Debates of March 23rd, 1995

Supply

[Andrew Telegdi, Liberal, Waterloo, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I listened intently to the member for Peace River.

I have worked in this area almost from the first day I arrived at the House of Commons. One of the things I am getting used to is that change seems to be slow. Everything the hon. member has said is borne out by my experience.

I am gratified and encouraged there is a review of the process going on at the political level. As the member knows, four van lines used to handle all the moves. It was pretty much restricted to a monopoly of those four van lines. Now that process is being opened up and two additional companies will be involved. In terms of the management of household moves, I believe the department is looking at that now.

It was not too long ago that we had the case of a number of generals going south on a golf junket. The trip was cancelled by the Minister of National Defence.

Both the member for Peace River and the member from the Bloc have raised the point, which has unanimous agreement in the House, that waste is something which has to be eliminated. It has to be the job of all members of Parliament and not just the government. I commend the member for Peace River for his interest in that matter.

This is an issue I have been working very hard on. I think changes will be coming. I wish to thank the hon. member for his interest and help in the matter.

[Charlie Penson, Reform, Peace River, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague from Waterloo. I know he has a keen interest in this area which actually precedes my interest. We have been working together to try to stop the kind of waste that has been going on.

However, it has been a year. I have asked the minister of defence three or four questions over the last year. If change is coming, I certainly welcome it. I would like to remind the minister of defence and the parliamentary secretary that this is a perfect example of where we can save some money with no cost in service. The service can be handled quite well by the independent companies. I believe we should see a change here shortly and I certainly welcome that.

[George Proud, Liberal, Hillsborough, PE]

Mr. Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to participate in this debate today. I congratulate my hon. colleague for Saanich-Gulf Islands for bringing forward this motion. Although I do not support the motion, I thank him for bringing it forward. We have heard a lot of debate here on the floor of the House today which I believe is healthy. It is what parliamentarians have to do in order to get our points of view across to the government so it can see what parliamentarians are thinking, especially on behalf of their constituents.

Canadians are proud of our armed forces and of the work these forces have done both at home and around the world. I believe that most people agree with this point of view.

Canada was instrumental in the creation of NATO in 1949 and maintained stationed forces in Europe for over 40 years. Our contribution to alliance security was highly valued. Even among the collection of first rate militaries, Canadian personnel are among the very best.

Today we no longer station forces in Europe, but our role in the alliance remains a very active one. Canada continues to

maintain a full slate of NATO commitments and we are at the forefront of working for change within the alliance.

We see the alliance as a valuable form of insurance, both in terms of providing for the defence of its member states and in terms of giving the North Atlantic communities a way to reach out to their former adversaries in their quest for security in the new Europe. Our personnel, respected for their professionalism and good sense, are playing an active role in this process as well.

NATO does not represent the only venue in which Canadians are working for peace and security. Of course, the most visible contribution our personnel are making to European security today is through the United Nations. I am referring to, as has been referred to many times today, the leading role we have played and continue to play in the United Nations Protection Force in the former Yugoslavia.

Canadian personnel are no strangers to UN operations. Since 1949 we have contributed thousands of personnel in support of the United Nations. They have served in roles as diverse as monitoring ceasefires on the Indo-Pakistani border to reversing aggression in Korea and in the gulf.

There are currently over 3,000 Canadian personnel deployed in peacekeeping and related missions. However, it is not only the scale but the nature of involvement that is changing. In the past our participation was limited predominantly to the type of operation undertaken in Cyprus or the Middle East entailing the positioning of the impartial forces between the parties to a ceasefire as these parties conducted negotiations toward a political settlement.

Today the operations are more ambitious and the range of military activity is much wider and potentially more risky. As part of missions which are designed to restore order between and sometimes within states, our personnel have been asked to enforce economic sanctions or arms embargoes, create secure conditions for the delivery of aid, deny the use of airspace through which hostile forces could prosecute military campaigns or attack civilian populations in so-called no fly zones, and to protect civilian populations and refugees in safe areas.

