household moves of Canada's
military.
Newspaper reporters have written about the horrendous waste
of taxpayers' money. At least $10 million occurs because these
military men and women are not much good at managing
household moves. Television crews have documented the gross
inefficiencies and ridiculous regulations that hamper the smooth
move from one home to another. Even the government's own
Competition Bureau has warned against the dubious tendering
practices which could cause the major van lines to breach their
1983 prohibition order against collusion.
It is not that no one has heeded all these cries. The last
government finally got its act together and disbanded the
interdepartmental committee responsible for all this waste. It
timidly agreed to try a pilot project to see whether the private
sector could, in fact, manage household moves better than this
decorated bunch of brass.
The interdepartmental committee for household goods
removal services to which I am referring, the IDC, has
representatives from the RCMP, public works, government
services and defence. Together they preside over all government
funded moves.
10913
Did this project ever get off the ground? Did the private sector
have a chance to prove it can move the military pots and pans
cheaper and in a more timely fashion than a group of war heroes?
The answer is no. When the government changed hands these
heroes did an end run and somehow convinced the minister of
defence that it had been beyond the previous government's
competence to approve the project.
The United States military has announced that it is turning its
moves of over 200,000 households per year over to the private
sector. Why is it that Canada, with 20,000 military household
moves, cannot do the same?
(1610)
The time is more than right. The finance minister has stated
that the government should only do what government does best.
The private sector has already shown that it was good enough to
move the MPs when the government changed hands a year and a
half ago. Savings of at least 20 per cent to 30 per cent can be
achieved for the military as well. Does it really cost
three-quarters of a million dollars to move military family pets?
That is the number. The last time I checked it cost $50 to fly a cat
from Halifax to Vancouver. How are we running up these
horrendous costs?
Here is another item. Does interim lodging and meals really
need to cost $28 million? When the private sector manages a
move it asks its clients being moved what day is convenient to
load and what day is convenient to deliver. That is the criteria
used when a private moving company is phoned.
Anyone who has taken the morning off from work to wait for a
delivery or a repairman knows how frustrating and costly
inexact timetables are. If we know our household effects are
being delivered on Tuesday we do not need a two-week vacation
at the Hilton to accommodate it. On the other hand, if we are told
that packing will occur sometime during the first week of June
and delivery will happen sometime in the third week, as happens
with defence department moves, then maybe it makes sense to
plan a nice taxpayer subsidized vacation around a vaguely timed
disappearance of our television set and slippers. It is a practice
we simply cannot condone.
These inefficiencies end up costing all of us more.
Government is by far the largest household mover client.
Government makes up to 30 per cent to 35 per cent of all of the
household moves in Canada per year. When poor management
permeates that large a portion of an industry, the effects pervade
the entire industry.
I call on the government to finally end this practice and to
stand up to this little empire of colonels. When the Minister of
National Defence is deciding where to make cuts in his
department he should start with the IDC. I would not be at all
surprised if he is fed up with that little bunch over there anyway.
The minister should then move to privatize the management
of all military and all other government household moves.
Consulting and Audit Canada, along with the Competitions
Bureau and Public Works and Government Services should be
asked to prepare a tender according to treasury board guidelines.
By acting this way, the minister will be doing the taxpayer and
himself a big favour. He will be stating forcefully that no longer
will move management operate outside the normal parameters
of government. No longer will move managers thumb their
noses at elected officials and no longer will move managers be
accountable to no one.
The taxpayer will save between $10 million and $25 million.
The Reform Party will support the government for a wise and
excellent decision. As a matter of fact, even a lot of Liberals will
applaud this long overdue move. At a time when we cannot even
afford decent peacekeeping equipment for our peacekeepers, it
is appalling that we are wasting taxpayers' money in this
fashion.
Our peacekeepers in Bosnia could have used better land
vehicles. It is also well known that our Sea King helicopters and
our submarines are in desperate need of replacement. We know
this will not provide too many, but it is an example of
government waste that has to be cleaned up.
I call on the government to act now and quickly to privatize
the household moves that the IDC is currently conducting.
[Translation]
Mr. Ghislain Lebel (Chambly, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I thank the
hon. member for his brilliant speech. He raises a point which I
noticed on a number of occasions. I live in the riding of Chambly
which, as you know, is adjacent to the riding of Saint-Hubert,
where the base of the same name is located, and where, each
spring, some 75 to 100 members of the armed forces would be
transferred from the base to another location, and vice versa.
There is one aspect of the costs which the member did not
mention, but I essentially agree with his comments. In a given
year, some 20 colonels and majors posted to Saint-Hubert would
buy houses in Saint-Bruno, which is in the riding of Chambly,
and borrow perhaps $100,000 from some bank for that purpose.
(1615)
The following year, these same people would be transferred
elsewhere in Canada. It would cost them some $5,000 in penalty
to liquidate their mortgage. They also had to pay $3,000, $4,000,
$5,000 and sometimes even $8,000 or $10,000 in commission,
depending on the value of their house, to sell that house. Since
these people would often not manage to sell their house, the
10914
government relocation services would take the house back and
support it for quite a while.
These people would then relocate in another Canadian city. I
know that, in Ontario, members of the armed forces currently
enjoy mutation rights on property transfers, for amounts of
$1,000, $1,200 or $1,500 spent by the government as refunds.
All these benefits were in addition to those related to the move
and which the hon. member who spoke before me just
mentioned.
Consequently, the transfer of military personnel from
Saint-Hubert to Petawawa, and vice versa, involved huge
amounts of money.
I would probably be stunned to hear the actual cost of this
musical chair exercise within the armed forces. However, I will
admit that this was not necessarily a bad thing for those who
benefitted from it, including myself as a lawyer. Still, we could
not help but wonder how a country that claims to be orderly and
one of the best as a member of the G7 group-at least this is
what we are told by the Prime Minister and the Minister of
Finance-could manage in such a way.
I want to ask the hon. member if he had an opportunity to look
at this aspect of military transfers in Canada.
[English]
Mr. Penson: Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for that
excellent question. What it does is it raises a concern. It is
another area I was not aware of. I think it is symptomatic of the
serious problems that exist at DND. If the hon. member's
example of these household moves with the transfers and the
cost of mortgages is symptomatic of what goes on in the defence
department, we have bigger problems than this $10 million to
$25 million.
This is a time when we cannot afford these kinds of excesses
any more. Even if money were to be had, it could be better
allocated in areas such as in peacekeeping to give our
peacekeepers better equipment. We simply have to cut out this
kind of waste. I do know whether we could ever afford it, but we
certainly cannot afford it now. The Canadian public does not
have patience with this any longer. It needs to be cleaned up.
Mr. Andrew Telegdi (Waterloo, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
listened intently to the member for Peace River.
I have worked in this area almost from the first day I arrived at
the House of Commons. One of the things I am getting used to is
that change seems to be slow. Everything the hon. member has
said is borne out by my experience.
I am gratified and encouraged there is a review of the process
going on at the political level. As the member knows, four van
lines used to handle all the moves. It was pretty much restricted
to a monopoly of those four van lines. Now that process is being
opened up and two additional companies will be involved. In
terms of the management of household moves, I believe the
department is looking at that now.
It was not too long ago that we had the case of a number of
generals going south on a golf junket. The trip was cancelled by
the Minister of National Defence.
Both the member for Peace River and the member from the
Bloc have raised the point, which has unanimous agreement in
the House, that waste is something which has to be eliminated. It
has to be the job of all members of Parliament and not just the
government. I commend the member for Peace River for his
interest in that matter.
This is an issue I have been working very hard on. I think
changes will be coming. I wish to thank the hon. member for his
interest and help in the matter.
(1620 )
Mr. Penson: Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague from
Waterloo. I know he has a keen interest in this area which
actually precedes my interest. We have been working together to
try to stop the kind of waste that has been going on.
However, it has been a year. I have asked the minister of
defence three or four questions over the last year. If change is
coming, I certainly welcome it. I would like to remind the
minister of defence and the parliamentary secretary that this is a
perfect example of where we can save some money with no cost
in service. The service can be handled quite well by the
independent companies. I believe we should see a change here
shortly and I certainly welcome that.
Mr. George Proud (Hillsborough, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
welcome the opportunity to participate in this debate today. I
congratulate my hon. colleague for Saanich-Gulf Islands for
bringing forward this motion. Although I do not support the
motion, I thank him for bringing it forward. We have heard a lot
of debate here on the floor of the House today which I believe is
healthy. It is what parliamentarians have to do in order to get our
points of view across to the government so it can see what
parliamentarians are thinking, especially on behalf of their
constituents.
Canadians are proud of our armed forces and of the work these
forces have done both at home and around the world. I believe
that most people agree with this point of view.
Canada was instrumental in the creation of NATO in 1949 and
maintained stationed forces in Europe for over 40 years. Our
contribution to alliance security was highly valued. Even among
the collection of first rate militaries, Canadian personnel are
among the very best.
Today we no longer station forces in Europe, but our role in
the alliance remains a very active one. Canada continues to
10915
maintain a full slate of NATO commitments and we are at the
forefront of working for change within the alliance.
We see the alliance as a valuable form of insurance, both in
terms of providing for the defence of its member states and in
terms of giving the North Atlantic communities a way to reach
out to their former adversaries in their quest for security in the
new Europe. Our personnel, respected for their professionalism
and good sense, are playing an active role in this process as well.
NATO does not represent the only venue in which Canadians
are working for peace and security. Of course, the most visible
contribution our personnel are making to European security
today is through the United Nations. I am referring to, as has
been referred to many times today, the leading role we have
played and continue to play in the United Nations Protection
Force in the former Yugoslavia.
Canadian personnel are no strangers to UN operations. Since
1949 we have contributed thousands of personnel in support of
the United Nations. They have served in roles as diverse as
monitoring ceasefires on the Indo-Pakistani border to reversing
aggression in Korea and in the gulf.
There are currently over 3,000 Canadian personnel deployed
in peacekeeping and related missions. However, it is not only
the scale but the nature of involvement that is changing. In the
past our participation was limited predominantly to the type of
operation undertaken in Cyprus or the Middle East entailing the
positioning of the impartial forces between the parties to a
ceasefire as these parties conducted negotiations toward a
political settlement.
Today the operations are more ambitious and the range of
military activity is much wider and potentially more risky. As
part of missions which are designed to restore order between and
sometimes within states, our personnel have been asked to
enforce economic sanctions or arms embargoes, create secure
conditions for the delivery of aid, deny the use of airspace
through which hostile forces could prosecute military
campaigns or attack civilian populations in so-called no fly
zones, and to protect civilian populations and refugees in safe
areas.
(1625 )
As these operations have evolved, there have been mistakes
along the way. Unfortunately we must expect that there probably
will be more. Nevertheless, the alternatives to doing the
difficult and dangerous work for peace and stability are
unacceptable. The result would be a violent, lawless and chaotic
world which would be inimical to Canadian values and interests.
The international community, Canada included, may be on a
learning curve, but there really is no alternative to putting our
best foot forward come what may.
It is in this light that the experience of the Canadian forces in
Somalia ought to be seen. No one regards the tragic events of
two years ago with anything other than the utmost concern. I
would like to take a few minutes to review the history of the
Somalia operation and Canada's participation in it and to remind
the House and Canadians that there were aspects of that
operation, which have been mentioned here before today, which
were not only well-motivated but quite successful.
For most Canadians, prior to our involvement with the UN
effort, Somalia was merely a faraway country perennially in the
grips of civil war, famine, or both. All of that changed in
December 1992.
