Debates of March 23rd, 1995

Presence In The Gallery

[The Speaker]

I wish to draw the attention of the House to the presence in the gallery of His Excellency Roberto Gonzalez, Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of Cuba.

[Some hon. members]

Hear, hear.

Points Of Order

[Paul Martin, Liberal, Minister of Finance and Minister responsible for the Federal Office of Regional Development-Quebec]

Mr. Speaker, it was brought to my attention by the Solicitor General that in my third answer to the leader of the third party I made reference to his absence from the House. It has been pointed out to me that was unparliamentary and I wish to withdraw the remark.

I would also like to ask the House leader for an apology because when I made the remark he said, for Hansard , the leader of the third party was lucky, that he had to sit here the whole time.

[The Speaker]

I hope I have a real point of order from the Minister of Industry.

[John Manley, Liberal, Minister of Industry]

Mr. Speaker, while we are clarifying things said during question period, it has been brought to my attention by the member for Winnipeg Transcona that this morning while I was endeavouring to get information on the impact of the rail strike on Canadian industry it was not brought to my attention that the NDP had changed its position and is now prepared to let the legislation go through, for which I thank it. I apologize for my comment in that respect.

[Brian Tobin, Liberal, Minister of Fisheries and Oceans]

Mr. Speaker, I want to correct the record as well. Given what I just heard, the member does not look like a pickled pickerel.

Business Of The House

[Michel Gauthier, Bloc, Roberval, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would appreciate it if the leader of the government would let us know the business of the House for the next few days.

[Herb Gray, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Solicitor General of Canada]

Mr. Speaker, I do not intend to make any comments about fish, budgets, the press or any of those matters. Instead, I will get right the point and provide the weekly business statement. Mind you, I have a lot of thoughts on those subjects, but I am keeping them to myself.

This afternoon the House will continue its consideration of an opposition motion and there will be votes on the motion and on the business of supply commencing at 5.15 p.m.

Tomorrow the House will resume debate on third reading of Bill C-73, the borrowing authority legislation.

On Saturday and if necessary on Sunday the House will deal with report stage and third reading of Bill C-77 to end the railway strike.

On Monday we will consider second reading of Bill C-72 regarding criminal intoxication, followed by report stage and third reading of Bill C-69, the redistribution bill.

We will resume this business on Tuesday and when it is complete we will resume debate of Bill C-68, the firearms bill. We will continue with Bill C-68 if necessary on Wednesday. On Thursday we will start debate on Bill C-76, the budget implementation bill.

The House resumed consideration of the motion.

Supply

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

Mr. Speaker, as I said earlier, the debate is on a motion, introduced by the third party, in which the Minister of National Defence is asked to extend the mandate of the commission of inquiry to cover all armed forces and not only the military unit in Somalia.

I would like to explain the situation and the position taken by the Bloc. For several months we have been asking the government to consider the importance of establishing a commission that would investigate the situation prevailing in the forces at this time. The government, however, has decided to establish a commission that will cover only part of what we see as the real problem.

This is a very serious matter, and Canadians and Quebecers have doubts about the credibility of those in charge of the Canadian Forces and whether they are doing their job, and they wonder whether all this could be improved. I worked in education for more than 21 years. In my riding, we had four cadet corps, two army and two navy, and I think the people who are involved in these projects do a good job.

Now, however, people are not so sure, but I think we should not blame the entire military. As I said before Question Period, it is likely that only some of the people who make the decisions should perhaps change the way they do that. The Bloc Quebecois supports the motion of the hon. member for Saanich-Gulf Islands, and we think it would be useful for the government or the Department of National Defence to expand the scope of the study so that all this could be cleared up.

I think Canadians are now asking questions about the quality of Canada's defence. As you know, this year Canada has projected a deficit of $33.5 billion. On the Standing Committee on National Defence, the Bloc Quebecois suggested cuts that would trim the Defence budget to $10 billion, but the government refused.

The government is going to make cuts. It will cut $1.6 billion over three years, while we requested a cut of $4.8 billion over three years. Right now, the Government of Quebec is about to bring down its own budget. In that budget, ministers will each receive an envelope, and they will have to operate their departments with the funding provided in that envelope.

I think the Canadian government could have done the same thing. When we sat on the joint committee with the senators, we were told that Canada was going to buy submarines. Fortunately, this is no longer the case. This is not a time of expansion, but rather of reduction. This is a time of streamlining and of making what we have as effective as possible.

In the spring I had the honour and the opportunity to visit our forces in Bosnia-Hercegovina. We were able to visit Canadians stationed in Gorazde and another group in Visoko. We were able on site to see that the Canadian forces were doing a good job there. Now what people want is an investigation to see what could be improved. We are told that morale in the military is low at the moment. Therefore would this not be a good time for the government to set up a commission to look into all of this?