As these operations have evolved, there have been mistakes along the way. Unfortunately we must expect that there probably will be more. Nevertheless, the alternatives to doing the difficult and dangerous work for peace and stability are unacceptable. The result would be a violent, lawless and chaotic world which would be inimical to Canadian values and interests. The international community, Canada included, may be on a learning curve, but there really is no alternative to putting our best foot forward come what may.

It is in this light that the experience of the Canadian forces in Somalia ought to be seen. No one regards the tragic events of two years ago with anything other than the utmost concern. I would like to take a few minutes to review the history of the Somalia operation and Canada's participation in it and to remind the House and Canadians that there were aspects of that operation, which have been mentioned here before today, which were not only well-motivated but quite successful.

For most Canadians, prior to our involvement with the UN effort, Somalia was merely a faraway country perennially in the grips of civil war, famine, or both. All of that changed in December 1992.

The United Nations finally moved to act on a scale much larger than had previously been planned. It authorized a united task force, UNITAF, to restore order and ensure the delivery of humanitarian aid in Somalia. The Canadian component of a much smaller UN operation in Somalia, the Canadian airborne regiment, was augmented and integrated into this larger effort as the Canadian airborne regiment battle group.

The entire Canadian contribution to UNITAF, which included air and maritime support, including the support ship HMCS Preserver , was known as the Canadian joint force group and began to deploy to Somalia on December 14, 1992. The Canadian contingent was given a large humanitarian relief sector in the northern region of the country.

The operating conditions could only be described as extreme: temperatures of over 40 degrees, the constant threat of disease, very little infrastructure, and the constant challenge of operating in an environment where our personnel encountered hostility from the very people they were trying to help. Nevertheless, the Canadian contingent quickly secured its area of responsibility and turned its attention to the humanitarian aspects of the operation.

The efforts of our personnel in this regard were truly remarkable as they helped to deliver aid, assist medical teams and hospitals, rebuild infrastructure; repair and reopen schools, and train the local population, including children, to recognize land mines. Unfortunately, much of this excellent work, truly path breaking work in the realm of UN operations, risks going unnoticed in the light of the criminal activities of a few.

Upon the discovery of the torture and death of a Somali youth at the hands of a small group of Canadian forces personnel, the Canadian forces convened a series of courts martial. These trials have resulted in the courts martial of nine soldiers.

The completion of the courts martial paves the way for a comprehensive civilian inquiry into the entire Somalia affair. The government has decided to conduct the inquiry under the terms of the inquiries act. The advantage of this approach is that

the Inquiries Act allows the commission to compel the production of evidence and the attendance of witnesses.

The government has named three prominent Canadians of different backgrounds and skills to conduct the inquiry. The commission has the authority to investigate and report on a wide range of issues surrounding the Somalia operation, including the chain of command, leadership and discipline. The terms of reference cover three periods of the operation.

The first is predeployment. Here the commission can examine such issues as the state of discipline within the airborne regiment, its suitability for the Somalia operation and the adequacy of the screening and selection process for the Somalia deployment.

The second is the period spent in theatre. In examining this phase of the operation the commissioners will probe such issues as the missions and tasks of the Canadian joint task force, the treatment of detainees and the allegations of a cover-up and the destruction of evidence.

On post deployment, in examining this final phase of the operation the commissioners will investigate the manner in which authorities within the Department of National Defence and the chain of command of the Canadian forces responded to the full range of problems encountered in the Somalia deployment. The commission is expected to report in December and make recommendations to the government. More important, it will finally lay to rest a difficult chapter in the otherwise proud history of the Canadian military.

The government is committed to moving expeditiously to get to the bottom of the Somalia affair. Whatever we may learn as part of the commission's proceedings should not obscure the value of the Canadian forces or the confidence the government has in their ability to carry out their roles.