The United Nations finally moved to act on a scale much
larger than had previously been planned. It authorized a united
task force, UNITAF, to restore order and ensure the delivery of
humanitarian aid in Somalia. The Canadian component of a
much smaller UN operation in Somalia, the Canadian airborne
regiment, was augmented and integrated into this larger effort as
the Canadian airborne regiment battle group.
The entire Canadian contribution to UNITAF, which included
air and maritime support, including the support ship HMCS
Preserver, was known as the Canadian joint force group and
began to deploy to Somalia on December 14, 1992. The
Canadian contingent was given a large humanitarian relief
sector in the northern region of the country.
The operating conditions could only be described as extreme:
temperatures of over 40 degrees, the constant threat of disease,
very little infrastructure, and the constant challenge of
operating in an environment where our personnel encountered
hostility from the very people they were trying to help.
Nevertheless, the Canadian contingent quickly secured its area
of responsibility and turned its attention to the humanitarian
aspects of the operation.
The efforts of our personnel in this regard were truly
remarkable as they helped to deliver aid, assist medical teams
and hospitals, rebuild infrastructure; repair and reopen schools,
and train the local population, including children, to recognize
land mines. Unfortunately, much of this excellent work, truly
path breaking work in the realm of UN operations, risks going
unnoticed in the light of the criminal activities of a few.
Upon the discovery of the torture and death of a Somali youth
at the hands of a small group of Canadian forces personnel, the
Canadian forces convened a series of courts martial. These trials
have resulted in the courts martial of nine soldiers.
The completion of the courts martial paves the way for a
comprehensive civilian inquiry into the entire Somalia affair.
The government has decided to conduct the inquiry under the
terms of the inquiries act. The advantage of this approach is that
10916
the Inquiries Act allows the commission to compel the
production of evidence and the attendance of witnesses.
The government has named three prominent Canadians of
different backgrounds and skills to conduct the inquiry. The
commission has the authority to investigate and report on a wide
range of issues surrounding the Somalia operation, including the
chain of command, leadership and discipline. The terms of
reference cover three periods of the operation.
The first is predeployment. Here the commission can examine
such issues as the state of discipline within the airborne
regiment, its suitability for the Somalia operation and the
adequacy of the screening and selection process for the Somalia
deployment.
The second is the period spent in theatre. In examining this
phase of the operation the commissioners will probe such issues
as the missions and tasks of the Canadian joint task force, the
treatment of detainees and the allegations of a cover-up and the
destruction of evidence.
(1630)
On post deployment, in examining this final phase of the
operation the commissioners will investigate the manner in
which authorities within the Department of National Defence
and the chain of command of the Canadian forces responded to
the full range of problems encountered in the Somalia
deployment. The commission is expected to report in December
and make recommendations to the government. More important,
it will finally lay to rest a difficult chapter in the otherwise
proud history of the Canadian military.
The government is committed to moving expeditiously to get
to the bottom of the Somalia affair. Whatever we may learn as
part of the commission's proceedings should not obscure the
value of the Canadian forces or the confidence the government
has in their ability to carry out their roles.
The Canadian forces are known worldwide for their
professionalism and effectiveness. We all know they are in great
demand all over the world. They are in demand for UN missions
in NATO and working with their American counterparts in the
contacts they forge with other countries.
More important, the unique aspects of the military vocation
aside, they are recognized to all of us as Canadians. They reflect
our values, our history and our culture. They are not only a
unique institution, they are a unique Canadian institution.
They will continue to enjoy the confidence and the support of
Canadians as they continue to protect our values and interests
both at home and abroad.
Mr. Jack Frazer (Saanich-Gulf Islands, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the hon. member for Hillsborough did not exactly deal
with the scope of the inquiry.
With regard to the motion we have put forward today
concerning the Somalia inquiry from top to bottom and
complete coverage of that issue, does he consider that adequate
to examine the inherent problems present in the Canadian
Armed Forces today?
Mr. Proud: Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for
Saanich-Gulf Islands for the question.
The inquiry as set forth will do an adequate job on the Somalia
operation and on other aspects of the military.
I hear questions from across the way at different times asking
for these independent inquiries. This inquiry is necessary and
will lay to rest the questions of Somalia. It will lay to rest a lot of
other questions out there.
I will not rest until I see the day when this type of
investigation will be done from within this organization right
here. It is my goal as a parliamentarian to see standing
committees and other committees doing the work of these
special commissions. When that day arrives I will have
contributed my part to the parliamentary and democratic
process.
Mr. Ian McClelland (Edmonton Southwest, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to say a few words in this
interesting debate.
If we are not careful we will end up with a military that we
deserve. Perhaps our motto should be talk loudly and carry a
small stick. That is really what we have done with our military
over the years. We have said to them: ``This is your new job,
your new mandate. We would like you to do this and if you do
not mind, would you do that. At the same time it might be
helpful if you did it with a little less''.
(1635 )
It is not like dealing with the CBC. It is not as if it is not going
to be able to show this program or that program. We are asking
our military to put itself into the face of danger and very difficult
situations. We are changing the mandate almost every time we
get a change in government. We are saying do more but make do
with less.
Surely we should start to consider what the long range
objectives of our armed forces should be.
I am reminded of a quote by Peter Worthington a few years
ago which I believe is quite accurate. He said the military in
Canada has always been much more loyal to Canada than
Canadians have been to the military. It is quite a profound
statement because if we expect our military to be loyal to
Canadian parliamentary tradition and to the kinds of objectives
that we as civilians would have, we as civilians must have some
loyalty reciprocated to the military.
I will bring a few thoughts to this debate little different than
many of the comments so far. I would like to put it into a
personal perspective. The military has given an awful lot of
10917
young Canadians a start in life, myself included. I joined the
navy when I was 17.
In suggesting I joined the military in Edmonton and went to
Halifax, I want to remind all members in the House that
Edmonton is a great spot for the military to be based, even those
military people who will be transferred from Chilliwack and
Calgary. It is a great home for those in the military and we
welcome them with open arms.
Mr. Strahl: Have you a naval base?
Mr. McClelland: I remind members that Edmonton is the
home of the largest freshwater navy in the world, at the West
Edmonton mall. We have more submarines there than the
Canadian navy. We have it all. We have army, navy and air force
in Edmonton in great supply.
Earlier today I had the pleasure to share a few words with the
hon. member for Bonavista-Trinity-Conception. Both of us
being old salts, sharing this perspective from slightly different
vantage points, he as an admiral and me as an ordinary sailor, we
were talking about the military, about what has gone on and what
the military means to so many people.
The military to a lot of young men and women from the
prairies was the first opportunity to see something of our
country and to meet people from other parts of the country. The
military to many people from the maritimes was the first chance
ever to go to the prairies. That is how we got to know each other.
In the military was the first time I heard anyone speaking
French. I will bet in the military was the first time many people
whose first language is French ever spoke English.
The military is the great melting pot of Canada. I do not think
it is good for us as a nation to lose sight of the fact that if we are
not prepared for the unexpected, if we are honest with ourselves
and see others as others see us rather than as we want to see us,
we would have to say we are not a world player.
If we are going to ask ourselves what we are, let us ask what
we can be with our military and what could be the primary role
of our military. It should be something that enhances the
country, that is defensive in nature and defends our country.
I read recently that if one comes down from Mars and has a
look at Canada's military perspective one would think that our
borders are somewhere in Europe. They are not. Our borders are
right here in North America.
Why can we not be the very best people ever for search and
rescue? God knows we have enough land that we need that
capability. We need to be able to protect our sea coasts and we
need to be able to help each other in times of distress. Would it
not make sense if our military objectives had some semblance to
what we need as a nation?
(1640 )
We need as a nation the opportunity to share with each other.
We need to be able to protect ourselves and we need to be able to
protect ourselves from foreign threats. Would it not make sense
to have a highly trained backbone of military and have a very
broadly based standing civilian military, a huge reserve?
Imagine if all the military bases across the country were used
to provide an opportunity for young people, men and women,
when they finished high school and are sitting around watching
TV wondering what they are going to do with their lives, feeling
that perhaps they need some growing up or some direction.
Would it not be interesting if we could have these people come
into the military, spend a couple of years in service for the
country, get a sense of self-worth, a sense of confidence, and a
sense of our country by going from one part of the country to the
other and spend a couple of years in service to the country? That
would not cost a whole lot more than it would cost if we had to
have these very same people on unemployment insurance or
pogey.
If even a portion of these people joined the military and as a
result ended up with a sense of discipline, the knowledge of how
to get up in the morning and clean your own clothes and look
after yourself which not everybody gets, imagine the benefit this
would be down the road as people had this foundation of
self-assurance and self-respect.
While we are looking at the whole role of the military and
while we are investigating the military for its actions in
Somalia, we should not lose sight of the fact that historically the
military has served our country very well.
While we have a few bad apples, we should not paint
everybody with the same brush. We should be very careful that
we do not give our military a mandate it cannot carry out. We
cannot on one hand say it will not have the funds necessary to do
the job, but on the other hand say this is the job. We will have to
cut the suit to match the cloth we have. That is the reality of the
situation.
Mr. Mac Harb (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister for
International Trade, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I had a chance to
travel to over 30 countries around the globe and I share some of
my colleagues comments that our troops abroad have made us
all proud in terms of their contribution to the peace process, not
only in hot spot countries but in every country they have put a
foot on.
It is a great honour for us as Canadians when we travel abroad
when people see the Canadian flag and want to get one of those
beautiful red and white pins. There is no question about it. This
is precisely what the government wants to maintain.
The government is trying to maintain the integrity of the
Canadian Armed Forces. If there are some bad apples, as my
colleagues have suggested, this is precisely what the govern-
10918
ment wants to do, to make sure the tree is healthy and all of the
applies on it are edible; apples that are not only going to be
useful for today but also useful in the future.
I agree with my colleague that we should look at ways we
could use our armed forces as an example for the younger
generation in certain aspect, at least the aspect of discipline, the
aspect of doing things with determination, with good will and so
on. It is worth while exploring all those opportunities.
Does the Reform Party have a specific proposal to make
before the House of Commons when it comes to this issue. If so,
would he share it with us?
(1645 )
Mr. McClelland: No, Mr. Speaker. This is part of my own
personal crusade to add the whole notion of responsibility to
being a Canadian citizen. We take for granted the fact that we
have rights and privileges. Our Charter of Rights and Freedoms
tells us so. Nowhere in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms does
it say we have rights and we have freedoms and we have a
corresponding responsibility.
I want to move all members of the House to start to think in
terms of responsibilities. We should get our young folks to think
they have the benefit of being a citizen of this fantastic country.
What are their responsibilities to this country? What do they
have to give back? What do they have to give before they can
take from this wonderful country? We will have achieved
something.
If we were to use our military and use the bases we have, the
capital cost of one aircraft or one ship could keep a whole lot of
young people busy learning about life for a year, half a year, two
years, whatever it might be.
Mr. Jack Frazer (Saanich-Gulf Islands, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, a long time ago when I was at staff college I wrote a
paper which suggested something along the lines that the
member for Edmonton Southwest has mentioned.
The thrust was basically that at a given time in an individual's
life, perhaps at the end of high school or at perhaps age 18 or 19,
whichever came first, the individual would have the opportunity
to leave the school system and involve himself or herself in
repaying to the country what the country had put into them. It
did not have to be in the military. It could be in the park service,
a teacher's assistant and so on.
I would ask the member for Edmonton Southwest whether he
considers this a viable proposition, understanding Canadians
reject regimentation. Would this be a viable proposition? If so,
at what point in a person's life would he suggest this take place?
