Debates of March 23rd, 1995

Supply

[Paul Crête, Bloc, Kamouraska—Rivière-Du-Loup, QC]

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?

[Stephen Harper, Reform, Calgary West, AB]

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.

[Fred Mifflin, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Defence and Minister of Veterans Affairs]

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

[Jack Frazer, Reform, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

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

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.

[Fred Mifflin, Liberal, Bonavista—Trinity—Conception, NL]

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.

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.

[John Bryden, Liberal, Hamilton—Wentworth, ON]

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.

[Fred Mifflin, Liberal, Bonavista—Trinity—Conception, NL]

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.

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.

[Daphne Jennings, Reform, Mission—Coquitlam, BC]

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.

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

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.

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.

[Bob Mills, Reform, Red Deer, AB]

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.

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.

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.

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.

[Fred Mifflin, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Defence and Minister of Veterans Affairs]

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.

[Bob Mills, Reform, Red Deer, AB]

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.

[Fred Mifflin, Liberal, Bonavista—Trinity—Conception, NL]

Madam Speaker, it was because the minister was anxious to respond to the opposition parties.

[Stephen Harper, Reform, Calgary West, AB]

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.

[Fred Mifflin, Liberal, Bonavista—Trinity—Conception, NL]

That is what this is about. I would like to address the comment of my hon. colleague from Red Deer.

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.

[Bob Mills, Reform, Red Deer, AB]

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.

[Len Hopkins, Liberal, Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON]

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

"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.

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.

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.

[Jack Frazer, Reform, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

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.

[Len Hopkins, Liberal, Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON]

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.

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.

[Fred Mifflin, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Defence and Minister of Veterans Affairs]

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.

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?

[Len Hopkins, Liberal, Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON]

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.

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.

[The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu)]

The period for questions and comments has now expired. Resuming debate. The hon. member for Shefford.

[Jean H. Leroux, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

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.

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:

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.

World Day For Water

[Paul Devillers, Liberal, Simcoe North, ON]

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.

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.