Debates of May 14th, 1998

Supply

[Bryon Wilfert, Liberal, Oak Ridges, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I never mentioned past governments other than my comment on nuclear submarines. I am quite frankly not interested in what the previous government did because I am interested in what we are doing.

The member asked about whether we had failed in political leadership. I demonstrated at the very beginning all the things the government has done. The gentlemen over there should listen up. If they ask questions they had better be prepared to listen to the answers. Otherwise they should not ask questions.

[David Pratt, Liberal, Nepean—Carleton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to be participating in the debate today on the opposition day motion. Just to get the motion on the record, it states:

That this House condemn the government for its failure to provide strong political leadership to Her Majesty's Canadian forces.

It is sponsored by the hon. member for Compton—Stanstead. I have had the pleasure of working with the hon. member for Compton—Stanstead over the last number of months. The two of us are on the national defence and veterans affairs committee. I must say that he is a very diligent worker and that he brings a lot to the table in terms of discussion. He has done a good job that way. The hon. member would probably agree as well that in framing the motion as he did he very much overstated the case with respect to the current situation in the armed forces.

Let me take the opportunity to put this matter into some perspective. Certainly the world has changed greatly over the 1990s. The challenges we have faced in the 1990s and the rapidity of change we have experienced as a society and indeed right across the globe have been tremendous. Governments have tried to respond to that as best they could, and our government is no different.

When we faced the prospect of forming a government in 1993 clearly we were concerned about security issues. All Canadians are concerned about security issues. One of the foremost security issues we had to face in 1993 was our financial security. As a result some decisions had to be made. When we had a $42 billion deficit to deal with, some decisions had to be taken with respect to restoring financial security to Canadians.

As a result cutbacks had to be made in government. It was not just the Department of National Defence that experienced those cutbacks. There were many other departments. It is safe to say, and most members would agree, that there has been a significant cutback in government activity.

At the same time, in the post-deficit situation we face right now there is a realization and a recognition that some of the departments of government used to perform a lot more activities than they do now. There has to be some action taken to address the problems that have occurred in those departments, and the Department of National Defence is certainly one of them.

Its budget has been reduced, as has already been mentioned, from $12 billion in 1993-94 to its current situation of $9.38 billion in 1998-99. This process has not been easy. I have to salute the Minister of National Defence for his actions since he took the post. He has done what no other minister of national defence was prepared to do, which was to have the national defence committee go across the country to talk with individual soldiers, sailors, airmen and women to find out what concerned them, what was on their mind, what were the issues they had to deal with on a day to day basis.

That took a lot of political courage. When we start a process like that one we really have no idea where the whole process will end up. From that standpoint the minister is to be congratulated. Having had the opportunity to discuss this issue with the hon. member for Compton—Stanstead, he would generally agree with the observation that it took some political courage to do what the Minister of National Defence has done.

As I mentioned earlier, we have had the opportunity to go to many bases. Just to give an example, the committee touched down and held hearings in Yellowknife, Esquimalt, Comox, Edmonton, Cold Lake, Moose Jaw, Val Cartier, Bagotville, Kingston, Petawawa, North Bay, Trenton, Gagetown, Goose Bay and Halifax. For anyone who was counting that was 15 different locations to date. I have had the pleasure of speaking to Canadian forces members in all but two of those locations.

We have heard a great deal from members of the Canadian forces. We have heard about the issue of salary. There is no doubt that the issue of salary is one that is very important to members of the Canadian forces, especially younger members of the forces that occupy the junior ranks, the privates and corporals of the Canadian forces.

I frankly do not know how some of them are able to do it on the salary they are making right now. Their starting salary is $17,000 and $18,000. The salary rises as the spend more time and are eligible for pay increments, but members of the national defence committee would agree that base salary has to rise.

The government has already taken steps to improve the salaries of members of the Canadian forces. I hope that in the not too distant future we will be able to see further improvements in that way.

The issue of housing has been mentioned. That is certainly one of the more important issues for members of the forces who have families and are living in the PMQs. We have seen some very poor accommodation for members of the forces in many locations across the country.

It is very old stock and it needs to be replaced. How we do that in today's financial environment will take a lot of innovation and creativity on behalf of employees of the Department of National Defence in the Canadian forces housing agency who are charged with that responsibility. I hope they are up to the task because our soldiers, sailors and airmen and women certainly deserve better than what they have right now.