Mr. McClelland: Mr. Speaker, it is an interesting question. I
posed that question in the media some time ago. It struck an
extremely resonant chord in Canada.
The average Canadian sincerely believes it is not all a one way
street. The average Canadian intuitively knows that if we see
young people hanging around shopping centres, if we see young
people with no sense of direction, if we see young people
looking at life and are afraid because they see many of their
peers not achieving success or not doing anything positive with
their lives, they instinctively say there has to be something we
can do that is better.
To automatically reject any notion of discipline or military
training because it offends the sensibilities of people who think
we should be making love and not war is to ignore the fact that
people need in their lives discipline. Especially young people
need in their lives a sense of strength, a sense of belonging and a
sense of self-confidence that comes from that discipline.
[Translation]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Order. It is my duty,
pursuant to Standing Order 38, to inform the House that the
questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as
follows: the hon. member for Cumberland-Colchester-Small
business; the hon. member for Mercier-Rail transport.
[English]
Mr. John Murphy (Annapolis Valley-Hants, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I stand in defence of our armed forces and the many
excellent highly professional people who make up our military.
In this regard the Government of Canada has shown a great
deal of leadership in the area of publishing a new white paper on
defence. I believe the government has provided a defence
policy-
Mr. Frazer: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I believe it was
our speaking rotation. The hon. member for Edmonton
Southwest spoke for half the period. The hon. member for
Nanaimo-Cowichan is to fulfil the commitment.
(1650)
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): The hon. member for
Saanich-Gulf Islands reminds me, and I do apologize to the
House. I will seek the understanding of the member for
Annapolis Valley-Hants that the Reform Party had given an
indication earlier this day it would be splitting its time and I
failed to take that into account.
Mr. Bob Ringma (Nanaimo-Cowichan, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, through this motion and the debates herein, Reform is
trying to tell the government and the people of Canada there are
weaknesses appearing in many areas of the Department of
10919
National Defence. The government's reaction to these faults is
not good enough. We are saying that its leadership is inadequate
and so is its management.
Let us look at the airborne regiment. I applaud the fact that the
inquiry is finally underway. It should have taken place long ago.
There has been ample evidence since the government has been in
power to indicate there was something wrong in the regiment.
Why did it let it fester?
If the government had launched an inquiry a year ago it would
have spared us all a lot of misery and would have spared the
sullying of the reputations of many fine people.
The government did not act. As late as September last the
minister said no to holding an inquiry. If an inquiry had been
held, as we advocated, Major Armstrong, a Canadian forces
medical officer, would have testified and had an outlet for his
pent up concerns. The result would have been no adverse
publicity for the forces. By the same token, it is probable we
would not have had to go through the public video agony as these
also would have found outlet in the inquiry. The government is
not doing things in the proper order.
While we are on the subject of the airborne regiment, I would
like to use that situation to underline why our motion in part
condemns the government's failure to hold senior officials
accountable for command and control shortcomings and
deteriorating morale. It started with Private Kyle Brown instead
of starting at the top.
I cannot believe the command structure of the Canadian
forces did not know for quite some time there were problems in
the airborne. I presume the Létourneau inquiry will identify the
degree to which senior personnel were aware of and responsible
for the deteriorating situation. Welcome as the inquiry is, it is
too late to save the reputations of hard working professional
soldiers and too late to save a fine regiment.
Let us look at the defence review. Once again we laud the
government for taking the initiative to open up discussions in
the House on defence matters and for conducting a defence
review. Here again the government had it backwards. The
review of our foreign policy should have come first. Defence
policy is a function of foreign policy.
The other problem is that the government is not paying
attention to what is being said. There is no point in having a
defence review if we ignore some of its findings. Four examples
have been ignored; personnel cuts to the forces, the budget cut
6,700 more than the review recommended.
Cuts to the defence budget, headquarters staff cuts, a study of
the reorganization of national defence headquarters, creation of
a standing joint committee on defence, review of capital
expenditures over $30 million before a proposed committee, an
annual review by the minister, an annual debate of defence
policy by Parliament-these things recommended duly by the
committee appointed have been ignored. We heard nothing
about them.
(1655)
Let us look at base closures and the rationalisation of DND's
infrastructure. Once again I compliment the government on its
gumption in getting on with the job. Many of this minister's
predecessors have found it too politically difficult a task to take
on.
My complaints with the government methodology are now
confined to the apparent lack of planning that went into the
decision to close the bases at Calgary and Chilliwack. Since this
has already been covered today by my colleagues, I will leave it
at that.
On my own turf national defence is closing the Nanaimo army
camp. The community, as it seems typical for the west, has
pretty much accepted this partly because it could bring positive
things along with it in using the land for other purposes.
According to what I hear, resulting from the first negotiating
meeting that took place this week with the community, national
defence's primary interest is not the community. It is selling the
land at market value and is concerned about native land claims.
That is the highest priority on its list. That does not make the
city of Nanaimo and surrounding areas too enthusiastic.
Let us look at morale in the department and in the Canadian
forces. We had Colonel Oehring's report in December. He was
mainly discussing a morale problem which he summed up as a
loss of confidence and trust. Without these an army cannot
operate. Colonel Oehring talked about an increasingly impotent
military leadership and an uncaring system. He cites the
widening gap between leaders and the led. He states the crisis of
confidence must be at least acknowledged at the highest levels,
and that is not being done. He believes it will take a public
commitment by the Minister of National Defence, even the
Prime Minister, to restore soldiers' lost and destroyed
confidence.
What has the minister done to restore this confidence? The
latest report dated March 1995 comes from Brigadier General
Jeffries at Petawawa, whose assessment after consulting all of
his commanding officers was that morale for the moment is in
large part satisfactory, but that there is widespread
dissatisfaction at virtually all rank levels.
Part of this dissatisfaction is directly attributable to the
highest levels of leadership and management in the department
and in the Canadian forces. At this level we want more from our
soldiers than we are prepared to pay for. Here too, as in other
things, we are living beyond our means. The soldiers'
perception is that their interests and welfare are being sacrificed
so that senior leaders can be successful in delivering the same
bang for a much less buck.
10920
Resolution of this problem must start at the very top. What is
the minister doing about the morale and leadership in the
department and in the Canadian forces?
Other things are amiss besides morale and leadership and
there is no evidence that anything is being done. We hear reports
of financial excesses by senior officers, reports of excessive
expenditures on furniture and living allowances. What is being
done? How does the ordinary soldier feel about his sacrifices,
about his having to moonlight when his superiors spend
irresponsibly?
What about the unanswered questions regarding former
deputy minister Bob Fowler? There is a long list of questions
which the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs did not deal
with earlier this week. The air should be cleared on matters like
this: here are the allegations, answer them. If Mr. Fowler has
done nothing wrong, let everyone know about it.
The Reform motion today condemns the government for
decisions which have diminished Canada's defence posture;
decisions like the EH-101 helicopter. We could spend a day on
that one. There is CFB Cornwallis, the size of the Canadian
forces, the reserves. What is going to happen to the militia?
(1700 )
There is a long list of problems to address and it is not
happening. Or if they are being addressed, then Parliament and
the Canadian people are not hearing about it. When the airborne
inquiry is over, we need a new inquiry, a broadly based, broadly
scoped inquiry to be put in its place to address all of the things
we have been looking at.
Mr. Ted McWhinney (Vancouver Quadra, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker I have a question for the hon. member. The debate has
focused above all on the Somalia tragedy and to a lesser extent
the Bosnia tragedy.
Would the hon. member not agree that the explanation for the
failure there lies in the failure to adequately define the roles and
missions in advance of the intervention, the failure to separate
and distinguish between chapter VI and chapter VII UN charter
operations-peacekeeping as opposed to peacemaking-and the
failure to adequately define a post-cold war military mission for
our defence forces?
Understanding as he does the doctrine of ministerial
responsibility, under those circumstances would he not accept
that the responsibility lies not on the civil servants but under our
constitutional system on the Prime Minister and defence
minister who ventured into those operations without adequate
prior thought, that is to say the Prime Minister and the defence
minister in the preceding Mulroney government?
Mr. Ringma: Mr. Speaker, I agree with the member for
Vancouver Quadra that there is a fair bit in what he says.
Responsibility can be attributed to the prior government and its
minister and the Prime Minister.
It goes beyond that. I could carry that argument further and
say we must. We have proposed that the House be involved in the
decisions to deploy Canadian troops, that we must do that. It is a
good point and well made. Beyond that there are other areas.
There are continuing problems. There is a problem even in
Somalia with the leadership of the Canadian forces. Therefore I
have to attribute part of the blame to the government of the day
for not taking hold of these problems and saying: ``What can we
do about them?'' Let us get them out in the open. Let us clarify
them. Let us not condemn the people who are innocent in this
process.
Yes, there is something to what the member says. Some blame
can be attributed to the previous government, but also to this
current government. It has to get on with rectifying things.
Mr. John Murphy (Annapolis Valley-Hants, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I am pleased today to stand in defence of our armed
forces and the many excellent, highly professional people who
make up the military.
The Government of Canada has shown leadership in this area
by publishing a new white paper on defence. I believe it has
provided a defence policy which gives the Canadian forces the
clear direction required in these uncertain times.
As the Minister of National Defence detailed previously,
senior military officers are providing leadership. This is
evidenced by the effectiveness of our forces at home and abroad.
This debate has special importance for me because in my
riding of Annapolis Valley-Hants I have a significant number
of military personnel stationed at CFB Greenwood and at Camp
Aldershot. I have had the pleasure of meeting with many of these
people over the last number of years.
I am most impressed by the dedication, professionalism and
commitment of the men and women of the Canadian Armed
Forces. They do their work with little or no public recognition.
Yet our military continues to make significant contributions
around the world.
The growing burden of public sector debt over the last 20
years has affected all Canadians. DND and the Canadian forces
have rightly been expected to contribute their fair share to
reduce the nation's deficit.
10921
(1705)
In 1989 DND and the Canadian Armed Forces suffered deep
cuts to personnel, capital purchases and infrastructure. The most
recent federal budget continues that trend.
I am certainly not suggesting that members of the Department
of National Defence or the Canadian forces are resentful of
having to do their part. It is quite the opposite. They, like many
Canadians serving in the defence of Canada, are interested in
understanding the need to do their part for the national effort to
reduce the deficit.
There is no denying however that fiscal restraint generates
stress and uncertainty, a situation certainly not unique to the
Canadian forces. Downsizing the Canadian forces means that
expectations of a secure military career with unlimited
advancement can no longer be met. Salaries and incentive pay
have been frozen. Some of the rank and file, particularly those
with less than four years' service, may find it difficult at times to
make ends meet.
Under these trying circumstances, it is imperative that the
leadership in DND and the Canadian forces take positive action
to improve morale. They must deal with the problems being
faced by those under their charge. I contend they are doing that.
Senior leaders are constantly in touch with their men and
women in the forces. They will remain so to explain what is
happening and to detail actions being taken on their behalf.
There are a number of workforce pressures that our forces
experience. Economic and social changes, as we know, have had
dramatic impact on the nature of the Canadian family and the
workforce. Marriages in which both spouses work are becoming
the dominant trend.
The Canadian forces are like a microcosm of the larger
Canadian society and therefore reflect these trends. Between
1980 and 1990 the number of military couples in the Canadian
forces tripled. The majority of the force members are now either
married or single parents. Among married couples, the number
with families and working spouses is significant. This
development has put pressure on the military as members are
understandably seeking family, career, financial and
educational stability.
DND and the Canadian forces have added the challenge of
balancing the needs of their members with the needs of
operational requirements and effectiveness.