The Canadian forces are known worldwide for their professionalism and effectiveness. We all know they are in great demand all over the world. They are in demand for UN missions in NATO and working with their American counterparts in the contacts they forge with other countries.

More important, the unique aspects of the military vocation aside, they are recognized to all of us as Canadians. They reflect our values, our history and our culture. They are not only a unique institution, they are a unique Canadian institution.

They will continue to enjoy the confidence and the support of Canadians as they continue to protect our values and interests both at home and abroad.

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

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Hillsborough did not exactly deal with the scope of the inquiry.

With regard to the motion we have put forward today concerning the Somalia inquiry from top to bottom and complete coverage of that issue, does he consider that adequate to examine the inherent problems present in the Canadian Armed Forces today?

[George Proud, Liberal, Hillsborough, PE]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for Saanich-Gulf Islands for the question.

The inquiry as set forth will do an adequate job on the Somalia operation and on other aspects of the military.

I hear questions from across the way at different times asking for these independent inquiries. This inquiry is necessary and will lay to rest the questions of Somalia. It will lay to rest a lot of other questions out there.

I will not rest until I see the day when this type of investigation will be done from within this organization right here. It is my goal as a parliamentarian to see standing committees and other committees doing the work of these special commissions. When that day arrives I will have contributed my part to the parliamentary and democratic process.

[Ian McClelland, Reform, Edmonton Southwest, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to say a few words in this interesting debate.

If we are not careful we will end up with a military that we deserve. Perhaps our motto should be talk loudly and carry a small stick. That is really what we have done with our military over the years. We have said to them: "This is your new job, your new mandate. We would like you to do this and if you do not mind, would you do that. At the same time it might be helpful if you did it with a little less".

It is not like dealing with the CBC. It is not as if it is not going to be able to show this program or that program. We are asking our military to put itself into the face of danger and very difficult situations. We are changing the mandate almost every time we get a change in government. We are saying do more but make do with less.

Surely we should start to consider what the long range objectives of our armed forces should be.

I am reminded of a quote by Peter Worthington a few years ago which I believe is quite accurate. He said the military in Canada has always been much more loyal to Canada than Canadians have been to the military. It is quite a profound statement because if we expect our military to be loyal to Canadian parliamentary tradition and to the kinds of objectives that we as civilians would have, we as civilians must have some loyalty reciprocated to the military.

I will bring a few thoughts to this debate little different than many of the comments so far. I would like to put it into a personal perspective. The military has given an awful lot of

young Canadians a start in life, myself included. I joined the navy when I was 17.

In suggesting I joined the military in Edmonton and went to Halifax, I want to remind all members in the House that Edmonton is a great spot for the military to be based, even those military people who will be transferred from Chilliwack and Calgary. It is a great home for those in the military and we welcome them with open arms.

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

Have you a naval base?

[Ian McClelland, Reform, Edmonton Southwest, AB]

I remind members that Edmonton is the home of the largest freshwater navy in the world, at the West Edmonton mall. We have more submarines there than the Canadian navy. We have it all. We have army, navy and air force in Edmonton in great supply.

Earlier today I had the pleasure to share a few words with the hon. member for Bonavista-Trinity-Conception. Both of us being old salts, sharing this perspective from slightly different vantage points, he as an admiral and me as an ordinary sailor, we were talking about the military, about what has gone on and what the military means to so many people.

The military to a lot of young men and women from the prairies was the first opportunity to see something of our country and to meet people from other parts of the country. The military to many people from the maritimes was the first chance ever to go to the prairies. That is how we got to know each other. In the military was the first time I heard anyone speaking French. I will bet in the military was the first time many people whose first language is French ever spoke English.

The military is the great melting pot of Canada. I do not think it is good for us as a nation to lose sight of the fact that if we are not prepared for the unexpected, if we are honest with ourselves and see others as others see us rather than as we want to see us, we would have to say we are not a world player.