We have heard about other issues including the care of the wounded and the injured. There should be better ways of dealing with the problem of unemployed spouses on Canadian bases. It continues to be a problem.

Many families take two incomes for granted, but that is not often the case at a Canadian forces base. A spouse has difficulty getting employment with private businesses outside the base. Many employers refuse to hire them when they know they will be posted somewhere else in a few years. They are not prepared to make investments in terms of training and skills. We have also heard about the problem of post traumatic stress syndrome.

Those are just a few of the problems we have heard about in the course of our hearings across the country. The hon. member for Compton—Stanstead would agree that at the same time there is a tremendous esprit de corps in the forces. Some people say that the overall morale in the Canadian forces could probably be improved quite significantly but that the unit morale is very strong. There is a strong esprit de corps or a strong connection between people working in a platoon, a company or as part of a ship's crew or air crew. They feel proud to wear Canada's uniform. They feel proud of the record of our Canadian forces men and women abroad.

The issue of equipment is important. The forces are in the process of enhancing or improving the equipment available to them. As I mentioned in earlier comments today, our navy is among the most modern in the world in terms of the technology it has available. The same can be said of our air forces with the CF-18s and their precision guided weapons which are among the most modern in the world. The army definitely needs more equipment. The government is in the process of equipping it with new armoured personnel carriers and other equipment it needs in terms of clothe the soldier program and others.

Rather than condemning the government, the opposition should be congratulating it for having the political courage to go out there to speak to the men and women of the Canadian forces to learn what is on their minds. I congratulate the Minister of National Defence and the government for their courage in that regard.

Ultimately the matter rests with the government. As far as the men and women of the Canadian forces are concerned I am confident the government will do the right thing.

[Roy H. Bailey, Reform, Souris—Moose Mountain, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member who has just spoken. This has been perhaps the most open and honest approach we have heard from that side all day. I commend him for that. At least he alluded to the problems we face. I assure him that this side of the House and the committee to which he referred will be looking forward to his report.

I have read in newspapers and magazines about the problem of the Department of National Defence in relation to NCOs and commissioned officers.

I come from a part of Canada which has the RCMP as the provincial police force. I have been in the same area for a long time. The highest ranking officer that has ever been in our detachment, albeit this is the RCMP, is a corporal. Imagine having three sergeants and one constable.

If I heard correctly today, and this is part of the problem that the government should be addressing, we have something like 65 generals in the Canadian army.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

I will have to interrupt the hon. member, because we have another question to go. The hon. member for Nepean—Carleton can form a response to that question.

[David Pratt, Liberal, Nepean—Carleton, ON]

I would be happy to, Mr. Speaker. Were there too many generals at one time in the Canadian forces? I think the answer is yes. The number has been brought down from approximately 130 to about 70.

[Roy H. Bailey, Reform, Souris—Moose Mountain, SK]

Sixty-five.

[David Pratt, Liberal, Nepean—Carleton, ON]

There you go. Are there too many? We are working toward 60,000 regular members at this point in the Canadian forces. Are 60 some generals too many? I am not sure it is.

There is one comment that I did receive which I think the hon. member would be interested in. I was speaking to a non-commissioned officer in Halifax. He mentioned to me something which I thought was very interesting which was that only nine members of the Canadian forces earn over $100,000 per year. That is for an organization that, as I mentioned earlier, takes from the federal budget $9.3 billion and has a complement of 60,000.

[Gordon Earle, NDP, Halifax West, NS]

Mr. Speaker, the member opposite mentioned that there was good esprit de corps in the armed services. I would like to quote from an April edition of Maclean's magazine:

“To make any unit run, you have to have esprit de corps,” said Warrant Officer George Parrott of Edmonton, who served in Croatia, Bosnia, Germany and Quebec during January's ice storm. “When I joined in '83 they made you feel good about working as hard as you possibly could to achieve the highest level you could. Right now, there is not that feeling of being proud of who you are and what you represent”.

This is by a member of the armed services speaking about the assault on morale. How does the member reconcile his remarks with these comments from an enlisted person?

[David Pratt, Liberal, Nepean—Carleton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, as I mentioned earlier, I have had the opportunity to visit about 13 of the 15 bases where the committee has held hearings. I can say this quite honestly. I have talked to hundreds of members of the Canadian forces. I am giving my general observations. Certainly there are going to be people in an organization as large as the Canadian Armed Forces who are going to have different views on that.