Many career paths are being restructured to reduce the
number of postings and assignments that a member of the
Canadian forces can expect over a lifetime of service. This
policy will result in fewer relocations, easing the burden on
military personnel and families. Ways to alleviate the stress and
hardship caused by moves that are frequent in comparison with
civilians are being highly examined.
There is also social change. Over the past 15 years society has
embraced a new idealism based on individual human rights and
freedoms. This is reflected in legislation such as the Human
Rights Act, the Privacy Act and the Canadian Charter of Rights
and Freedoms. It is the task of the leaders within DND and the
Canadian forces to identify and respond appropriately to such
changes. It is clear that DND and the Canadian forces have
managed to do just that.
Canada's human rights legislation has been actively
addressed in both spirit and letter. As a result, the role of women
in the military has been enhanced. The percentage of women in
the Canadian forces is among the highest of any military force in
the world. Nevertheless, DND and the forces have reinforced
their commitment to make military careers more attractive to
women.
The ability of DND and the Canadian forces to adapt and
respond to societal pressures stands in testament to their
leaders. As with good leadership, good morale is likewise
integral to the success of the Canadian forces.
Lately we have been hearing much about the morale of the
military. Members opposite have been suggesting that the
Canadian forces are receiving poor leadership and that morale is
being affected. Leadership clearly influences morale. The chain
of command's responsibility for morale was noted by the special
joint committee on Canada's defence policy. This same
committee however noted that the leadership provided by senior
ranks with the Canadian forces is excellent. If morale among the
uniform ranks is not as high as it could be, it is largely for the
same reason that morale is not high elsewhere in society: fear of
layoffs, fear of the future, fear of the children's future.
(1710)
This is not to suggest that senior leaders within the
department and the Canadian forces can remain passive. They
cannot and will not abdicate their responsibility for ensuring
that morale is as high as possible.
It is understood that like many Canadians, members of the
Canadian forces are being asked to do their job with limited
resources at their disposal. That is why care is being taken to
address those needs that are most acute. Current plans call for
the acquisition of a variety of modern equipment essential to the
maintenance of multi-purpose combat capacity and capability.
For example there exists a recognized operational deficiency in
the armoured personnel carrier fleet. The Canadian forces will
therefore acquire new armoured personnel carriers with delivery
to commence in 1997.
Furthermore, approximately 3,000 additional soldiers will be
added to the army's field force despite an overall reduction in
the size of the armed forces. This will help alleviate shortfalls in
the field army's ability to meet Canada's international
commitments.
10922
A recent memo by Brigadier-General Jeffries has also been
cited by some as proof of deteriorating morale within the forces.
They claim that the blame can be laid at the feet of senior
members within DND and the Canadian forces. First it should be
acknowledged that General Jeffries states in his memo that
morale remains, for the most part, high. Second, it must be
realized that the Canadian forces have been under considerable
pressure for the past few years. Memos such as the one written
by General Jeffries represents part of the solution.
To again quote the special joint committee, every
commanding officer, indeed every military person commanding
a unit of whatever size, constantly monitors the state of morale
in his or her unit and takes whatever steps are required to
maintain good communication within the personnel in their
charge.
Good leadership demands that we know what people are
thinking and what their concerns are. Through surveys, studies
and memos like that written by General Jeffries, issues are
brought to the forefront and dealt with appropriately.
In conclusion, the Department of National Defence and the
Canadian forces face a host of pressures many of which are
shared by all Canadians and some of which are unique to those
who have chosen to serve the country. Changing societal
expectations, limited resources, evolving demands on the
workforce have created new challenges for all of us. Those in the
Canadian military have the added challenge of meeting the
operational requirements and responsibilities associated with
any military force.
Meeting these challenges effectively requires strong
leadership. I believe senior members of the Department of
National Defence and the Canadian forces are providing that
leadership. Many measures aimed at addressing the concerns of
force members have been implemented and many others are
being examined. The chain of command bears full responsibility
for the morale in the forces. The excellent leadership
demonstrated by everyone from the Minister of National
Defence on down ensures that morale will always remain high.
[Translation]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): It being 5.15 p.m.,
pursuant to Standing Order 81, proceedings on the motion have
expired. It is my duty to put forthwith all questions necessary to
dispose of the supply proceedings now before the House.
[English]
Is the House ready for the question?
Some hon. members: Question.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): The House has heard the
terms of the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the
motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): All those in favour of the
motion will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): All those opposed will
please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): In my opinion the nays
have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Call in the members.
(The House divided on the motion, which was negatived on
the following division:)
(Division No. 178)
YEAS
Members
Bellehumeur
Bergeron
Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead)
Blaikie
Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville)
Brown (Calgary Southeast)
Bélisle
Caron
Chatters
Crête
Cummins
Daviault
Debien
de Jong
Deshaies
Dubé
Duceppe
Dumas
Duncan
Epp
Fillion
Forseth
Frazer
Gagnon (Québec)
Godin
Gouk
Guay
Guimond
Harper (Calgary West)
Harper (Simcoe Centre)
Jacob
Jennings
Johnston
Lalonde
Landry
Langlois
Laurin
Lavigne (Beauharnois-Salaberry)
Lebel
Lefebvre
Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe)
Leroux (Shefford)
Loubier
Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca)
McClelland (Edmonton Southwest)
Mercier
Meredith
Ménard
Nunez
Paré
Penson
Pomerleau
Ringma
Rocheleau
Schmidt
Scott (Skeena)
Stinson
Strahl
Thompson
Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata)
Tremblay (Rosemont)
White (North Vancouver)-62
NAYS
Members
Adams
Arseneault
Augustine
Bakopanos
Barnes
Beaumier
Bellemare
Bertrand
Bethel
Bevilacqua
Blondin-Andrew
Bodnar
Bonin
Boudria
Brown (Oakville-Milton)
Brushett
Bryden
Bélair
Bélanger
Calder
Catterall
Cauchon
10923
Clancy
Cohen
Collenette
Collins
Comuzzi
Copps
Cowling
Crawford
DeVillers
Dingwall
Discepola
Duhamel
English
Fewchuk
Finestone
Finlay
Flis
Fontana
Gagliano
Gagnon (Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine)
Gallaway
Gerrard
Godfrey
Graham
Grose
Guarnieri
Harb
Harvard
Hickey
Hopkins
Hubbard
Irwin
Keyes
Kirkby
Kraft Sloan
Lastewka
LeBlanc (Cape/Cap-Breton Highlands-Canso)
Lee
Lincoln
Loney
MacAulay
MacDonald
MacLellan (Cape/Cap-Breton-The Sydneys)
Maheu
Malhi
Maloney
Manley
Marchi
Marleau
Massé
McCormick
McGuire
McKinnon
McLellan (Edmonton Northwest)
McTeague
McWhinney
Mifflin
Milliken
Mills (Broadview-Greenwood)
Minna
Mitchell
Murphy
Murray
Nault
Nunziata
O'Brien
O'Reilly
Pagtakhan
Paradis
Patry
Peters
Phinney
Pickard (Essex-Kent)
Pillitteri
Proud
Reed
Regan
Richardson
Robichaud
Robillard
Rock
Rompkey
Scott (Fredericton-York-Sunbury)
Serré
Shepherd
Skoke
Speller
St. Denis
Stewart (Brant)
Stewart (Northumberland)
Telegdi
Thalheimer
Torsney
Valeri
Vanclief
Verran
Volpe
Walker
Wappel
Wells
Whelan
Wood
Young -125
PAIRED-MEMBERS
Asselin
Bachand
Bernier (Gaspé)
Bouchard
Brien
Campbell
Canuel
Chan
Chrétien (Frontenac)
Culbert
Dalphond-Guiral
Fry
Gaffney
Goodale
Gray (Windsor West)
Harper (Churchill)
Ianno
Jackson
Marchand
Parrish
Picard (Drummond)
Sauvageau
Simmons
St-Laurent
Szabo
Ur
Wayne
de Savoye
(1740 )
The Speaker: I declare the motion lost.
Hon. Alfonso Gagliano (for President of the Treasury
Board) moved:
That Supplementary Estimates (D) for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1995
be concurred in.
The Speaker: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the
motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Speaker: All those in favour of the motion will please
say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Speaker: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:
Mr. Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. If I were
to seek it, perhaps you would find unanimous consent to apply
the vote just taken on the opposition motion to the concurrence
in Supplementary Estimates (D) in reverse.
The Speaker: Is that agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the
following division:)
(Division No. 179)
YEAS
Members
Adams
Arseneault
Augustine
Bakopanos
Barnes
Beaumier
Bellemare
Bertrand
Bethel
Bevilacqua
Blondin-Andrew
Bodnar
Bonin
Boudria
Brown (Oakville-Milton)
Brushett
Bryden
Bélair
Bélanger
Calder
Catterall
Cauchon
Clancy
Cohen
Collenette
Collins
Comuzzi
Copps
Cowling
Crawford
DeVillers
Dingwall
Discepola
Duhamel
English
Fewchuk
Finestone
Finlay
Flis
Fontana
Gagliano
Gagnon (Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine)
Gallaway
Gerrard
Godfrey
Graham
Grose
Guarnieri
Harb
Harvard
Hickey
Hopkins
Hubbard
Irwin
Keyes
Kirkby
Kraft Sloan
Lastewka
LeBlanc (Cape/Cap-Breton Highlands-Canso)
Lee
Lincoln
Loney
MacAulay
MacDonald
10924
MacLellan (Cape/Cap-Breton-The Sydneys)
Maheu
Malhi
Maloney
Manley
Marchi
Marleau
Massé
McCormick
McGuire
McKinnon
McLellan (Edmonton Northwest)
McTeague
McWhinney
Mifflin
Milliken
Mills (Broadview-Greenwood)
Minna
Mitchell
Murphy
Murray
Nault
Nunziata
O'Brien
O'Reilly
Pagtakhan
Paradis
Patry
Peters
Phinney
Pickard (Essex-Kent)
Pillitteri
Proud
Reed
Regan
Richardson
Robichaud
Robillard
Rock
Rompkey
Scott (Fredericton-York-Sunbury)
Serré
Shepherd
Skoke
Speller
St. Denis
Stewart (Brant)
Stewart (Northumberland)
Telegdi
Thalheimer
Torsney
Valeri
Vanclief
Verran
Volpe
Walker
Wappel
Wells
Whelan
Wood
Young -125
NAYS
Members
Bellehumeur
Bergeron
Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead)
Blaikie
Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville)
Brown (Calgary Southeast)
Bélisle
Caron
Chatters
Crête
Cummins
Daviault
Debien
de Jong
Deshaies
Dubé
Duceppe
Dumas
Duncan
Epp
Fillion
Forseth
Frazer
Gagnon (Québec)
Godin
Gouk
Guay
Guimond
Harper (Calgary West)
Harper (Simcoe Centre)
Jacob
Jennings
Johnston
Lalonde
Landry
Langlois
Laurin
Lavigne (Beauharnois-Salaberry)
Lebel
Lefebvre
Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe)
Leroux (Shefford)
Loubier
Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca)
McClelland (Edmonton Southwest)
Mercier
Meredith
Ménard
Nunez
Paré
Penson
Pomerleau
Ringma
Rocheleau
Schmidt
Scott (Skeena)
Stinson
Strahl
Thompson
Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata)
Tremblay (Rosemont)
White (North Vancouver)-62
PAIRED-MEMBERS
Asselin
Bachand
Bernier (Gaspé)
Bouchard
Brien
Campbell
Canuel
Chan
Chrétien (Frontenac)
Culbert
Dalphond-Guiral
Fry
Gaffney
Goodale
Gray (Windsor West)
Harper (Churchill)
Ianno
Jackson
Marchand
Parrish
Picard (Drummond)
Sauvageau
Simmons
St-Laurent
Szabo
Ur
Wayne
de Savoye
The Speaker: I declare the motion carried.