As I was saying, I am on the Standing Committee on National Defence. Since becoming a member, I have noticed that the committees-there are 22 of them-sit a lot during the week. What is the real role of the committees? Is it not time in Canada for us to review the role of our House committees? The committees sit several hours a week and simply make recommendations. Unlike in the American system, our committees prepare documents, and often these documents, after having been produced at great cost, are simply shelved and never heard of again. It is as if the committees were used to assess popular opinion and to find out what people were thinking. However, the people on these committees, whether in government or in opposition, work very hard. We have people from Canada and Quebec appearing before us to express their points of view. Very often, however, these committees have no real power unfortunately. The power lies in the hands of the ministers and cabinet. I think it would be a good idea, as we suggested in our committee, for committees to have more power so that the government and the opposition could together develop a coherent Canadian policy.

In the past 15 years in Quebec, military investment has been insufficient. There has been a shortfall in Quebec of $650 million a year. Quebec is not receiving its fair share. They say that 23.5 per cent of Canada's defence budget comes from Quebec. But only 17.4 per cent of the total budget for defence and defence research goes to Quebec. As a direct result of this budget, Quebec will lose 15,000 military and civilian jobs. And this will create a spin-off and an indirect job loss of 25,000, in addition to the 40,000 other jobs lost each year, a 40,000 job shortfall for the past 15 years. While Ontario gets 73 per cent of the defence research budget, Quebec must be happy with a meagre 12.4 per cent. That is unacceptable, 12.45 per cent of research spending for Quebec when 73 per cent goes to Ontario.

Only 15 per cent of all of Canada's military facilities are in Quebec. The closure of the Saint-Hubert base, which was announced in the last budget, will cause a loss of 600 jobs. Six hundred people are going to be out of work. The total number of casualties from the staffing cuts in Bagotville is 285 employees.

We cannot help but notice that, despite commissions, despite studies, despite committees which try to strike a balance, Quebec is getting less and less, and that is unacceptable.

Last year, the Government of Canada made probably the worst decision it will make during its four year mandate, and that was to close the Saint-Jean military college. And I must say that I have often encountered senior departmental officials who tell me in private and who will continue to tell me that it should not have been done. But they did it anyway. They closed the military college. I am telling you this not to reopen the debate, but to make the point that there are 13,000 bilingual positions in the armed forces, of which 7,000 are filled by unilingual anglophones. Of the 13,000 bilingual positions, only 6,000 are filled by Quebecers or others, and because we do not have enough bilingual members of the armed forces, the 7,000 other positions are filled by anglophones.

They talk about having a bilingual policy, but it is just a ploy. If they ever were really serious about it, they never would have closed the Saint-Jean military college because that was really where they trained bilingual members of the armed forces. We will see, but I do not think that Kingston will be able to fill this need.

I would also like to discuss defence conversion, because the budget makes no mention of it. There are more than 650 defence conversion businesses in Quebec, of all sizes. Quebec has lost 10,000 jobs since 1987 due to defence conversion. Between 1990 and 1994, 7,391 industry jobs were lost. It is unacceptable that a government which claims to be responsible, as this one does, has neglected to develop a policy on defence conversion.

The Bloc Quebecois will support the motion put forward by our hon. opposition colleague because it is consistent with the official opposition's repeated requests to broaden the mandate of the inquiry on the deployment of Canadian troops in Somalia.

Both the official opposition and the third party have asked questions many times, but we never received any answers. In our opinion, this commission should have been mandated to also look into all the other disturbing events not only in the disbanded Airborne Regiment but also on the base at Petawawa and everywhere else in the armed forces.

According to rumours, which are confirmed by videos and other evidence, some members of the military go around their bases displaying white supremacist flags and wearing Ku Klux Klan armbands. This is totally unacceptable. If ordinary soldiers behave in this way, it is because they are allowed to do so. Their behaviour is accepted and may even be encouraged.

I think it is important to find out if our military bases and what they teach our young people encourage racism, because if such is the case, it is unacceptable. That is why the Bloc will support my hon. colleague's motion.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to say that, to have a precise idea of how much the Department of National Defence spends in Quebec, you have to look at the facts carefully. It is obvious to me that my colleague opposite does not have all the facts.

It is true that defense expenditures will be cut in Quebec like in every other province over a period of four years, and not one year, as this was suggested.

At any rate, I would like to point out that defence spending in Quebec, including salaries, operations and maintenance, presently accounts for 22.2 per cent of overall defence spending and that, after four years of cuts, this percentage will only have been reduced to 21.5 per cent. This means that Quebec is being treated equitably.

As far as capital expenditures are concerned, Quebec always benefited from the larger share in Canada on account of its industry.

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

Mr. Speaker, I completely disagree with my colleague.

A recent study by a Quebec university says that for the last 15 years, Quebec's military budget is missing $650 million every year. I think no one in this House is refuting that. It is important to say that Quebec has never really received its share. All the documents we have received prove that.