The general observation I have had from people is that within their own unit when they are tasked to go to Bosnia, or participate with the army, or if they are on board one of our frigates, whether it is the HMCS Toronto , the Vancouver or the Ville de Québec , the ship's crew, the companies, the battalions, are very proud of what they do. They are very concerned about some issues obviously in terms of pay and benefits and those sorts of things. In terms of discharging their work, they are very professional. They are very proud people and very happy to wear the uniform of the Canadian forces.

[Gordon Earle, NDP, Halifax West, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I am very honored to speak to this motion, which reads:

That this House condemn the government for its failure to provide strong political leadership to Her Majesty's Canadian Forces.

In speaking on this motion, it is very important to note the words “provide strong political leadership”. Note that the motion does not simply say provide leadership, but political leadership. This puts the emphasis on the elected representatives which is where I believe it firmly belongs.

Also, when we speak of the Canadian forces we are speaking about the civilian and the military components, a fact which often escapes the public. Sometimes when the public think about the Canadian forces, they think solely about those men and women in uniform. We must remember that there is also an important contingent of men and women working side by side those men and women in uniform. They are the civilian workers who team up to provide Canada with an excellent, proud and professional service.

Also when we think about the Canadian forces, we have to remember that the people working for the Canadian forces sometimes find themselves in a category of occupation which is often overlooked by the public except in times of emergencies, such as policemen, firefighters and emergency workers. These are people with jobs we would not normally want to do ourselves but we are certainly happy to have them there when the occasion and the need arises. Perhaps politicians fall in that category as well.

I am talking about the category of workers who sometimes find themselves in a thankless job. People are their friends as long as they are doing exactly what they want them to do but the minute that is not the case they seem to forget about them. We have to remember that sometimes the public do not give as much recognition and as much honour as they should to the people in our Canadian forces. Because of the nature of this occupation it is very important that we have good leadership, not only leadership within the services, but also good political leadership.

The other thing the public sometimes fail to remember is that a job in the military today, even though we talk about peacekeeping, is still very dangerous. It is not a job to be taken lightly. In an article in Maclean's magazine Sergeant Dale Lyne in speaking about his work in Bosnia talked about the fact that his engineer regiment dodged booby traps to defuse land mines. They survived having guns held to their heads by the local combatants. They retrieved body parts of soldiers blown up by mines. This is certainly not a job a lot of us would aspire to. Because of the nature of this job, we feel it is important that there be adequate political leadership.

What makes us feel that today there is not that quality of leadership? Already the member opposite has mentioned many of the problems that would support the fact that there is need for good strong political leadership.

We have heard about low morale because of frozen pay levels and lack of promotions. There are a lot of problems around family life and inadequate housing. Many spouses find themselves unable to meet their daily expenses and struggle while their spouses are away. We hear stories about soldiers having to buy their own boots to serve in Bosnia. There are many instances which we read about or hear about which lead us to feel that there is just cause for the low morale which exists within the military.

I think of military members who have families. We are told that the long absences can be devastating for those who are left behind. I read in a magazine article about Andrea Grant who has two children and is married to a leading seaman at CFB Halifax. She lives in a cramped apartment in the city's north end. She said that she sometimes cries herself to sleep when her husband is at sea. Not too many of us can relate to the feeling of having to cry oneself to sleep because their loved one is away.

I personally can empathize to a certain point with the aspect of someone being away that you care about. My father worked on the railway. He was away from home at least three or four days each week. As a young boy growing up I can well remember how much we missed his presence in the home and how happy we were when we would hear the doorbell ring when he returned home from his trip on the train. He had a special ring on the doorbell and we automatically knew it was him. Even the family dog recognized that ring of the doorbell and would jump up and run to the door before any of us.

My father was not in any danger when he was away. He was working on the train and unless there was a train accident he was quite safe. But our armed services personnel are quite often away in a foreign land in a different culture. They are faced with unknown things that may occur, for example land mines. We can therefore understand why someone like Andrea would cry herself to sleep while her loved one was away. These are some of the things which our armed services personnel are faced with.