If we are going to ask ourselves what we are, let us ask what we can be with our military and what could be the primary role of our military. It should be something that enhances the country, that is defensive in nature and defends our country.

I read recently that if one comes down from Mars and has a look at Canada's military perspective one would think that our borders are somewhere in Europe. They are not. Our borders are right here in North America.

Why can we not be the very best people ever for search and rescue? God knows we have enough land that we need that capability. We need to be able to protect our sea coasts and we need to be able to help each other in times of distress. Would it not make sense if our military objectives had some semblance to what we need as a nation?

We need as a nation the opportunity to share with each other. We need to be able to protect ourselves and we need to be able to protect ourselves from foreign threats. Would it not make sense to have a highly trained backbone of military and have a very broadly based standing civilian military, a huge reserve?

Imagine if all the military bases across the country were used to provide an opportunity for young people, men and women, when they finished high school and are sitting around watching TV wondering what they are going to do with their lives, feeling that perhaps they need some growing up or some direction.

Would it not be interesting if we could have these people come into the military, spend a couple of years in service for the country, get a sense of self-worth, a sense of confidence, and a sense of our country by going from one part of the country to the other and spend a couple of years in service to the country? That would not cost a whole lot more than it would cost if we had to have these very same people on unemployment insurance or pogey.

If even a portion of these people joined the military and as a result ended up with a sense of discipline, the knowledge of how to get up in the morning and clean your own clothes and look after yourself which not everybody gets, imagine the benefit this would be down the road as people had this foundation of self-assurance and self-respect.

While we are looking at the whole role of the military and while we are investigating the military for its actions in Somalia, we should not lose sight of the fact that historically the military has served our country very well.

While we have a few bad apples, we should not paint everybody with the same brush. We should be very careful that we do not give our military a mandate it cannot carry out. We cannot on one hand say it will not have the funds necessary to do the job, but on the other hand say this is the job. We will have to cut the suit to match the cloth we have. That is the reality of the situation.

[Mac Harb, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister for International Trade]

Mr. Speaker, I had a chance to travel to over 30 countries around the globe and I share some of my colleagues comments that our troops abroad have made us all proud in terms of their contribution to the peace process, not only in hot spot countries but in every country they have put a foot on.

It is a great honour for us as Canadians when we travel abroad when people see the Canadian flag and want to get one of those beautiful red and white pins. There is no question about it. This is precisely what the government wants to maintain.

The government is trying to maintain the integrity of the Canadian Armed Forces. If there are some bad apples, as my colleagues have suggested, this is precisely what the govern-

ment wants to do, to make sure the tree is healthy and all of the applies on it are edible; apples that are not only going to be useful for today but also useful in the future.

I agree with my colleague that we should look at ways we could use our armed forces as an example for the younger generation in certain aspect, at least the aspect of discipline, the aspect of doing things with determination, with good will and so on. It is worth while exploring all those opportunities.

Does the Reform Party have a specific proposal to make before the House of Commons when it comes to this issue. If so, would he share it with us?

[Ian McClelland, Reform, Edmonton Southwest, AB]

No, Mr. Speaker. This is part of my own personal crusade to add the whole notion of responsibility to being a Canadian citizen. We take for granted the fact that we have rights and privileges. Our Charter of Rights and Freedoms tells us so. Nowhere in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms does it say we have rights and we have freedoms and we have a corresponding responsibility.

I want to move all members of the House to start to think in terms of responsibilities. We should get our young folks to think they have the benefit of being a citizen of this fantastic country. What are their responsibilities to this country? What do they have to give back? What do they have to give before they can take from this wonderful country? We will have achieved something.

If we were to use our military and use the bases we have, the capital cost of one aircraft or one ship could keep a whole lot of young people busy learning about life for a year, half a year, two years, whatever it might be.

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

Mr. Speaker, a long time ago when I was at staff college I wrote a paper which suggested something along the lines that the member for Edmonton Southwest has mentioned.

