Debates of March 23rd, 1995

Supply

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

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.

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.

We owe it to our service people to give them the very best leadership, command and control that we can possibly provide.

[David Collenette, Liberal, Minister of National Defence and Minister of Veterans Affairs]

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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-

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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?

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

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.

[David Collenette, Liberal, Don Valley East, ON]

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.

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

Madam Speaker, I want to ask the minister a couple of questions. The motion today deals with the public inquiry.

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.

[David Collenette, Liberal, Don Valley East, ON]

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.

[Jean-Marc Jacob, Bloc, Charlesbourg, QC]

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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

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.

[Jean-Marc Jacob, Bloc, Charlesbourg, QC]

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.

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.

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

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?

[Jean-Marc Jacob, Bloc, Charlesbourg, QC]

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.

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".

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

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.

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.

[Jean-Marc Jacob, Bloc, Charlesbourg, QC]

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.

[Jan Brown, Reform, Calgary Southeast, AB]

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

[Jan Brown, Reform, Calgary Southeast, AB]

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.

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.

[George Proud, Liberal, Hillsborough, PE]

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?

[Jan Brown, Reform, Calgary Southeast, AB]

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.

[Stephen Harper, Reform, Calgary West, AB]

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

[Jean-Marc Jacob, Bloc, Charlesbourg, QC]

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.

[Stephen Harper, Reform, Calgary West, AB]

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.