Madam Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague from Saanich-Gulf Islands if not commend him for the motion and the debate on defence today. I always welcome a debate on defence, as I think all members of the House do. He raised a number of questions. He gave some credit and I thank him for it. He also raised some areas that are worthy of discussion and debate somewhat later on.
I want to bring forward two matters in the question and comment period. I will try to do it as quickly as possible. I have to remind the hon. member that things have changed since 1990. He alluded to it at the end of his presentation. He recognizes it.
In the less than 18 months since the government has come to power we have had more debates in the House of Commons than took place in the preceding five years and in the four years before that. We have done more in 18 months than the previous government had done in nine years. I do not think that is a big issue because we should be debating defence. Defence is more of an issue today than it has been in the past.
For the first time in recent history the government undertook to have a standing joint committee of the House of Commons and the other place look at, from the bottom up, the requirements of defence and what Canadians wanted their Canadian forces and their young men and women in uniform to do.
I consider that was a successful debate. It was a successful report. The hon. member knows that as he was a very valuable part of it. His expertise and distinguished career in the Canadian forces allowed him to have an input and a credibility that were most valuable to the report.
The fact that the report took place and the discussion took place at a very conscious level in Canada and with our allies is something that cannot be forgotten and cannot be minimized in the House. The fact that less than two months later it resulted in the white paper on defence is also something that should be noted.
On my first point I find it very difficult to understand why the hon. member is complaining that the Minister of National Defence has not come forward with an annual report on defence when we have just actually come out with a white paper. Perhaps next year his criticism will strike home a bit more.
On the second and more substantive point I am almost incredulous that the motion today condemns the government for failing to commission a broad and public inquiry. The Minister of National Defence tabled on Tuesday, two days ago, a report into the Somalia business, the Somalia inquiry. It is the broadest commission ever commissioned in the last 50 years. To my knowledge the last similar commission was the Mainguy commission which I believe goes back to 1949.
The opposition complains that we are not having a broad and public inquiry. It could not be broader and it could not be more public. The three commissioners are outstanding Canadians. Not one of them is a serving member of the Canadian forces. They have 19 points which allows them basically the broadest of the broad. I find it inconsistent, untimely and somewhat confusing that the main motion is what is sparking the debate today. We will be voting on it later, I understand.
Why did the hon. member not address this aspect in his presentation?