The thrust was basically that at a given time in an individual's life, perhaps at the end of high school or at perhaps age 18 or 19, whichever came first, the individual would have the opportunity to leave the school system and involve himself or herself in repaying to the country what the country had put into them. It did not have to be in the military. It could be in the park service, a teacher's assistant and so on.

I would ask the member for Edmonton Southwest whether he considers this a viable proposition, understanding Canadians reject regimentation. Would this be a viable proposition? If so, at what point in a person's life would he suggest this take place?

[Ian McClelland, Reform, Edmonton Southwest, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is an interesting question. I posed that question in the media some time ago. It struck an extremely resonant chord in Canada.

The average Canadian sincerely believes it is not all a one way street. The average Canadian intuitively knows that if we see young people hanging around shopping centres, if we see young people with no sense of direction, if we see young people looking at life and are afraid because they see many of their peers not achieving success or not doing anything positive with their lives, they instinctively say there has to be something we can do that is better.

To automatically reject any notion of discipline or military training because it offends the sensibilities of people who think we should be making love and not war is to ignore the fact that people need in their lives discipline. Especially young people need in their lives a sense of strength, a sense of belonging and a sense of self-confidence that comes from that discipline.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

Order. It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 38, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Cumberland-Colchester-Small business; the hon. member for Mercier-Rail transport.

[John Murphy, Liberal, Annapolis Valley—Hants, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I stand in defence of our armed forces and the many excellent highly professional people who make up our military.

In this regard the Government of Canada has shown a great deal of leadership in the area of publishing a new white paper on defence. I believe the government has provided a defence policy-

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

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I believe it was our speaking rotation. The hon. member for Edmonton Southwest spoke for half the period. The hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan is to fulfil the commitment.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

The hon. member for Saanich-Gulf Islands reminds me, and I do apologize to the House. I will seek the understanding of the member for Annapolis Valley-Hants that the Reform Party had given an indication earlier this day it would be splitting its time and I failed to take that into account.

[Bob Ringma, Reform, Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC]

Mr. Speaker, through this motion and the debates herein, Reform is trying to tell the government and the people of Canada there are weaknesses appearing in many areas of the Department of

National Defence. The government's reaction to these faults is not good enough. We are saying that its leadership is inadequate and so is its management.

Let us look at the airborne regiment. I applaud the fact that the inquiry is finally underway. It should have taken place long ago. There has been ample evidence since the government has been in power to indicate there was something wrong in the regiment. Why did it let it fester?

If the government had launched an inquiry a year ago it would have spared us all a lot of misery and would have spared the sullying of the reputations of many fine people.

The government did not act. As late as September last the minister said no to holding an inquiry. If an inquiry had been held, as we advocated, Major Armstrong, a Canadian forces medical officer, would have testified and had an outlet for his pent up concerns. The result would have been no adverse publicity for the forces. By the same token, it is probable we would not have had to go through the public video agony as these also would have found outlet in the inquiry. The government is not doing things in the proper order.

While we are on the subject of the airborne regiment, I would like to use that situation to underline why our motion in part condemns the government's failure to hold senior officials accountable for command and control shortcomings and deteriorating morale. It started with Private Kyle Brown instead of starting at the top.

I cannot believe the command structure of the Canadian forces did not know for quite some time there were problems in the airborne. I presume the Létourneau inquiry will identify the degree to which senior personnel were aware of and responsible for the deteriorating situation. Welcome as the inquiry is, it is too late to save the reputations of hard working professional soldiers and too late to save a fine regiment.

Let us look at the defence review. Once again we laud the government for taking the initiative to open up discussions in the House on defence matters and for conducting a defence review. Here again the government had it backwards. The review of our foreign policy should have come first. Defence policy is a function of foreign policy.

The other problem is that the government is not paying attention to what is being said. There is no point in having a defence review if we ignore some of its findings. Four examples have been ignored; personnel cuts to the forces, the budget cut 6,700 more than the review recommended.