Then we read stories, one as recently as in today's paper, reportedly, and I say reportedly because all the facts are not in yet, but reportedly about a $2 million party for the top brass in the military. When we look at this kind of expense, whether it be $2 million or $300,000 as the minister said today in question period, it is still a fairly major expense for a celebration when people are faced with an inadequate amount of money perhaps to buy medicine for their children.

There is another story along those lines. Quoting from a magazine, we are told the story of Kathy Couture who had never broken the law in her life until one night in October 1996. She walked into a pharmacy in Victoria, slipped a bottle of children's Tylenol into her pocket and walked back out. She said “I was terrified. I shook for hours when I got home”. Couture's six year old daughter Natasha had a raging fever. It was five days until her husband, sailor Mario Couture, would be paid and the family did not have the $5 to pay for the medicine. They had moved to Victoria from Halifax only weeks before and they knew no one they could ask for the money. “My husband was shocked. I was shocked”, said Couture. “I still cannot believe I did that. But I had to”.

The conclusion of this story talks about the parliamentary committee that travelled to Victoria in January. Her husband chose not to speak. He was afraid he might be too honest and would offend some people, but Kathy did speak out. She did speak out because she had hurt so much. She said it is her friends and neighbours in the military subdivision that kept her going while Mario was at sea. “It is very hard on your self-esteem. I think to myself I am worth more than this”. Kathy can only hope the politicians hear her testimony and agree.

I would say today it is important that we as politicians hear these stories, understand and show some empathy. When we are making decisions concerning our armed forces we should not look at the bottom line as being the dollar but rather look with a compassionate heart to see what we can do to help our military.

The Minister of National Defence said today in question period when he was talking about the forest fires in Alberta that once again the armed forces were coming to the aid of fellow Canadians. I would ask today, who is coming to the aid of our Canadian forces?

[David Pratt, Liberal, Nepean—Carleton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the member if he feels that the initiative that was undertaken by the minister was a worthwhile one, in terms of having the national defence committee go from base to base asking members of the forces about the problems regarding salary, living conditions and working conditions.

Would the hon. member not concede in his franker moments that was an act of political leadership relating to the forces, it was something that was absolutely necessary? It is a difficult process and one that certainly has not been easy for the government in terms of hearing the various stories that have come up. It is a difficult process and one which was absolutely necessary under the circumstances.

The second question I would ask concerns the Canadian public as a whole. The hon. member may or may not be aware that I have a motion on the order paper to declare June 15 as Canadian forces day and to celebrate the achievements of the Canadian forces.

Is that something the member and his party could support?

[Gordon Earle, NDP, Halifax West, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate those two very interesting questions. Certainly it is very important for the standing committee to hear stories directly from members of the Canadian forces about what they are experiencing. Even more important than hearing them would be for the government to show strong political leadership to follow up on the concerns in a meaningful way to address the issues.

With respect to declaring a given day as Canadian armed forces day, we always have to be careful that when we declare any given day as a special day we do not lose sight of the fact that every day of our lives should be special for those issues. We cannot weaken our obligation in that way by just having a special day where we highlight certain things. It is important to concentrate each day of our lives upon the concerns of our Canadian forces.

[David Price, Progressive Conservative, Compton—Stanstead, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I find it rather interesting that the NDP member is talking from the heart about this issue. As we travelled to different bases I was very disappointed to see that members of the NDP were not that involved. They did not show up at a lot of the places except if it happened to be in one of their ridings.

They are self-professed as being very strong in the ASD file. We really did not hear a lot from them. Maybe the member could answer as to why they did not show up at those meetings.

[Gordon Earle, NDP, Halifax West, NS]

Mr. Speaker, rather than answering why we did or why we did not I would like to emphasize some of the things we in fact did.

One of our members travelled to Goose Bay, Labrador, to see firsthand the situation involving the downsizing of services there. Many members of our party have been involved directly with military personnel and with civilian personnel and hearing their concerns firsthand.

We may not have been in the same places as the hon. member but we have been there. We have always been there and we will continue to be there.

[Mark Muise, Progressive Conservative, West Nova, NS]

Mr. Speaker, in 1993 the NDP had chosen to help the military by voting against the purchase of EH-101 helicopters.

I am wondering why today we hear complaints from members of the NDP who say that the government should be supporting things of this nature.