(1745 )
Mr. Gagliano (for President of the Treasury Board) moved
that Bill C-79, an act for granting to Her Majesty certain sums
of money for the public service of Canada for the financial year
ending March 31, 1995, be read the first time.
(Motion deemed adopted and bill read the first time.)
Mr. Gagliano (for President of the Treasury Board) moved
that the bill be read the second time and referred to committee of
the whole.
The Speaker: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the
motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Speaker: All those in favour of the motion will please
say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Speaker: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:
[Translation]
Mr. Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I think that if you were to seek the
unanimous consent of the House, you might find agreement to
apply the vote applied on the previous motion to the motion now
before the House.
The Speaker: Is that agreed?
[English]
Some hon. members: Agreed.
[Editor's Note: See list under Division No. 179.]
The Speaker: I declare the motion carried.
(Bill read the second time and the House went into committee
thereon, Mr. Kilger in the chair.)
The Assistant Deputy Chairman: Shall clause 2 carry?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: On division.
(Clause 2 agreed to.)
The Assistant Deputy Chairman: Shall clause 3 carry?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
10925
Some hon. members: On division.
(Clause 3 agreed to.)
The Assistant Deputy Chairman: Shall clause 4 carry?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: On division.
(Clause 4 agreed to.)
[Translation]
On Clause 5
Mr. Michel Bellehumeur (Berthier-Montcalm, BQ):
Before we proceed, I would like to know whether the Secretary
of State for Parliamentary Affairs could give the House the
assurance that the content of the bill before us is presented in the
usual format.
Hon. Alfonso Gagliano (Secretary of State (Parliamentary
Affairs) and Deputy Leader of the Government in the House
of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, this bill is in the same form as
passed in previous years.
[English]
The Assistant Deputy Chairman: Shall clause 5 carry?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: On division.
(Clause 5 agreed to.)
The Assistant Deputy Chairman: Shall clause 6 carry?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: On division.
(Clause 6 agreed to.)
The Assistant Deputy Chairman: Shall clause 7 carry?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: On division.
(Clause 7 agreed to.)
The Assistant Deputy Chairman: Shall the schedule carry?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: On division.
(Schedule agreed to.)
The Assistant Deputy Chairman: Shall clause 1 carry?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: On division.
(Clause 1 agreed to.)
The Assistant Deputy Chairman: Shall the preamble carry?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: On division.
(Preamble agreed to.)
The Assistant Deputy Chairman: Shall the title carry?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: On division.
(Title agreed to.)
(Bill reported.)
(1750 )
Mr. Gagliano (for President of the Treasury Board) moved
that the bill be concurred in.
Mr. Speaker: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the
motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Speaker: All those in favour of the motion will please
say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Speaker: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:
Mr. Boudria: Mr. Speaker, if you were to seek unanimous
consent, you might find agreement to apply the vote applied on
the previous motion to the motion now before the House.
The Speaker: Is it agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
[Editor's Note: See list under Division No. 179]
The Speaker: I declare the motion carried.
Mr. Gagliano (for President of the Treasury Board) moved
that the bill be read the third time and passed.
The Speaker: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the
motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Speaker: All those in favour of the motion will please
say yea.
10926
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Speaker: In my opinion the yeas have it.
And more than five members having risen:
[Translation]
Mr. Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I think that if you were to seek the
unanimous consent of the House, you might find agreement to
apply the vote applied on the previous motion to the motion now
before the House.
[English]
The Speaker: Is that agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
[Editor's Note: See list under Division No. 179]
The Speaker: I declare the motion carried.
(Bill read the third time and passed.)
* * *
Hon. Alfonso Gagliano (for President of the Treasury
Board) moved:
That this House do concur in Interim Supply as follows:
That a sum not exceeding $13,678,486,367.24 being composed of:
(1) three-twelfths ($9,436,353,218.25) of the total of the amounts of the items set
forth in the Main Estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1996, which were
laid upon the Table Tuesday, February 28, 1995, and except for those items below:
(2) eleven-twelfths of the total of the amount of Foreign Affairs and International
Trade Vote L30 and Treasury Board Vote 5 (Schedule A) of the said Estimates,
$412,537,583.33;
(3) nine-twelfths of the total of the amount of Industry Vote 5 and Transport Vote 35
(Schedule B) of the said Estimates, $49,296,750.00;
(4) eight-twelfths of the total of the amounts of Canadian Heritage Vote 95, and
Human Resources Development Vote 50 (Schedule C) of the said Estimates,
$4,292,666.67;
(5) six-twelfths of the total of the amount of Canadian Heritage Vote 150, Indian
Affairs and Northern Development Vote 10, Justice Vote 5 and Treasury Board Vote
10 (Schedule D) of the said Estimates, $11,435,500.00;
(6) five-twelfths of the total of the amounts of Canadian Heritage Vote 75, Finance
Vote L30, Indian Affairs and Northern Development Votes 15 and 50, Natural
Resources Vote 10, Public Works and Government Services Vote 30 and Transport
Vote 1 (Schedule E) of the said Estimates, $2,273,490,041.66;
(7) four-twelfths of the total of the amounts of Canadian Heritage Votes 40, 45, 60
and 70, and Citizenship and Immigration Vote 10, Foreign Affairs and International
Trade Vote 15, Human Resources Development Votes 5 and 10, Indian Affairs and
Northern Development Votes 35 and 40, Industry Votes 40, 45 and 95, Justice Votes
1 and 10, Parliament Vote 1, Public Works and Government Services Votes 20 and
25, and Solicitor General Vote 5 (Schedule F) of the said Estimates,
$1,491,080,607.33;
be granted to Her Majesty on account of the fiscal year ending March 31, 1996.
The Speaker: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the
motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Speaker: All those in favour of the motion will please
say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Speaker: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:
Mr. Boudria: Mr. Speaker, if you were to seek it you would
find unanimous consent to apply the vote taken on the previous
motion to the motion now before the House.
The Speaker: Is that agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
[Editor's Note: See list under Division No. 179.]
The Speaker: I declare the motion carried.
Mr. Gagliano (for President of the Treasury Board) moved
that Bill C-80, an act for granting Her Majesty certain sums of
money for the public service of Canada for the financial year
ending March 31, 1996, be read the first time.
(Motion deemed adopted and bill read the first time.)
Mr. Gagliano (for President of the Treasury Board) moved
that the bill be read the second time and referred to committee of
the whole.
The Speaker: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the
motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Speaker: All those in favour of the motion will please
say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Speaker: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:
(1755 )
Mr. Boudria: Mr. Speaker, if you would seek unanimous
consent you would find that there is consent to apply the vote
taken on the previous motion to the motion now before the
House.
Mr. Speaker: Is that agreed?
10927
Some hon. members: Agreed.
[Editor's Note: See list under Division No. 179.]
The Speaker: I declare the motion carried.
(Bill read the second time and the House went into committee
thereon, Mr. Kilger in the chair.)
[Translation]
The Assistant Deputy Chairman: House in Committee of
the Whole on Bill C-80, an Act for granting Her Majesty certain
sums of money for the public service of Canada for the financial
year ending March 31, 1996.
Mr. Michel Bellehumeur (Berthier-Montcalm, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, I would like to ask the Secretary of State for
Parliamentary Affairs if this bill is presented in the same form as
passed in previous years.
Hon. Alfonso Gagliano (Secretary of State (Parliamentary
Affairs) and Deputy Leader of the Government in the House
of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the appropriations requested
in the bill are intended to meet all the basic requirements of the
public service of Canada until June 31, 1995. The bill does not
appropriate the total amount for any item, and the bill has the
customary format of interim supply bills. I can assure the hon.
member that the bill is in the same form as passed in previous
years.
The Assistant Deputy Chairman: Shall clause 2 carry?
(Clause 2 agreed to.)
The Assistant Deputy Chairman: Shall clause 3 carry?
Some hon. members: On division.
(Clause 3 agreed to.)
The Assistant Deputy Chairman: Shall clause 4 carry?
Some hon. members: On division.
(Clause 4 agreed to.)
The Assistant Deputy Chairman: Shall clause 5 carry?
Some hon. members: On division.
(Clause 5 agreed to.)
The Assistant Deputy Chairman: Shall Schedule A carry?
Some hon. members: On division.
(Schedule A agreed to.)
The Assistant Deputy Chairman: Shall Schedule B carry?
Some hon. members: On division.
(Schedule B agreed to.)
The Assistant Deputy Chairman: Shall Schedule C carry?
Some hon. members: On division.
(Schedule C agreed to.)
The Assistant Deputy Chairman: Shall Schedule D carry?
Some hon. members: On division.
(Schedule D agreed to.)
The Assistant Deputy Chairman: Shall Schedule E carry?
Some hon. members: On division.
(Schedule E agreed to.)
The Assistant Deputy Chairman: Shall Schedule F carry?
Some hon. members: On division.
(Schedule F agreed to.)
The Assistant Deputy Chairman: Shall Clause 1 carry?
Some hon. members: On division.
(Clause 1 agreed to.)
The Assistant Deputy Chairman: Shall the preamble carry?
Some hon. members: On division.
(Preamble agreed to.)
The Assistant Deputy Chairman: Shall the title carry?
Some hon. members: On division.
(Title agreed to.)
The Assistant Deputy Chairman: Shall the bill be adopted?
Some hon. members: On division.
(Bill reported.)
Hon. Alfonso Gagliano (for the President of the Treasury
Board) moved that the bill be concurred in.
The Speaker: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the
motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Speaker: All those in favour will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Speaker: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:
[English]
Mr. Boudria: Mr. Speaker, if you were to seek unanimous
consent you would find there is consent to apply the vote just
taken on the previous motion to the motion now before the
House.
The Speaker: Is that agreed?
10928
Some hon. members: Agreed.
[Editor's Note: See list under Division No. 179.]
The Speaker: I declare the motion carried.
Mr. Gagliano (for President of the Treasury Board) moved
that the bill be read the third time and passed.
The Speaker: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the
motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Speaker: All those in favour of the motion will please
say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
Some hon. members: All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Speaker: In my opinion the yeas have it.
And more than five members having risen:
[Translation]
Mr. Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I believe that if you were to seek
unanimous consent you would find there is consent to apply the
vote taken on the previous motion to the motion now before the
House.
[English]
The Speaker: Is that agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
[Editor's Note: See list under Division No. 179.]
The Speaker: I declare the motion carried.
(Bill read the third time and passed.)
The Speaker: It being 6 p.m., the House will now proceed to
the consideration of Private Members' Business as listed on
today's Order Paper.
_____________________________________________
10928
PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
[
Translation]
Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata, BQ)
moved that Bill C-288, an act to revoke the conviction of Louis
David Riel, be read the second time and referred to the Standing
Committee on Canadian Heritage.
She said: Mr. Speaker, on November 28, 1985, under Standing
Order 22, better known today as Standing Order 31, the Deputy
Prime Minister sought posthumous pardon for Louis David Riel.
At that time, the hon. member for Hamilton East said, and I
quote: ``Louis Riel, who died unnecessarily, deserves to be
exonerated by the Government and recognized as a victim of
wrongdoing''.
The aim of Bill C-288, an act to revoke the conviction of
Louis David Riel, which is before the House in second reading
today, is simply to exonerate the victim of a conspiracy. The
members of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House
Affairs representing the Liberal Party of Canada and the Reform
Party joined forces and decided that this bill was not votable,
despite the fact that a number of government members
welcomed it enthusiastically.