The Liberal government had one chance to promote bilingualism in Canada and it did not do it. It decided to close the only francophone and bilingual school in Canada, which was Collège militaire royal de Saint-Jean. The Liberals decided to do that. I am sure that is the worst decision the government will take in the four years it will be in government, if it ever goes to four years. Who knows?

I would have appreciated that my colleagues opposite on the defence committee ask me questions on the importance, for example, of having committees of this House that are effective, committees with decision making authority. It is not the case, at present, in Ottawa. We have committees that sit, gather evidence, do all sorts of things, but when it comes to making any real decision, any major decision, it is then up to the ministers and the system. Ministers make decision and, often, all the work done in committee is ignored. It is a shame. I wish the government would take good note of that.

[John Richardson, Liberal, Perth—Wellington—Waterloo, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest to the hon. member for Shefford. It is easy when you want to pick a target. It is like a child with a bowl of candy wanting to get the best one out.

The reality is for those of us in Ontario, particularly those in Toronto, there is no federal government presence in the city of Toronto. There are 24 federal headquarters in the city of Montreal. I have never heard the city of Toronto or the province of Ontario make a big claim about that imbalance.

The argument that because a college is in Ontario it is not bilingual, but if it is in Quebec it is bilingual does not wash. That supercilious sort of sham reasoning has been given the lie direct. They are working to have it work in Kingston. Further to that, a kind of insidious logic is taking place here. It has no place in the national assembly because it is being divisive.

We have had excellent and outstanding generals from the province of Quebec, some of the very best and the finest both during the war and after the war. Some of the the very best and the finest of soldiers are from the Royal 22nd Regiment, and from the artillery, from the 12e Régiment blindé du Canada, le régiment de Trois-Rivières, l'autre facilité. Il y aura moins d'argent pour la défense, but it is made up elsewhere year after year with those 24 headquarters, the CBC, et cetera, in Montreal. Nobody is asking that 12 of them be given to Toronto, Vancouver or elsewhere. That kind of argument does not carry.

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

Mr. Speaker, I will simply answer that, in the current system, if you are a francophone and you want to get on in the Canadian Forces, you have to become anglicized. You do not have a choice.

I will not mention by name the many generals I met who are francophones but, as far as I am concerned, have become anglicized because they had no other choice. If you look at the composition of the Canadian Forces, francophones can be found in numbers in the lower echelons, but there are fewer and fewer as you move towards the top. Take Canadian generals for example. Among the 136 general we have in Canada-by the way it is inadmissible to have enough generals to lead 250,000 men when all we have is a small army-there is only a handful of francophones. And these francophones had to be twice as good as their anglophone counterparts to make general. And that is unacceptable.

It is true that we have more francophone generals in the army. On the other hand, you will notice that there are very few francophones among the top brass in the air force and the navy, and that is a shame. Someone mentioned earlier that only in Quebec can bilingual schools be set up. That is not true. We can see what is going on in Kingston; it has received much media coverage recently and the press does report hard facts. Kingston is a city where it is difficult for francophones to live. It is so.

By contrast-I would like to point out to my colleagues who may not be aware of this-in Quebec, the minority, which accounts for approximately 20 per cent of the total population, has its own elementary and secondary school system, its owns hospitals, two major universities in Montreal, namely McGill University and Concordia University. This minority also has a university of its own in the Eastern Townships. There is no comparison between the way Quebec has traditionally treated its minorities and how the rest of Canada does.

The rest of Canada has a long way to go to catch up to Quebec's way of treating its minorities since the beginning of the Canadian Confederation. I think that the military college in Saint-Jean is important as a symbol and, as such, if we are serious about Canadian bilingualism, it should have been preserved. I think it should have remained open. It was decided to abolish it, to do away with it. I maintain that this may be the worst decision made by this government. It could make even worse ones; its mandate is not over yet. But this far, this is certainly the worst. And the worst of it all is that they know it. They know that this was a bad decision and they have to live with it.

[John Richardson, Liberal, Perth—Wellington—Waterloo, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to join in the debate. The motion of the hon. member for Saanich-Gulf Islands contains a lot of credible and worthwhile information.

Two days ago the minister tabled an inquiry on the deployment of Canadian forces in Somalia that had broad terms of reference including many of the valid and strong concerns the hon. member for Saanich-Gulf Islands has put forward. The terms of reference will allow the inquiry to go beyond what happened in the Somalia incident and what took place in the armed forces before and after the incident. It will go from the highest to lowest levels in its questioning. I hope the inquiry will exploit to the fullest its commission and will incorporate some of the concerns voiced by the hon. member.

At times when the armed forces go through very wrenching changes in life, changes in direction and changes in purpose, the cement that keeps them focused is no longer present.

At one time the newspapers were full of the cold war. The threat was present. It was real. It was easy to motivate, to stimulate and to activate personnel in the forces. The reality today is that with the disintegration of the Berlin wall, within the partners for peace and throughout the world there is not the tension that bonds, motivates and focuses the armed forces.