Cuts to the defence budget, headquarters staff cuts, a study of the reorganization of national defence headquarters, creation of a standing joint committee on defence, review of capital expenditures over $30 million before a proposed committee, an annual review by the minister, an annual debate of defence policy by Parliament-these things recommended duly by the committee appointed have been ignored. We heard nothing about them.

Let us look at base closures and the rationalisation of DND's infrastructure. Once again I compliment the government on its gumption in getting on with the job. Many of this minister's predecessors have found it too politically difficult a task to take on.

My complaints with the government methodology are now confined to the apparent lack of planning that went into the decision to close the bases at Calgary and Chilliwack. Since this has already been covered today by my colleagues, I will leave it at that.

On my own turf national defence is closing the Nanaimo army camp. The community, as it seems typical for the west, has pretty much accepted this partly because it could bring positive things along with it in using the land for other purposes.

According to what I hear, resulting from the first negotiating meeting that took place this week with the community, national defence's primary interest is not the community. It is selling the land at market value and is concerned about native land claims. That is the highest priority on its list. That does not make the city of Nanaimo and surrounding areas too enthusiastic.

Let us look at morale in the department and in the Canadian forces. We had Colonel Oehring's report in December. He was mainly discussing a morale problem which he summed up as a loss of confidence and trust. Without these an army cannot operate. Colonel Oehring talked about an increasingly impotent military leadership and an uncaring system. He cites the widening gap between leaders and the led. He states the crisis of confidence must be at least acknowledged at the highest levels, and that is not being done. He believes it will take a public commitment by the Minister of National Defence, even the Prime Minister, to restore soldiers' lost and destroyed confidence.

What has the minister done to restore this confidence? The latest report dated March 1995 comes from Brigadier General Jeffries at Petawawa, whose assessment after consulting all of his commanding officers was that morale for the moment is in large part satisfactory, but that there is widespread dissatisfaction at virtually all rank levels.

Part of this dissatisfaction is directly attributable to the highest levels of leadership and management in the department and in the Canadian forces. At this level we want more from our soldiers than we are prepared to pay for. Here too, as in other things, we are living beyond our means. The soldiers' perception is that their interests and welfare are being sacrificed so that senior leaders can be successful in delivering the same bang for a much less buck.

Resolution of this problem must start at the very top. What is the minister doing about the morale and leadership in the department and in the Canadian forces?

Other things are amiss besides morale and leadership and there is no evidence that anything is being done. We hear reports of financial excesses by senior officers, reports of excessive expenditures on furniture and living allowances. What is being done? How does the ordinary soldier feel about his sacrifices, about his having to moonlight when his superiors spend irresponsibly?

What about the unanswered questions regarding former deputy minister Bob Fowler? There is a long list of questions which the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs did not deal with earlier this week. The air should be cleared on matters like this: here are the allegations, answer them. If Mr. Fowler has done nothing wrong, let everyone know about it.

The Reform motion today condemns the government for decisions which have diminished Canada's defence posture; decisions like the EH-101 helicopter. We could spend a day on that one. There is CFB Cornwallis, the size of the Canadian forces, the reserves. What is going to happen to the militia?

There is a long list of problems to address and it is not happening. Or if they are being addressed, then Parliament and the Canadian people are not hearing about it. When the airborne inquiry is over, we need a new inquiry, a broadly based, broadly scoped inquiry to be put in its place to address all of the things we have been looking at.

[Ted McWhinney, Liberal, Vancouver Quadra, BC]

Mr. Speaker I have a question for the hon. member. The debate has focused above all on the Somalia tragedy and to a lesser extent the Bosnia tragedy.

Would the hon. member not agree that the explanation for the failure there lies in the failure to adequately define the roles and missions in advance of the intervention, the failure to separate and distinguish between chapter VI and chapter VII UN charter operations-peacekeeping as opposed to peacemaking-and the failure to adequately define a post-cold war military mission for our defence forces?