It was not the intention of the Bloc Quebecois in introducing it
to further complicate relations between whites and native
peoples and between anglophones and francophones.
(1805)
The Bloc Quebecois' action is in step with work begun by
Canadian parliamentarians, who, for more than ten years, have
been asking the members of this House to rise temporarily above
partisan bickering and join together to revoke the conviction of
Louis Riel.
Here is a brief history of the interventions preceding this one.
On September 23, 1983, MP William Yurko tabled Bill C-691,
an act to pardon Louis David Riel. He tried again on March 14,
1984 with Bill C-228.
A few months later, Les Benjamin, member for
Regina-Lumsden, twice tabled a bill, this time to revoke the
conviction of Louis David Riel-first on June 28, 1984 and then
on December 13, 1984.
On September 16, 1987, the member for Kamloops tabled the
same bill. On October 13, 1989, Mr. Skelly, member for
Comox-Alberni, tabled a notice of motion to recognize Louis
Riel as a Father of Confederation.
Lastly, on March 10, 1992, the Right Hon. Joe Clark,
President of the Privy Council and Minister responsible for
Constitutional Affairs in the Mulroney government and hon.
member for Yellowhead, introduced a resolution, which was
adopted, whereby the House recognized, and I quote: ``The
unique and historic role of Louis Riel as a founder of Manitoba
and his contribution in the development of Confederation'' and
agreed to ``support by its actions the true attainment, both in
principle and practice, of the constitutional rights of the Metis
people''.
The bill currently being debated in the House is identical to
the ones which have been introduced by the New Democrats
over the past ten years. Furthermore, I have been told that, at one
time, there was agreement between the three parties, Conserva-
10929
tives, Liberals and New Democrats, to pass the bill, but it was
never pursued.
The bill we are considering today does not aim to rewrite
history. That would be impossible. Riel is dead. And, anyway,
the act to revoke his conviction aims to revoke his unjust
conviction, 110 years after his death.
On November 16, 1885, Louis ``David'' Riel, the Metis hero,
was hanged. At a time when means of communication were far
from being what they are today, the unjust hanging of Riel upset
an indignant population, even as far away as on Quebec's shores.
Less than one week after his hanging, on November 22, 1885,
close to 50,000 people gathered in the Champ de Mars in
Montreal, to hear the famous cry of Honoré Mercier, one of the
greatest of all of Quebec's premiers: ``Riel, our brother, is
dead''.
Premier Mercier's cry is how any free person would have
marked the passing of any just woman or man who was unjustly
assassinated. It also is a cry marking the passing of a man who
fought injustice towards his people.
For this reason, the case of Riel is exemplary. I remember the
resolution introduced in this House by the Right Hon. Joe Clark
on March 10, 1992. Watered down to satisfy the Conservative
and Liberal dinosaurs of the day, the resolution which was
adopted unanimously recognizes that the Metis and Louis Riel
had just cause to fight against the Canadian government. The
resolution states, and I quote:
That this House take note that the Metis people of Rupert's Land and the
North Western Territory through democratic structures and procedures took
effective steps to maintain order and protect the lives, rights and property of the
people of the Red River;
That this House take note that, in 1870, under the leadership of Louis Riel, the
Metis of the Red River adopted a List of Rights;
That this House take note that, based on the List of Rights, Louis Riel
negotiated the terms for the admission of Rupert's Land and the North Western
Territory into the Dominion of Canada;
That this House take note that these terms for admission form part of the
Manitoba Act;
That this House take note that, after negotiating Manitoba's entry into
Confederation, Louis Riel was elected thrice to the House of Commons;
That this House take note that, in 1885, Louis Riel paid with his life for his
leadership in a movement which fought for the maintenance of the rights and
freedoms of the Metis people;
That this House take note that the Constitution Act, 1982, recognizes and
affirms the existing aboriginal and treaty right of the Metis;
That this House take note that since the death of Louis Riel, the Metis people
have honoured his memory and continued his purposes in their honourable
striving for the implementation of those rights.
(1810)
Twice, Riel defended the Metis against the Canadian
government: in 1869 in Manitoba and in 1885 in Saskatchewan.
The legitimate, democratic and just nature of what he did
must be emphasized. What Riel did was legitimate and has been
recognized as such by all those who have made a careful analysis
of the behaviour of the Canadian government's representatives
in 1869. Even Macdonald later acknowledged that, in the
circumstances, the inhabitants of the young colony had been
obliged to form a government in order to protect their lives and
their property.
What Riel did was democratic. At all stages, Riel ensured that
the people were consulted and that anglophone and francophone
groups were represented in equal proportions, even though
francophones were the more numerous of the two groups at the
time.
What Riel did was just. In his list of rights, Riel included
representation in the government of Canada, guarantees of
bilingualism in the provincial legislature, a bilingual chief
justice and provisions for free farms and treaties with the
Indians.
Riel was elected to the House of Commons three times as the
representative for Provencher. In an upcoming book on Riel,
Richard Saindon, a CBC journalist in Rimouski, tells how on
March 30, 1874 the then member for Rimouski,
Jean-Baptiste-Romuald Fiset, took a hooded Riel in through
one of the concealed doors to be sworn in as a member of
Parliament and sign the registry. On April 9, 1874 he was
expelled from the House. The motion was re-introduced, and
when he was re-elected in absentia on September 3, 1874 for the
third time, he was prevented from taking his seat.
The strain of his battle for the Metis took a lasting toll on his
mental health and he had to be hospitalized. He was admitted to
the asylum at Longue Pointe, now Louis-Hippolyte Lafontaine,
on March 6, 1876. In May of that year, in a move to outwit his
political enemies, he was transferred to the asylum at Beauport,
now Robert Giffard, which he left a year and a half later on the
undertaking that he would lead a quiet life.
In July 1884, at the request of Metis, anglophones and Indians
in Saskatchewan, Riel, who was then living in Montana,
returned to Canada, to Batoche in Saskatchewan, to defend his
people. On December 16, 1884, the organization representing
the Metis and anglophones sent the Canadian government a long
petition with 25 clauses, mostly about land claims, which
outlined Metis and Indian grievances.
Representatives of the Saskatchewan people requested that
they be allowed to send delegates to Ottawa with their List of
Rights as in 1870, so that an agreement could be reached on their
10930
entry into Confederation, should they become a free province.
Secretary of State Chapleau acknowledged receipt of the
petition and then Prime Minister Macdonald, who later denied
receiving it, passed it on to his Minister of the Interior, the hon.
David Lewis Macpherson.
While Riel suffered renewed attacks of paranoia as a result of
the tension, the federal government responded to the
Saskatchewan people's fair demands by sending in the army. On
May 15, 1885, Riel gave himself up.
As for the trial which led the Metis hero to the scaffold, it was
full of irregularities. Let us look at the facts. Militia minister
Joseph-Philippe-René-Adolphe Caron sent Riel to jail in
Winnipeg. For his part, then Prime Minister John Alexander
Macdonald wanted to ensure a unanimous verdict. He analyzed
the situation. He knew that people in Regina did not like the
accused, while Winnipeg residents were supportive of him. He
therefore decided to have Riel tried in Regina instead of
Winnipeg.
(1815)
In fact, if Riel had been tried in Winnipeg, he would have been
entitled to a 12-man jury, half of which could be made up of
francophones. He would also have been entitled to a Superior
Court judge whose independence is guaranteed by law and
custom.
However, conditions were quite different in Regina: with no
guarantee of bilingualism, the jury was composed of
English-speaking Protestants. The only francophone out of the
36 people who were called had an accident and the only Catholic
recused himself. A unilingual English judge, Richardson, was
chosen. He owed his position to the federal government and
could be summarily dismissed at any time.
Among the 84 accused rebels, Riel was the only one tried
under a 1352 English law rather than the 1868 Canadian
legislation. The former provided for compulsory capital
punishment and the latter, for life imprisonment.
Although Mr. Roy, the Beauport asylum's medical
superintendent, and Daniel Clark, the superintendent of the
insane asylum in Toronto, recognized that Riel suffered from
megalomania, preference was given to the evidence given by
Wallace, medical superintendent of the insane asylum in
Hamilton, who, on the basis of a half-hour interview,
maintained that Riel was of sound mind.
In his address to the jury, Judge Richardson appeared strongly
prejudiced against Riel, according to Thomas in the Dictionary
of Canadian Biography. In fact, the Macdonald government
sacrificed Riel to the powerful Ontario Orangemen's lobby.
To justify itself, cabinet goes as far as falsifying, in a report to
this House, the report by Dr. Valade attesting that Riel was not
guilty by reason of insanity. From 1885 to this day, every
psychiatrist who reviewed Riel's case, with one exception,
diagnosed the Metis leader as suffering from grandiose
delusion. Finally, on the one hand, the Canadian justice system
convicted 20 Metis and many Indians, but on the other hand, it
acquitted two White settlers charged with a national security
offence, namely Jackson and Thomas Scott.
Riel's assassination, while being the most visible
manifestation of it, is but one of the elements of a national
policy aimed at quashing any wish to have a distinct society west
of Ontario.
Francophones account for only 1.9 per cent of all immigrants
who settled in Western Canada. It is therefore no wonder that,
today, francophones account for as little as 4.7 per cent of the
population in Manitoba; 2.2 per cent in Saskatchewan; 2.3 per
cent in Alberta; 1.6 per cent in British Columbia; 3.3 per cent in
the Yukon and 2.5 per cent in the Northwest Territories, when in
the days of Louis Riel, the francophone community was the
largest community in Western Canada.
No wonder such an adverse immigration policy led to
francophones becoming assimilated in a flash, as we can see
from 1991 statistics, which indicate rates of assimilation of 52.1
per cent in Manitoba; 69.6 per cent in Saskatchewan; 66.9 per
cent in Alberta; 75.2 per cent in British Columbia; and 56.6 per
cent in the Yukon and the Northwest Territories.
In 1891, the Canadian government put a Quebec religious
teaching order in charge of opening schools in the West to turn
francophone Metis children into anglophones. A century later,
at a mass celebrated on September 3, 1991, the Sisters of the
Assumption recognized their participation in the cultural
genocide of the Metis in Alberta.
Louis Riel was hanged for being a Metis and a francophone,
for having advocated a distinct society. I had hoped that on the
110th anniversary of his assassination, this House would rise to
the occasion and honour this man who devoted his life to
championing the rights of his people. I must face facts and
realize that it is no use.
To those who strongly object to such historical reminders, I
simply want to remind that to deny the past is to fail to try to
understand the present and, most importantly, to refuse to give
ourselves a future.
(1820)
We, in Quebec, have looked at these events of the past. What
we understand about our present circumstances is that the rest of
Canada denies our existence and refuses to see and accept us as
different. That is why the only possible future for us rests in the
courage and pride we will take in soon giving ourselves a
country of our own.
Mr. Robert Bertrand (Pontiac-Gatineau-Labelle, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I want to discuss private member's bill C-288, an
Act to revoke the conviction of Louis David Riel, which was
10931
tabled by the hon. member for Rimouski-Témiscouata. The
preamble of this bill states that Louis David Riel, Member of the
House of Commons for the electoral district of Provencher from
1873 to 1874, was convicted on August 1, 1885 of high treason,
sentenced to death, and was hanged on November 16, 1885, at
Regina, North West Territories.
The bill also states that notwithstanding his conviction, Louis
David Riel has become a symbol and a hero to successive
generations of Canadians who have, through their governments,
honoured and commemorated him in specific projects and
actions. The purpose of this bill, is to revoke the conviction of
Louis Riel for high treason. To that end, the hon. member who
sponsors the bill refers to the role played by Louis Riel in
Canadian history.