[Gordon Earle, NDP, Halifax West, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I always find questions a bit amusing when people point to something in the past and try to justify exactly what is happening today. The hon. member can look to his own party. He can look to positions that were taken at one point in time and then subsequently changed for whatever reason.

We are concerned about the present situation with respect to our Canadian forces. We are supportive of the concerns they brought forward. We want to work in the best interest of resolving those issues. I do not want to dwell upon past history which has no meaning to what we are concerned about today.

[Dick Proctor, NDP, Palliser, SK]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to take part in the debate this afternoon.

As someone who served for a brief period on the defence committee and to elaborate on the last question asked about why we were not more visible at those public hearings, I remember that the first swing the committee took was in late January. Our caucus had a meeting and a subsequent meeting the following weekend so I was only able to get to one of them.

I must respond to the question of the hon. member for Nepean—Carleton regarding whether it demonstrates great political leadership and wisdom to convene the committee to hear frankly from military men and women about pay and rations.

Calling a committee meeting probably demonstrates the absence of political leadership. The easiest thing anybody can do is to have a committee to discuss an issue. As I said in committee, and I feel very comfortable standing in my place and saying it here today, a lot of this was about busy work. It was to keep the defence committee travelling around. It was also demeaning to hear people admit that they used food banks.

In the meeting I attended in Moose Jaw in late January, Mr. Cory Robinson, a second lieutenant at CFB Moose Jaw, indicated he had to go to the local town and country mall to moonlight there for $5.75 an hour to properly feed, house and clothe his family. It must have been extremely difficult for Cory Robinson and hundreds of other people who attended those meetings. They all came out because they are concerned but I am sure it was not easy for them.

I remember saying at a committee meeting last fall that I did not run for parliament to determine what was an appropriate pay and ration for men and women who serve in the military forces. I am aware that there are professional people who do this on a permanent basis.

There are standards. There are groups that are at the lower end of the pay scale and others at the upper end that are doing relatively the same kind of work such as police officers and firefighters. If we look to the United States, the United Kingdom or other appropriate countries we can find their levels of pay and benefits for military men and women.

I do not accept that it is showing great political leadership to have directed the defence and veterans affairs committee to travel around the country to meet with people to discuss this issue.

It was probably a way of keeping the defence committee from looking at other things that would be more relevant. Obviously we do need an effective well paid military, but if we wanted to look at the helicopter issue or submarine issue in a more in depth basis we could not do it because we were travelling to look at pay and benefits. I do not accept at all the premise I have heard earlier this afternoon.

My colleague from Halifax West also talked about alternate service delivery. That has been a major concern in the Palliser riding which has 15 Wing Moose Jaw. I will read into the record a recent letter from Mervin Ernest who said:

My co-workers and myself have been in limbo awaiting decisions on contract finalization and most of all, job offers from—Bombardier—.This whole privatization process has dragged on far too long. This has been an extremely stressful time for all the employees and their families. I have seen many manifestations in my co-workers including stress illnesses and all the personal problems it can cause.

It's very clear that with everyday that passes, current Departure Incentives, Alteration and Relocation options that have been available to us will very soon cease to exist—.

As an employee of DND, I have only two burning questions. Do we have a job or not and if not, will there be financial assistance (Early Departure Incentive—) for those being terminated?

In bold face he wrote:

Please, we just want to get on with our lives!

That is the kind of lack of esprit de corps that the committee has seen and heard about over recent months at both the military and the non-military levels.

At this point in time the Canadian government has not decided what it is that the department of defence could and should be. It is trying to be all things to all people. It has not decided whether its primary role is to be a peacekeeping role or whether it is to be a full military role.

Because it has been unable to decide that, it is stretched very thin. Its equipment, as we all know, is relatively seriously outdated. It is stretching badly the pay, rations and benefits of the men and women who serve in the armed forces or the civilians working in the armed forces.

Until the government demonstrates the leadership to determine what in effect it will be when it grows up, these problems will continue to be there with the poor quality of housing and the lack of other amenities which come with that territory.

I have not seen any lack of leadership. I would agree wholeheartedly with the recommendation before us:

That the House condemn the government for its failure to provide strong political leadership to Her Majesty's Canadian forces.

I hope we put an end to this charade of travelling around and forcing people to demean themselves by telling their personal stories, of their trips to the food bank and their moonlighting jobs at a minimum wage, and get on with the job of paying our Canadian men and women who work in the armed services a decent and fair salary.