Understanding as he does the doctrine of ministerial responsibility, under those circumstances would he not accept that the responsibility lies not on the civil servants but under our constitutional system on the Prime Minister and defence minister who ventured into those operations without adequate prior thought, that is to say the Prime Minister and the defence minister in the preceding Mulroney government?

[Bob Ringma, Reform, Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I agree with the member for Vancouver Quadra that there is a fair bit in what he says. Responsibility can be attributed to the prior government and its minister and the Prime Minister.

It goes beyond that. I could carry that argument further and say we must. We have proposed that the House be involved in the decisions to deploy Canadian troops, that we must do that. It is a good point and well made. Beyond that there are other areas.

There are continuing problems. There is a problem even in Somalia with the leadership of the Canadian forces. Therefore I have to attribute part of the blame to the government of the day for not taking hold of these problems and saying: "What can we do about them?" Let us get them out in the open. Let us clarify them. Let us not condemn the people who are innocent in this process.

Yes, there is something to what the member says. Some blame can be attributed to the previous government, but also to this current government. It has to get on with rectifying things.

[John Murphy, Liberal, Annapolis Valley—Hants, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased today to stand in defence of our armed forces and the many excellent, highly professional people who make up the military.

The Government of Canada has shown leadership in this area by publishing a new white paper on defence. I believe it has provided a defence policy which gives the Canadian forces the clear direction required in these uncertain times.

As the Minister of National Defence detailed previously, senior military officers are providing leadership. This is evidenced by the effectiveness of our forces at home and abroad.

This debate has special importance for me because in my riding of Annapolis Valley-Hants I have a significant number of military personnel stationed at CFB Greenwood and at Camp Aldershot. I have had the pleasure of meeting with many of these people over the last number of years.

I am most impressed by the dedication, professionalism and commitment of the men and women of the Canadian Armed Forces. They do their work with little or no public recognition. Yet our military continues to make significant contributions around the world.

The growing burden of public sector debt over the last 20 years has affected all Canadians. DND and the Canadian forces have rightly been expected to contribute their fair share to reduce the nation's deficit.

In 1989 DND and the Canadian Armed Forces suffered deep cuts to personnel, capital purchases and infrastructure. The most recent federal budget continues that trend.

I am certainly not suggesting that members of the Department of National Defence or the Canadian forces are resentful of having to do their part. It is quite the opposite. They, like many Canadians serving in the defence of Canada, are interested in understanding the need to do their part for the national effort to reduce the deficit.

There is no denying however that fiscal restraint generates stress and uncertainty, a situation certainly not unique to the Canadian forces. Downsizing the Canadian forces means that expectations of a secure military career with unlimited advancement can no longer be met. Salaries and incentive pay have been frozen. Some of the rank and file, particularly those with less than four years' service, may find it difficult at times to make ends meet.

Under these trying circumstances, it is imperative that the leadership in DND and the Canadian forces take positive action to improve morale. They must deal with the problems being faced by those under their charge. I contend they are doing that.

Senior leaders are constantly in touch with their men and women in the forces. They will remain so to explain what is happening and to detail actions being taken on their behalf.

There are a number of workforce pressures that our forces experience. Economic and social changes, as we know, have had dramatic impact on the nature of the Canadian family and the workforce. Marriages in which both spouses work are becoming the dominant trend.

The Canadian forces are like a microcosm of the larger Canadian society and therefore reflect these trends. Between 1980 and 1990 the number of military couples in the Canadian forces tripled. The majority of the force members are now either married or single parents. Among married couples, the number with families and working spouses is significant. This development has put pressure on the military as members are understandably seeking family, career, financial and educational stability.

DND and the Canadian forces have added the challenge of balancing the needs of their members with the needs of operational requirements and effectiveness.

Many career paths are being restructured to reduce the number of postings and assignments that a member of the Canadian forces can expect over a lifetime of service. This policy will result in fewer relocations, easing the burden on military personnel and families. Ways to alleviate the stress and hardship caused by moves that are frequent in comparison with civilians are being highly examined.