One thing that causes that is the professionalism of senior leaders, officers and non-commissioned officers who serve their country through the armed forces of Canada. In my opinion there tend to be weaknesses when there is no stress to hold it together. The weaknesses become magnified because the press has time to focus on incidents. As a consequence they are sometimes overmagnified.

We have the responsibility to execute and examine errors when they occur or flaws when they are found. The commission has the right, the full support of Parliament and the ability under the Inquiries Act to go beyond the defence act. It has the right to bring in witnesses from outside government and outside the Department of National Defence. It has the right to bring in civilian witnesses as well. That is what we have within the commission tabled by the minister in the House two days ago.

The constant moving of families and postings that come about with a small army, navy and air force put pressure on families that we do not see in civilian life, except maybe at one time when the banks had frequent postings. They have been reduced considerably for a number of reasons, mainly costs. It puts pressure on families. It puts pressure on children when they move from school to school. It puts pressure on wives when they are at home a long time and their husbands are away on peacekeeping missions or at sea on manoeuvres. It is one stress that is not found in a civilian occupation.

The stress was focused when the threat was meaningful and ever present. People will often question why something is being done and the stress is put on the family. As a consequence it is difficult to maintain morale under those conditions.

The lack of threat sometimes makes it difficult for governments to maintain levels of spending. Therefore governments turn to the armed forces and begin to cut, reasonably so because the hackneyed phrase, the peace dividend, is there. Past and present governments have been pushing back funds for defence, again putting stress on the forces in terms of concerns about job security, their future progress in the forces, et cetera.

Under stressful situations people begin to look at the weaknesses in the system and speak out about them. The flaws become magnified. The press picks up on it because it is the only news in town. Then it becomes overmagnified. Those who are disenchanted and slipping information out in brown envelopes are those who are under stress or disenchanted. This is how the leaks take place.

We have in this minister a minister who has exercised executive quickness and has reacted with a great sense of urgency and fairness. He has looked for and sought advice. When he received the information and made his assessment he made quick decisions in the best interest of the government and the people of Canada. I cannot think of a minister in the last 25 years who has had more things tumble down on his portfolio than this minister has had over the last 15 months. He has continued to show fair-mindedness and good sense in his judgments on behalf of the Canadian people and in his decisions on behalf of the Department of National Defence.

The minister saw that it was necessary to come clean and have a full and thorough investigation through the commission he established, based originally on the selection of the airborne regiment to go to Somalia, its actions in Somalia, and the actions thereafter. He is now free to let the commission loose with a broad ranging mandate to seek answers to those and other questions incorporated in the motion of the hon. member for Saanich-Gulf Islands.

A broad ranging mandate has been given to the commission to investigate the matter although its real purpose is to investigate the airborne regiment in its preparedness, its selection and its actions in Somalia, the actions thereafter, the actions at National Defence Headquarters, the actions of politicians and all things that go into training, morale building and genuine good leadership within the forces.

The government tabled a report on defence in the House entitled "Security in the Changing World" which called for a number of things. We would like to see one of them, an annual debate in Parliament in both the Senate and the House of Commons on defence. It would provide an opportunity to put forward thoughts on defence. It would be important for it to be held as quickly as possible after the defence estimates were tabled so that it would be relevant, current and not at arm's length or distanced from the realities of the budget at hand.

The report also requested that there be an ongoing standing committee to review matters directly involving national defence issues and that the committee report back to the House. As I have said, the recommendations were clear. The annual defence review and assessment would be one mandate that could be given to the standing committee on defence, making it meaningful and giving it purpose.

The report indicated that there was a role for the standing committee to investigate and oversee the defence budget and major procurement by the government dealing with defence capital expenditures. The committee would be able to bring forward expert witnesses. It could call upon the Auditor General. It could call upon other learned persons within government ranks for their expertise. Then the committee could report to Parliament in a meaningful and forceful manner about its findings.

I am very pleased to have joined in the debate today. The hon. member for Saanich-Gulf Islands made some very valid points.

Many of the points he wishes to see covered could be tumbled into the commission that has been established by the Minister of National Defence and picked up and reviewed as part of that mandate.

The minister has been most energetic, forthright and insightful in terms of the judgment he brings to the House. On behalf of all Canadians he has worked on behalf of the armed forces.

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

Mr. Speaker, I listened very carefully to the member for Perth-Wellington-Waterloo. I agree with many of his comments. I am concerned with the repeated suggestion in the House today from the government that the inquiry is broadly based.

Mr. Speaker, if I may I would like to quote from the committee directive:

-to inquire into and report on the chain of command system, leadership within the chain of command, discipline, operations, actions and decisions of the Canadian forces and the actions and decisions of the Department of National Defence in respect to the Canadian forces deployment to Somalia and without restricting the generality of the foregoing, the following matters related to the pre-deployment, in theatre and post-deployment phases of the Somalia deployment.