Louis Riel was elected three times to this House. His
constituents considered him to be a guide who was reliable,
intelligent and educated. Louis Riel worked in close
co-operation with the members of his community to help them
identify and state their claims and their objectives. Louis Riel
played a major role in helping Manitoba become a member of
Confederation as a province, not as part of the North West
Territories, and in ensuring that the guarantees protecting
religion and the language were enshrined in the Manitoba Act. I
think we all recognize the very prominent role played by Louis
Riel as protector of the interests of the Metis, as well as his
contribution to the development of western Canada.
Some actions have already taken in the past to recognize the
contribution of Louis Riel to the building of our country. Let me
just briefly mention the issue of stamps, the erection of statues
and the organizing of cultural events. Moreover, on March 10,
1992, the House of Commons passed a resolution, tabled by the
then President of the Privy Council and Minister responsible for
Constitutional Affairs, recognizing the role played by Louis
Riel.
That resolution, which was passed by this House and the other
place, received the support of the Metis nation of Canada and
ended with these words: ``That this House recognize the unique
and historic role of Louis Riel as a founder of Manitoba and his
contribution in the development of Confederation; and that this
House support by its actions the true attainment, both in
principle and in practice, of the constitutional rights of the Metis
people''. Members on this side of the House supported the
resolution and recognized Louis Riel's contribution. Louis Riel
paid the ultimate price as leader of a movement which fought to
protect the rights and freedoms of the Metis people.
He was convicted of high treason, sentenced to death and
hanged. This bill, which seeks to revoke the conviction of Louis
Riel, raises important issues which must be carefully reviewed.
As I said, it seeks to revoke the conviction of Louis Riel, an
event which is also part of Canada's history. In conclusion, I
suggest that we take a look to see how we could implement this
initiative.
(1825)
[English]
Mrs. Jan Brown (Calgary Southeast, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
rise today to speak to Bill C-288, an act to revoke the conviction
of Louis David Riel. I acknowledge and appreciate the point of
view brought forward by my colleague and friend from
Rimouski-Témiscouata.
As a member of Parliament from Alberta, I am well aware of
the controversial role that Louis Riel played in the political
development of the west. Some historians depict Riel as a traitor
who openly rebelled against Ottawa. Others consider him a
father of Confederation who in 1870 negotiated Manitoba's
entry into the dominion. Still others consider him the founder of
western alienation movements which have protested central
Canadian political and economic power.
For over a century now this historiographical debate has been
raging as to whether Riel was a traitor or a martyr. I do not
believe we will resolve that debate today. Having said that, I
believe it is inappropriate as well as unnecessary to revisit and
to rewrite our national history. Granted, some of the decisions
taken in the Riel trial are questionable, but I am not convinced
this bill was put forward to simply right a perceived wrong.
Thus far in the 35th Parliament, two Bloc Quebecois
initiatives with revisionist undertones have been debated. First
there was Motion No. 257 which set out to officially sanction at
the federal level Patriots Day. On November 1, 1994 I cautioned
the House that if it adopted the motion of the hon. member for
Verchères we would be galvanizing support for a celebration
with sovereigntist undertones.
In addition to the examples I presented to the House last
November, I have since discovered another one. It is in a scene
from Denis Falardeau's latest film Octobre. As most of us know,
its production was heavily financed by the National Film Board
as well as by Telefilm. At one point in the film the FLQ
kidnappers of Pierre Laporte made reference to their historical
and emotional ties with the Patriotes' objectives during the
1837-38 rebellion.
Now the House is debating Bill C-288. Our hon. colleague
from Rimouski-Témiscouata knows full well the controversy
surrounding the conviction of Louis Riel and the national
schism which followed his hanging and her eloquence was a
statement of that. In 1885 there was a shared minority complex
between the French Canadians and the Metis people. Both
groups were francophone and both groups were Catholic.
Today some members of the Bloc Quebecois are siding with
francophones outside Quebec in their fight for greater rights.
Since the collapse of the États généraux du Canada-français in
1968 and more recently during the Mahé case heard by the
10932
Supreme Court of Canada, Quebec nationalists have not always
stood up alongside the various francophone communities in
their struggles against their respective governments. Now there
seems to be a renewed sense of co-operation between the
Quebecois and the francophone diaspora.
With this bill the Bloc Quebecois would more than likely win
the support of the franco-Manitoban and Fransaskois
communities as well as gaining some sympathy for their
cessionist cause. The franco-Manitobans and the Fransaskois
alike must not forget that the BQ is working toward separation.
The BQ may be considered in this case a circumspect ally.
However, in 1885 the French Canadians were not circumspect
allies of the Metis. They were genuinely outraged at the
supposed mockery of justice perpetrated against Louis Riel.
Considered by the Metis people as a hero who negotiated the
Red River colony's entry into Confederation, Riel was once
again called upon by his people in 1884 to lead the newest
struggle against Ottawa encroachment on their land.
Riel and his followers took up arms against federal troops.
Outmanned and outgunned, Riel finally surrendered on May 15,
1885. The prisoner was subsequently transferred to Regina for
his trial. On August 1, after only a half hour of deliberation, the
jury found Louis Riel guilty of high treason. Under British law,
high treason was punishable by death.
The conviction and subsequent hanging of Riel in Regina
created great upheaval in Quebec. On November 17, the day
following the execution, Honoré Mercier founded a new
political party which included bleus as well as rouges outraged
by Riel's hanging. The main objective of the new Parti National
was to oust Sir John A. Macdonald and his cabinet. One of the
Parti national's goals was to canalise and perpetuate the
solidarity created among the French-speaking Canadians by the
Riel affair.
(1830)
A week after the hanging a rally at the Champs de Mars in
downtown Montreal attracted thousands. The crowd gathered to
express its frustration with how English Canada had treated one
of its own in the west. Honoré Mercier started his now famous
speech with a call for solidarity: ``Riel, notre frère est mort-''
[Translation]
Mercier went on to say: ``By killing Riel, sir John not only hit
our race in the heart, but he mostly hurt the cause of justice and
humanity, which, represented in all languages and blessed by all
religions, appealed for clemency on behalf of the Regina
prisoner, our poor brother from the Northwest''.
[English]
Also during the rally resolutions were passed which stated:
[Translation]
``Whereas it is obvious that the government used this
execution purely for political gain; that it coldly calculated how
many ridings would be lost to a policy of clemency and justice;
that as a result of these calculations, it sacrificed our brother to
the hate of fanatics, allowing them to turn against one another
the various races who, in this country, live under the protection
of the English flag; RESOLVED: That, by executing Louis Riel
on November 16, the government of sir John A. Macdonald
committed an inhuman and cruel act unworthy of a civilized
nation, and especially deserves the reprobation of all citizens of
this province''.
[English]
I am afraid Bill C-288 will evoke if not stir these sentiments
of English Canada versus those of French Canada once again.
On the eve of one of our country's most passionate debates the
Bloc Quebecois perhaps is evoking controversial episodes of
our national history, episodes that tore at the very fabric of our
country. First there was motion 257 which dealt with the Patriots
and now there is Bill C-288 which deals with Louis Riel.
Further to this discussion, Jeffrey Simpson stated in his
December 20, 1994 article in the Globe and Mail entitled ``The
Liberals refuse the queue that's trying to wag the government'':
History is always being rewritten, so that the devils of yesterday sometimes
become the martyrs of today, and heroes in their time often lose their lustre with
the passing of years. Understanding history is critical so that the errors of the
past are not repeated, but retrospective justice asks today's Canadians to pay for
decisions they had no part in making.
Jeffrey Simpson is right. We must understand our past so that
we may forge ahead. The hanging of Louis Riel created a great
uproar all across the land, especially in Quebec. Instead of
evoking controversial elements of our past, should we not as
legislators be looking for solutions to today's problems?
I find it regrettable that the House is spending this time
debating issues such as these. All of us as parliamentarians
should be concentrating our efforts on finding solutions to
present day problems. By saying this I in no way mean that we
should not be proud of our history, that we should not become
more familiar with controversial episodes of our national
history and that we should not forget where we come from
because as Donald Creighton, one of Canada's foremost
scholars, argues, for a solution to a political problem to be
efficient, it must be based on a sound understanding of history.
When I say the House should be debating present day
problems, I mean there are so many issues, political, economic,
social, of great consequence. Even my colleagues in the Bloc
Quebecois would agree these are the things we should be
10933
debating on the floor of the House instead of arguing whether
Louis Riel was a martyr or a traitor. That task may be better left
to historians.
Without a doubt Louis Riel is a controversial figure in
Canadian history. Some consider him a traitor, others a martyr
and still others consider him the founder of the western
alienation movements.
Who are we as parliamentarians to revisit events which took
place over a century ago and pass judgment on them?
[Translation]
Mr. Ronald J. Duhamel (Parliamentary Secretary to
President of the Treasury Board, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is a
great pleasure to address the House this afternoon.
I think that this initiative must be carefully examined.
(1835)
My intention today is not to bring back the past. I do not know
the answers. As we know very well, there are people who
question whether or not justice was served. I honestly believe
that a number of irregularities were committed which clearly
show that justice was not served. But let us not join the debate.
Let us look at the situation today, at what people believe
happened to him. That is what I am mainly interested in.
There is a great deal of controversy surrounding Riel, and I
think this is not the objective we have in mind. I could identify
historians who could come and tell us what they believe is the
truth about Riel. They are absolutely convinced that they are
right, and I suspect that they would share to a certain extent the
opinion of my colleague who spoke before me. Others would
tend to side with the hon. member who delivered the first
speech.
So I will put all that aside for now. I would like to focus on
what we know, the facts on which we can agree. For example, I
think that we agree on the fact that irregularities were
committed during the trial. We heard all kinds of evidence and I
will not go over it again. I think that we should talk, as I did, to
the Metis in Manitoba and elsewhere about Riel, because he is
still a hero to them. They know, admire and respect Louis Riel,
who is a symbol to the Metis and a number of other groups,
including francophones, at least francophones in my
region-and I am not saying that to denigrate francophones
elsewhere. The fact is that we may know him a little better
because we lived with him.
He was elected three times to the legislature. There was a
certain amount of respect on the part of the population. Whether
or not we agree on his definition of society, he worked to define
and formulate his constituents' demands and objectives. He was
very sincere in doing this. We often forget that he wanted
Manitoba to join Confederation and not the Northwest
Territories. He wanted religious and linguistic guarantees in the
Manitoba Act. He looked after, perhaps mainly, the interest of
the Metis, but also that of the francophones, of course, and the
anglophones as well because, as mentioned earlier, he was a man
ahead of his time. Even at that time, he was a man with a very
keen sense of justice, a judgment like we wish we could see
more often in many sectors of our society today.
On March 10, 1992, the following resolution was introduced
in this House, and I quote: ``That this House recognize the
unique and historic role of Louis Riel as a founder of Manitoba
and his contribution in the development of Confederation and
support by its actions the true attainment, both in principle and
practice, of the constitutional rights of the Metis people''. That
is what this House declared on March 10, 1992. I was there. I
even spoke on this resolution. If I am not mistaken-I did not
have the time to go back and check- the majority, if not the vast
majority, of the members present supported this resolution. I
find this very commendable.
As I said earlier, I do not intend to try to change or rewrite
history, because I do not have the answers. But what I will do is
look at who Riel is today. I shared with you, Mr. Speaker, and my
hon. colleagues of this House what I was told by the Metis
people, the francophones who know him, and the historians who
studied him.