There is also social change. Over the past 15 years society has embraced a new idealism based on individual human rights and freedoms. This is reflected in legislation such as the Human Rights Act, the Privacy Act and the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. It is the task of the leaders within DND and the Canadian forces to identify and respond appropriately to such changes. It is clear that DND and the Canadian forces have managed to do just that.

Canada's human rights legislation has been actively addressed in both spirit and letter. As a result, the role of women in the military has been enhanced. The percentage of women in the Canadian forces is among the highest of any military force in the world. Nevertheless, DND and the forces have reinforced their commitment to make military careers more attractive to women.

The ability of DND and the Canadian forces to adapt and respond to societal pressures stands in testament to their leaders. As with good leadership, good morale is likewise integral to the success of the Canadian forces.

Lately we have been hearing much about the morale of the military. Members opposite have been suggesting that the Canadian forces are receiving poor leadership and that morale is being affected. Leadership clearly influences morale. The chain of command's responsibility for morale was noted by the special joint committee on Canada's defence policy. This same committee however noted that the leadership provided by senior ranks with the Canadian forces is excellent. If morale among the uniform ranks is not as high as it could be, it is largely for the same reason that morale is not high elsewhere in society: fear of layoffs, fear of the future, fear of the children's future.

This is not to suggest that senior leaders within the department and the Canadian forces can remain passive. They cannot and will not abdicate their responsibility for ensuring that morale is as high as possible.

It is understood that like many Canadians, members of the Canadian forces are being asked to do their job with limited resources at their disposal. That is why care is being taken to address those needs that are most acute. Current plans call for the acquisition of a variety of modern equipment essential to the maintenance of multi-purpose combat capacity and capability. For example there exists a recognized operational deficiency in the armoured personnel carrier fleet. The Canadian forces will therefore acquire new armoured personnel carriers with delivery to commence in 1997.

Furthermore, approximately 3,000 additional soldiers will be added to the army's field force despite an overall reduction in the size of the armed forces. This will help alleviate shortfalls in the field army's ability to meet Canada's international commitments.

A recent memo by Brigadier-General Jeffries has also been cited by some as proof of deteriorating morale within the forces. They claim that the blame can be laid at the feet of senior members within DND and the Canadian forces. First it should be acknowledged that General Jeffries states in his memo that morale remains, for the most part, high. Second, it must be realized that the Canadian forces have been under considerable pressure for the past few years. Memos such as the one written by General Jeffries represents part of the solution.

To again quote the special joint committee, every commanding officer, indeed every military person commanding a unit of whatever size, constantly monitors the state of morale in his or her unit and takes whatever steps are required to maintain good communication within the personnel in their charge.

Good leadership demands that we know what people are thinking and what their concerns are. Through surveys, studies and memos like that written by General Jeffries, issues are brought to the forefront and dealt with appropriately.

In conclusion, the Department of National Defence and the Canadian forces face a host of pressures many of which are shared by all Canadians and some of which are unique to those who have chosen to serve the country. Changing societal expectations, limited resources, evolving demands on the workforce have created new challenges for all of us. Those in the Canadian military have the added challenge of meeting the operational requirements and responsibilities associated with any military force.

Meeting these challenges effectively requires strong leadership. I believe senior members of the Department of National Defence and the Canadian forces are providing that leadership. Many measures aimed at addressing the concerns of force members have been implemented and many others are being examined. The chain of command bears full responsibility for the morale in the forces. The excellent leadership demonstrated by everyone from the Minister of National Defence on down ensures that morale will always remain high.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

It being 5.15 p.m., pursuant to Standing Order 81, proceedings on the motion have expired. It is my duty to put forthwith all questions necessary to dispose of the supply proceedings now before the House.

Is the House ready for the question?

[Some hon. members]

Question.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

The House has heard the terms of the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Some hon. members]

No.