Unquestionably I agree that fallout from the report will extend far beyond the Somalia commitment. I do believe that the Somalia investigation will concentrate primarily on that and will not expand its base to encompass the things I would like to see and which the motion we have made goes to.

The problem I see is that I am not sure the Minister of National Defence really appreciates he has problem. That is my concern. The member mentioned the minister has been very good at seeking advice. He has not sought advice from our party on our commitment to Bosnia nor to Croatia. He has not sought advice about committing 474 members of the Canadian forces to Haiti. I suspect that he has not approached the members of the official opposition either. Is this the way the minister consults, gets input and appreciates the situation? I do not think so.

We are sitting right now with eight days to go before the end of our current mandate in Bosnia-Croatia. The minister has not consulted us about this. Are we going to extend or not? We are told they do not know yet. Surely this cannot be the case. If it is, it is a dismal failure on the part of the government.

Does the member think the minister of defence has really consulted adequately? Does he think the minister has taken every opportunity to allow parliamentarians to have input into commitments which put the lives of our forces at risk?

[John Richardson, Liberal, Perth—Wellington—Waterloo, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is a question of whether the glass is half full or half empty. The government made a commitment that before it would commit Canadian forces in a foreign country and under the auspices of the United Nations the House of Commons would be consulted. It was consulted. We had debates and on that. That is a step forward and it could be expanded.

When we commit our soldiers, our sailors and our air men offshore in harms way, that kind of debate should be public and in the House.

I do believe consultation can be improved. I also believe the minister is genuinely concerned about receiving that type of contact. I do not think he has been able to get off his bicycle since the day he sat in the chair and he has been pumping hard ever since.

I cannot remember when such a tumultuous number of serious issues has down in such rapid action as has happened while during his tour. He has handled them well. I am proud of him.

If the hon. member seeks more consultation I am certainly one in favour of seeing more consultation and I am sure he is. The private member's bill which was drawn up before he brought in

his bill is not uncomplementary because of the nature and broadness of this bill.

In my discussions with the House leader he said this bill for a commission inquiry is in the broadest sense the House can give a commission. It can do more. It can call on anyone. It was given the broadest sense of opportunity to interrogate and call witnesses under this broad terms of reference. We can always improve on advice from all sides.

[Chuck Strahl, Reform, Fraser Valley East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the comments of the member. For the most part they were a rational analysis of our military commitments and responsibilities.

I would like to get his opinion on one other subject. In the next couple of weeks or so a peacekeeping act I hope to introduce as private member's legislation will be asking the government to make some decisions on how we can commit peacekeeping troops overseas.

The thrust of my argument in the bill I will introduce asks that the government before we commit troops ask for authorization for the specific mission of the peacekeeping service; to specify the objectives, duties and role of the mission; to define the state or area in which the mission is to operate; specify the date on which that authority is to expire; specify the maximum planned expenditure for the mission. It is to do all this before we commit troops, especially overseas into some very dangerous venues.

Does the member think we should debate these subjects and those kinds of details before we commit the troops? Sometimes it becomes cynical when the debate takes place after the commitment has already been made.

Should we debate those kinds of issues or at least debate them before a commitment or after the minister has already made the decision?

[John Richardson, Liberal, Perth—Wellington—Waterloo, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it would be a sham if we debated after they were committed. It is then just an information giving session.

I do not think that is the intention of the government. The government is committed to having a debate in the House before committing troops, as the hon. member has suggested.

We are looking very carefully at costs. In some of those situations, for example in the former Yugoslavia at the moment, the UN underwrites a considerable amount of the cost and in others there is hardly any underwriting. It is only fair since it is the public's purse that these things be discussed.

The minister is prepared to do that. It is all part of what has been happening, to get this going so there is more transparency and more input. I cannot fault the minister. He has made the point and he will continue to make the point that he will listen to that. The hon. member's point is well taken.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to compliment my hon. colleague from Perth-Wellington-Waterloo for an excellent explanation of aspects of this subject which I am sure all members of the House found illuminating.

I still have difficulty understanding why members of the third party are so insistent on broadening terms. We have now in our possession and under way the broadest investigation and inquiry in the public inquiries act which has been conducted in the Canadian forces, if not in my lifetime certainly in 50 years. What more can they ask? They have said morale is an issue. They gave the reasons for the issue. They talked about the excellent leadership.

Any critic in any organization is expected to criticize. That is the job of the opposition. I find it interesting that a critic would make a comment that a minister may have problems that he is not aware of when that a minister is with his department 24 hours a day. This minister has shown his acumen, his preparedness to act and the tremendous ability he has in controlling his department, notwithstanding the difficulties which have occurred since he has been minister. That point was made very well by my colleague from Perth-Wellington-Waterloo.

How the opposition could say the minister may have problems that he is not aware of when it relies on brown envelopes from the media and the odd telephone call is difficult for me to understand.