This bill calls for Louis Riel's conviction to be revoked. As I
said at the beginning of my remarks, I think this is something we
should take a real good look at and I suggest that we appoint a
committee, with perhaps one MP from each party, to determine
whether or not this is feasible. Perhaps we could-and this is my
wish and my distinct preference-find unanimous consent to do
so.
I will sum up with these few words in English:
(1840)
[English]
Louis Riel is a hero, a symbol. He was a political personality
and a leader who became a victim because of a number of
situations in which he found himself. Let us not kid ourselves.
[Translation]
He was not treated like just any other individual.
[English]
We know that. We know it deep down in our hearts.
[Translation]
We know it very well. We know that he was a Metis and a
Catholic and that he spoke French. And we know the at the time
it was very difficult to be these three things.
10934
[English]
I said in 1992 and I will say again that Mr. Riel was a unique
person, a historical personality. He was recognized as the
founder of Manitoba. He has to be appreciated for his
contribution to this confederation.
I will repeat my proposal that we seek the possibility of
forming a committee with at least one member from each party
to see whether we can make this project a reality or come to
some sort of satisfactory conclusion.
[Translation]
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron (Verchères, BQ): Mr. Speaker, it is
a pleasure to add my comments to those of the hon. member for
Rimouski-Témiscouata who introduced Bill C-288, an Act to
revoke the conviction of Louis David Riel who was unjustly
accused of high treason.
The man who was hanged in Regina nearly 110 years ago
today has become a truly historic figure in this country. He
profoundly affected the course of events in his time and
continues to do so today, in 1995 as we talk about him in this
House, since his memory and his efforts to defend the rights of
Canada's francophones and Metis live on in our hearts and in our
history. That man was Louis David Riel.
The story of Louis Riel is one of famous speeches, of noble
resolutions to support human rights and of battles that made him
the hero of many generations of Metis and francophones and of
the entire population of Manitoba.
As you know, Louis Riel was convicted of high treason on
August 1, 1885. He was subsequently sentenced to death and
hanged on November 16 that same year, at the age of 41. Those
are the facts, but what did this man do to be accused of high
treason? What did he do to incur this conviction and
punishment? The reason we are still talking about the case of
Louis Riel today, after so many years, is that many people still
feel he was the victim of a miscarriage of justice.
To this day, the Canadian government has never challenged
the verdict of guilty pronounced against Louis Riel, despite all
the manipulation around his trial. Now that the values on which
the judicial system at the time was based have changed, it is high
time the Canadian government made a symbolic gesture by
agreeing to revoke the conviction of Louis Riel.
Many people, and I am one of them, believe that the injustice
done to Louis Riel, which continues today, arose from the very
nature of the charges brought against him. Even in this House,
the memory of Louis Riel has given rise to many discussions and
to several unsuccessful attempts to do justice to this remarkable
man, in the light of the extremely positive judgment passed by
history.
I am referring, for instance, to the bills tabled in September
1983 and March 1984 by the Progressive Conservative member
for Edmonton East, William Yurko, the purpose of which was to
pardon Louis Riel. The memory of the Metis leader did not share
the fate of the two bills which died on first reading. In December
1984, the NDP member for Regina-Lumsden, Les Benjamin,
made another attempt, also unsuccessful, with a bill to revoke
the conviction of Louis Riel.
On November 28, 1985, the present Deputy Prime Minister,
Minister of the Environment and member for Hamilton East
spoke out in favour of a review of the conviction of Louis Riel.
She said in this House, and I quote: ``Mr. Speaker, we are now in
November and one hundred years have gone by since the
hanging of Louis Riel. I now ask that this Conservative
Government exonerate the victim of the conspiracy of another
Conservative Government''. The hon. member for Hamilton
East went on to say, and I quote: ``Louis Riel, who died
unnecessarily, deserves to be exonerated by the Government and
recognized as a victim of wrongdoing''.
(1845)
The search for justice is irrepressible, hard to put down as we
would say, since, in 1987, the present member for
Kamloops-Shuswap tabled a new bill to revoke the conviction
of Louis Riel for high treason. This bill, along with the motion
tabled in November 1989 by the New Democratic member for
Comox-Alberni, Robert Skelly, to recognize Louis Riel as a
Father of Confederation, shared the unfortunate fate of previous
attempts.
The memory of Louis Riel was finally honoured on March 10,
1992 by this House, when it adopted a motion by Conservative
minister Joe Clark to recognize the unique and historic role of
Louis Riel as founder of Manitoba and his contribution in the
development of confederation.
The motion was to the effect that the House also take note, and
I quote, ``That the Metis people of Rupert's Land and the North
Western Territory through democratic structures and procedures
took effective steps to maintain order and protect the lives,
rights and property of the people of the Red River''.
With this motion of March 10, 1992, the House also took note
that, in 1870, under the leadership of Louis Riel, the Red River
Metis adopted a list of rights and that, based on this list of rights,
Louis Riel negotiated the terms for the admission of Rupert's
Land and the North Western Territory into the Dominion of
Canada. These terms of admission today still form part of the
Manitoba Act. In addition, the House took note in adopting this
motion that, after negotiating Manitoba's entry into
Confederation, Louis Riel was elected three times to the House
of Commons.
More importantly still, the House took note that, in 1885,
Louis Riel paid with his life for his leadership in a movement
which fought for the maintenance of the rights and freedoms of
the Metis people. This was a clear affirmation, with no hint of
criticism of the deeds of Louis Riel, quite the contrary. Lastly,
the motion noted that since the death of Louis Riel, the Metis
people have honoured his memory and furthered his purposes in
10935
their honourable striving to have us respect the rights for which
he so dearly paid.
A little closer to home now, the current member for
Saint-Boniface, the riding in which the body of Louis Riel is
buried, would go even further and would demand that we
recognize the Metis leader as one of the ``Fathers of
Confederation''.
If Louis Riel has remained a hero for so many generations of
Quebecers and Canadians, it is because of the reasons listed
earlier and officially recognized by the House of Commoms.
This House must be consistent in its own decisions and admit
that it cannot recognize Louis Riel's role as founder of Manitoba
and his contribution to the development of the Canadian
Confederation, while still tolerating that his conviction for the
offence of high treason stand.
Riel was not convicted of murder, theft or vandalism. He was
convicted of high treason. But how can a traitor later be
recognized as the founder of one of the provinces of the country
which convicted him? If he was even guilty of any crime, might I
suggest that he was probably convicted of the wrong indictment
for the wrong motives. We must therefore do him justice and
revoke the conviction of high treason which continues to taint
his memory.
This is not rewriting history. This is simply repairing, in the
light of historical facts themselves, an injustice done to Louis
Riel. We must avoid giving the issue our attention only when it
is convenient to do so, given popular opinion on the matter. By
the same token, we must also avoid glancing selectively at the
life of Louis Riel, retaining only the points which would allow
us to make a hero out of him. Louis Riel cannot at the same time
be both traitor and hero.
As long as this historic paradox is not eliminated, members
from all parties, perhaps even Reform members, will rise in this
House to ask that we put an end to it. I am hopeful that, some
day, justice will be done for Louis Riel. As we know, this issue
goes far beyond ideological and partisan considerations.
On February 28, the president of the Ukrainian Canadian Civil
Rights Association, Mr. Gregorovich, sent a letter to every MP,
asking them to support this bill. As Mr. Gregorovich pointed
out, this legislation does not seek to grant a posthumous pardon
to Louis Riel, but simply to strike down the conviction of high
treason.
(1850)
It is in that spirit that I ask for the unanimous consent of the
House, so that this bill can pass second reading and be referred
to the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Is there unanimous
consent of the House to pass the motion tabled by the hon.
member for Verchères?
Some hon. members: Yes.
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Order. There is not
unanimous consent. Resuming debate.
Since no other member wishes to take the floor, and since the
motion will not be put, the period provided for the consideration
of Private Members' Business has now expired and the item is
dropped from the Order Paper, pursuant to Standing Order 96.
_____________________________________________
10935
ADJOURNMENT PROCEEDINGS
[
English]
A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38
deemed to have been moved.
Mrs. Dianne Brushett (Cumberland-Colchester, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Industry.
The Canadian Federation of Independent Business in its
research paper and report on barriers faced by women business
owners concludes that banks and lending institutions promote a
double standard in their lending practices. This report points to a
higher loan refusal, higher interest on the loans acquired and
greater differential between capital applied for and capital
accessed for women when compared with men who own
businesses or male-female co-owned businesses.
The prejudice on the part of the lenders does not match up to
the reality of the women in small business. Because of careful
attention to detail, careful planning and tenacity, women are
known to have a higher success rate in business start up and
lifespan than men.
The CFIB as part of its research polled its 85,000
membership. It found that of the nearly 11,000 responses, 68 per
cent were male who owned a business, 25 per cent were
co-owned but only 6 per cent were solely owned by a female.
These numbers in and of themselves mean very little until
compared with the exploding number of women entering solely
owned proprietorships.
Since 1981 the number of women owned businesses has
nearly doubled from 323,000 to 639,000 in 1994. Current
projections place the number of women business owners at
680,000 by the year 2000. This is not a fad that will end with the
women of this country being silenced by the pistol whipping of
bankers. It is a revolution born out of necessity being a response
to changing family structures and an increasing sense of
independence.
10936
What is needed is either a change in attitude by the money
lenders to accommodate this projected rapid growth, an increase
in the number of banks and credit unions which cater
exclusively to the needs of women entrepreneurs, or an
intervention by government to ensure equality.
It would appear from the CFIB report that in spite of the
inroads accomplished by women during this century, the banks
have refused to wake up to modern realities and still consider
women a bad loan risk even before they apply. This is a handicap
that must be eliminated if small business is to continue to be the
main engine driving our economy and if Canada is to continue
realizing its full growth potential.
In the face of this apparent discrimination, what is the
minister prepared to do to ensure a level playing field for the
sector of our business community which is proving itself to be
self-sustaining and very successful?
Mr. Maurizio Bevilacqua (Parliamentary Secretary to
Minister of Human Resources Development, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I am pleased to respond to the question.
The growth of entrepreneurship in the Canadian economy has
been remarkable over the last decade. The number of
self-employed women has also grown at over three times the
rate of business formation by self-employed men. Today there
are more than 600,000 self-employed women, representing over
one third of all self-employed in Canada.
Women entrepreneurs tend to be more reliable credit risks
since they are less prone to go out of business than men. They
should therefore be considered more dependable from the
perspective of banks.
Despite this, the Canadian Federation of Independent
Business study, to which the hon. member referred, indicated
that women continue to face greater obstacles to financing than
men.
A recent study by Statistics Canada suggests that while there
is no systemic discrimination against women entrepreneurs,
they tend to operate businesses in higher risk sectors. In those
sectors both male and female entrepreneurs face substantially
similar obstacles to financing.
Let me give some concrete examples of what the government
has done. The Federal Business Development Bank is
committed to helping women. About one third of FBDB loans
are made to businesses with 50 per cent or more female
ownership. FBDB designs seminars and conferences especially
for women; 500 women attended these last year.
The government has been improving access to financing for
small business. Lending under the Small Business Loans Act has
increased by more than four times in the last two years. We are
pressing the banks to increase lending to small businesses. They
have taken some steps to improve their services to small
business. We will continue our efforts to ensure all
entrepreneurs have easier access to financing so they can start,
grow and prosper.
[Translation]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Pursuant to Standing
Order 38, the motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to
have been adopted. Accordingly, the House stands adjourned
until tomorrow at 10 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24.
(The House adjourned at 6.57 p.m.)