[John Richardson, Liberal, Perth—Wellington—Waterloo, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have no more to say. I am not going to fill the Chamber with hot air. I did welcome the questions from the hon. member on peacekeeping and I thank the House very much for the opportunity to participate in the debate.

[Chuck Strahl, Reform, Fraser Valley East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to raise defence issues which are vitally important to our national security.

The issue which affects me personally is the closure of CFB Chilliwack. The closure is symptomatic of a greater problem within the military, that of the subordination of military interests to political concerns. Our military is becoming a blunt political tool rather than a sharply honed fighting and peacekeeping force that follows the dictates of strategic efficiency and combat readiness.

The morale of the armed forces is being sapped by obvious problems such as the burden of top heaviness where the top man in the military collects $140,000 a year while the privates are applying for welfare. The gap between the general and the front line soldier is enormous. It speaks to me of diminishing accountability and slackening military ideals.

We have a problem with our peacekeeping forces where political decisions replace military ones. Soldiers are put into dangerous places for undefined periods where they are sometimes, and have been recently, humiliated, held hostage and left to deal with inadequate equipment so Canada's politicians can save face on the international stage.

I have offered a rational solution to this problem in my peacekeeping bill, which may soon be debated in the House. It would help Parliament decide the parameters of peacekeeping missions by requiring that members deliberate strategic military considerations before plunging into these war torn areas.

There are so many problems in our military. No wonder a nine-page memo from Brigadier General Jeffries surfaced last week talking about the deterioration of the armed forces. Soldiers are frustrated. Allow me to quote from it:

My commanding officers are unanimous in reporting widespread dissatisfaction at virtually all rank levels. The bottom line appears to be a rapidly developing crisis in confidence in the ability of the chain of command to do its job.

The problem is leadership:

There is widespread belief that political agendas and careerism have replaced leadership in the defence hierarchy. The loyalty and focus of senior military leaders is directed upwards and not down, and that political expediency has led to a reactive rather than a proactive posture.

Can we think of a possible reason the loyalty of senior generals appears to be shifting toward careers and politics? Could it have something to do with the salaries, the office renovations, the houses, the perks, the golf vacations in Florida?

Another example of political interference was the disbanding of the first airborne regiment. Because of some objectionable hazing rituals and some racists in the military an entire regiment was disbanded. I am the first to agree that the problems should have been rooted out. Instead, the minister shut down the whole regiment. The action was publicly opposed by the chief of defence staff. Did he resign when the minister refused his advice? He sat, tight lipped and accepted the humiliation of an entire regiment; a regiment which had an illustrious history. It was disgraced by politicians because of the actions of a few.

A new regiment will have to be created, probably at the cost of millions of dollars, probably with most of the same personnel. The decision to disband the first airborne was driven not by political efficiency but by the dictates of political correctness. This appears to be okay with the minister and the generals.

Another political decision has been taken by the minister and that is the decision to close CFB Chilliwack. I have publicly objected to this decision, knowing that I would be criticized for taking this not in my own backyard attitude. I want the public to know that I have never opposed cutbacks. CFB Chilliwack could be significantly scaled down without any protest from me. I maintain that to close the base entirely is a strategic and military error. It will reduce the capacity of our nation to respond to various situations. Allow me to explain.

There is no other base in Canada in which the military can train all year around. The topography is perfectly suited to the varied training requirements of engineers as well as combat troops. Part of the base is now moving to Gagetown, New Brunswick. The military considered this option in 1956 but considered it would be too costly and that Gagetown was simply too cold in the winter for these activities that the engineers are engaged in.

We have 105,000 acres of training range at CFB Chilliwack. In Edmonton, where much of the base will be moving, there are no ranges at all. The closest range is at Wainright, 150 miles away, where troops and equipment will have to be regularly transported at great cost. The logic of this escapes me.

CFB Chilliwack boasts 487 buildings worth $517 million, with $40 million spent on upgrading over the last five years alone. The minister hopes to save $300 million over the next five years by the closure, but he has admitted that it will cost almost that much to enlarge the base at Edmonton. I do not see where the savings or the logic is in that.

CFB Chilliwack has not opened all the new buildings yet. It is preparing to open a brand new $10 million training centre in July, while at the same time other bases in Canada are spending tens of millions of dollars to upgrade training facilities at others. Obviously defence dollars are not being wisely spent when we are still putting the paint on the walls in some buildings and yet we are going to build others as well.

I have other concerns. CFB Chilliwack is situated 60 miles from a population of three million people, sitting on a high risk earthquake zone. In the case of an earthquake, troops and equipment would have to be flown in from Edmonton, but to what airport? The area could well be inaccessible by air, so they say.

A California company, Risk Management Solutions, has studied the seismisity of the Vancouver area and says the probability of an earthquake there with a magnitude of 7.0 or greater is 48 per cent within the next 30 years. This is only slightly less than the risk in Los Angeles and San Francisco. It would be devastating. An extraordinary response would be required, but the loss of the base would be one less resource to draw on.

The emergency preparedness people in Vancouver are concerned about the base closing because of the engineering capacity there and also because of the stockpile of medical supplies. There are six 200-bed mobile hospitals housed there, which would be vital in the event of an earthquake or other civil

disorder, as well as other medical supplies. Vancouver would have to go cap in hand to the Americans if the base closed.

We have a national defence force with installations in every province. In B.C. we have developed a versatile base with excellent facilities built over a 50-year period and located near a major city and port. Now Canada's fastest growing province will no longer enjoy any land force presence west of the Rockies. This is an important issue of strategic concern to the former base commanders I have consulted.

The military takes 50 years to develop a base and politicians can throw it away in one term of political office. What if a military problem should arise that requires the defence of our western seaboard? Will the government then re-purchase new land at astronomical expense in the same area to re-establish a new base? It does not make sense when the installations are all in place.

It appears that strategic important considerations are not in parallel. Maybe there are other reasons. Perhaps the government says B.C. is a wealthy province and it will not feel the effects too much. I would counter that B.C., by proportion, already receives $700 million a year less in defence spending than it should. Closure will only heighten that regional disparity.

A cynical politician might say if we want to close down a base why not close it down in an area where we have nothing to lose? The Reform Party did well in the last election in B.C., so let's hit them hard because we will suffer no political consequences. If that was true it would be sad. Yet the government seems reluctant to answer the questions which would put these rumours to rest.

On March 2, I wrote a detailed letter to the minister asking him to respond to the concerns of British Columbians about cost efficiency, emergency preparedness and military reasoning. It is telling that the past five base commanders from CFB Chilliwack have also raised their concerned voices from a military side. They remain unconvinced, and have written letters to the minister, that it is in the best interests of the military to close CFB Chilliwack and leave British Columbia without a land force presence.

It is clear that the decision to close CFB Chilliwack was one in which politics outweighed strategic military considerations. As a result, the capacity of Canada's armed forces to defend our country and assist in situations of emergency will be significantly reduced.

The minister is coming to visit our base on April 3 and I will be there to greet him. It is an honourable thing for him to come to the base at this time and explain to the military personnel and the people of B.C. why he feels the base should be closed down.

I hope the minister also brings with him the top decision makers in the military so they can perhaps inspect the facilities at CFB Chilliwack, and even at this late hour, consider other money saving and military options that would meet the concerns of the civilian and military personnel that have contacted me and meet the minister's own criteria for coming in under budget. If he can do that, then the Canadian forces personnel, especially those affected by the closure, will begin to be satisfied that they are not being manipulated. That is another reason why the minister should come post haste, make the explanations and listen again to the concerns of the people of CFB Chilliwack.

[Charlie Penson, Reform, Peace River, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I welcome the opportunity this afternoon to speak about defence department policy and priority.

I have risen in the House before to talk about defence department household moves. Somewhere with the bowels of the defence department there are some 200 military men and women who are performing a function that has absolutely nothing to do with their training. They are not peacekeepers, not ace pilots or tank mechanics. They are not sophisticated radar specialists. These fine men and women are immersed in the management details of packing dishes, moving couches and not scratching the coffee tables.

Is this what Canadians want their military to be doing? Is this a function the government should be handling because the private sector cannot or will not handle without government handouts? The answer is no. The private sector has been crying out to get a crack at managing the household moves of Canada's military.

Newspaper reporters have written about the horrendous waste of taxpayers' money. At least $10 million occurs because these military men and women are not much good at managing household moves. Television crews have documented the gross inefficiencies and ridiculous regulations that hamper the smooth move from one home to another. Even the government's own Competition Bureau has warned against the dubious tendering practices which could cause the major van lines to breach their 1983 prohibition order against collusion.

It is not that no one has heeded all these cries. The last government finally got its act together and disbanded the interdepartmental committee responsible for all this waste. It timidly agreed to try a pilot project to see whether the private sector could, in fact, manage household moves better than this decorated bunch of brass.

The interdepartmental committee for household goods removal services to which I am referring, the IDC, has representatives from the RCMP, public works, government services and defence. Together they preside over all government funded moves.

Did this project ever get off the ground? Did the private sector have a chance to prove it can move the military pots and pans cheaper and in a more timely fashion than a group of war heroes? The answer is no. When the government changed hands these heroes did an end run and somehow convinced the minister of defence that it had been beyond the previous government's competence to approve the project.

The United States military has announced that it is turning its moves of over 200,000 households per year over to the private sector. Why is it that Canada, with 20,000 military household moves, cannot do the same?

The time is more than right. The finance minister has stated that the government should only do what government does best. The private sector has already shown that it was good enough to move the MPs when the government changed hands a year and a half ago. Savings of at least 20 per cent to 30 per cent can be achieved for the military as well. Does it really cost three-quarters of a million dollars to move military family pets? That is the number. The last time I checked it cost $50 to fly a cat from Halifax to Vancouver. How are we running up these horrendous costs?

Here is another item. Does interim lodging and meals really need to cost $28 million? When the private sector manages a move it asks its clients being moved what day is convenient to load and what day is convenient to deliver. That is the criteria used when a private moving company is phoned.

Anyone who has taken the morning off from work to wait for a delivery or a repairman knows how frustrating and costly inexact timetables are. If we know our household effects are being delivered on Tuesday we do not need a two-week vacation at the Hilton to accommodate it. On the other hand, if we are told that packing will occur sometime during the first week of June and delivery will happen sometime in the third week, as happens with defence department moves, then maybe it makes sense to plan a nice taxpayer subsidized vacation around a vaguely timed disappearance of our television set and slippers. It is a practice we simply cannot condone.

These inefficiencies end up costing all of us more. Government is by far the largest household mover client. Government makes up to 30 per cent to 35 per cent of all of the household moves in Canada per year. When poor management permeates that large a portion of an industry, the effects pervade the entire industry.

I call on the government to finally end this practice and to stand up to this little empire of colonels. When the Minister of National Defence is deciding where to make cuts in his department he should start with the IDC. I would not be at all surprised if he is fed up with that little bunch over there anyway.

The minister should then move to privatize the management of all military and all other government household moves. Consulting and Audit Canada, along with the Competitions Bureau and Public Works and Government Services should be asked to prepare a tender according to treasury board guidelines.

By acting this way, the minister will be doing the taxpayer and himself a big favour. He will be stating forcefully that no longer will move management operate outside the normal parameters of government. No longer will move managers thumb their noses at elected officials and no longer will move managers be accountable to no one.

The taxpayer will save between $10 million and $25 million. The Reform Party will support the government for a wise and excellent decision. As a matter of fact, even a lot of Liberals will applaud this long overdue move. At a time when we cannot even afford decent peacekeeping equipment for our peacekeepers, it is appalling that we are wasting taxpayers' money in this fashion.

Our peacekeepers in Bosnia could have used better land vehicles. It is also well known that our Sea King helicopters and our submarines are in desperate need of replacement. We know this will not provide too many, but it is an example of government waste that has to be cleaned up.

I call on the government to act now and quickly to privatize the household moves that the IDC is currently conducting.

[Ghislain Lebel, Bloc, Chambly, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his brilliant speech. He raises a point which I noticed on a number of occasions. I live in the riding of Chambly which, as you know, is adjacent to the riding of Saint-Hubert, where the base of the same name is located, and where, each spring, some 75 to 100 members of the armed forces would be transferred from the base to another location, and vice versa.

There is one aspect of the costs which the member did not mention, but I essentially agree with his comments. In a given year, some 20 colonels and majors posted to Saint-Hubert would buy houses in Saint-Bruno, which is in the riding of Chambly, and borrow perhaps $100,000 from some bank for that purpose.

The following year, these same people would be transferred elsewhere in Canada. It would cost them some $5,000 in penalty to liquidate their mortgage. They also had to pay $3,000, $4,000, $5,000 and sometimes even $8,000 or $10,000 in commission, depending on the value of their house, to sell that house. Since these people would often not manage to sell their house, the

government relocation services would take the house back and support it for quite a while.

These people would then relocate in another Canadian city. I know that, in Ontario, members of the armed forces currently enjoy mutation rights on property transfers, for amounts of $1,000, $1,200 or $1,500 spent by the government as refunds. All these benefits were in addition to those related to the move and which the hon. member who spoke before me just mentioned.

Consequently, the transfer of military personnel from Saint-Hubert to Petawawa, and vice versa, involved huge amounts of money.

I would probably be stunned to hear the actual cost of this musical chair exercise within the armed forces. However, I will admit that this was not necessarily a bad thing for those who benefitted from it, including myself as a lawyer. Still, we could not help but wonder how a country that claims to be orderly and one of the best as a member of the G7 group-at least this is what we are told by the Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance-could manage in such a way.

I want to ask the hon. member if he had an opportunity to look at this aspect of military transfers in Canada.

[Charlie Penson, Reform, Peace River, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for that excellent question. What it does is it raises a concern. It is another area I was not aware of. I think it is symptomatic of the serious problems that exist at DND. If the hon. member's example of these household moves with the transfers and the cost of mortgages is symptomatic of what goes on in the defence department, we have bigger problems than this $10 million to $25 million.

This is a time when we cannot afford these kinds of excesses any more. Even if money were to be had, it could be better allocated in areas such as in peacekeeping to give our peacekeepers better equipment. We simply have to cut out this kind of waste. I do know whether we could ever afford it, but we certainly cannot afford it now. The Canadian public does not have patience with this any longer. It needs to be cleaned up.