[David Pratt, Liberal, Nepean—Carleton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, since my name was mentioned by the last member I feel compelled to stand once again. You are damned if you do and damned if you don't as far as the NDP is concerned.

If the minister had said they were to talk to a few generals to straighten out the problem with morale, quality of life and living conditions in the forces, the NDP would have been the first party to say that was another top down solution and that the government was ignoring the rank and file. However, when the minister takes the initiative to have the defence committee go out to various bases in a true bottom-up solution, to solicit the views and concerns of members of the forces, the NDP goes on the attack once again.

It is unfortunate because it is a very historic effort on the part of the defence committee. It has never happened before in Canadian history. It has never gone to members of the Canadian forces, who are trained in terms of their discipline not to speak up, not to be political, to receive their comments. The minister is to be congratulated.

I have another comment to make before I sit down. The NDP does not seem to understand either the white paper and what the white paper is all about. The white paper provides for a multipurpose combat ready force serving Canada. That is exactly what we have. There is no confusion there. If the member read the white paper I am sure he would appreciate the details of what are the responsibilities of the Canadian forces.

[Dick Proctor, NDP, Palliser, SK]

Mr. Speaker, again I simply do not agree that there was any leadership demonstrated in this whole area.

If they did not want professionals to look at the situation and resolve it, why would they not simply let the Canadian military have the right to join a union as some other countries do and negotiate pay and rations with the government? Why not sit down and do it that way?

[David Pratt, Liberal, Nepean—Carleton, ON]

They do not want to do it.

[Dick Proctor, NDP, Palliser, SK]

How is that known? Has there been a vote?

[David Pratt, Liberal, Nepean—Carleton, ON]

I have been to 13 bases and the consensus is absolutely no way.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

Please do not leave the Chair and the rest of members out of this debate.

[Dick Proctor, NDP, Palliser, SK]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Nepean—Carleton says that he has asked people. There are votes, there are secret votes, there are hand ballots, there is hand raising and the whole thing. If the government was serious about this it would consider this option.

[George Proud, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Veterans Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for Peterborough.

I am very pleased this afternoon to address this motion on the government's leadership with respect to the Canadian forces. I believe that the government has indeed shown tremendous leadership.

Last year the then Minister of National Defence published his report to the Prime Minister. That report, along with Chief Justice Dickson's report on military justice, contained 100 recommendations on how the Department of National Defence and the Canadian forces should move forward to change, to improve and to restore the pride and sense of purpose of the forces.

These reports recommended that action be taken in areas such as military discipline, value and ethics, leadership, the command and rank structure, operational missions, terms and conditions of service, the national headquarters and relations with the Canadian public.

The very comprehensive nature of these changes reflects the extent of the challenges we were facing. At that time the Department of National Defence and the forces were emerging from turbulent years. There were challenges to respond to successive budget cuts, personnel reductions and a very active slate of operations both at home and abroad.

Intense public scrutiny was taking its toll and resulted in the leadership, discipline, command and management, and even the honour of the Canadian forces being called into question. But since that time the Department of National Defence and the Canadian forces have been very busy implementing these recommendations and putting in place many other initiatives.

Before I describe those initiatives I would like to briefly mention some of the many initiatives the government took during its first mandate.

In 1994 the government established the special joint committee on Canada's defence policy of which I was a member. In response to that valuable report the government wrote the 1994 white paper on Canada's defence policy.

In 1995 it was this government that established the commission on restructuring the reserves. I am proud to say that I was chairman of the Standing Committee on National Defence and Veterans Affairs when we reviewed that commission's report. Since then the government has made numerous achievements in implementing necessary changes.

Closer to home, I wish to commend the minister for his commitment to Prince Edward Islanders when he announced the construction of a new naval reserve base in my riding of Hillsborough. This new base is now up and running and is recognition of the islanders' unwavering support for the Canadian forces.

I might just say that in 1939, the day war was declared, every one of the members of the HMCS Queen Charlotte volunteered for active duty.

Before I get carried away with the countless past initiatives, I should revert to the most recent examples of how the government has shown excellent leadership. To begin with, there is almost entirely a new leadership team. Solid leadership is essential to implementing reforms, and every one of these leaders has expressed their commitment to moving the agenda forward.

Another example of these changes is the NATO flying training in Canada program. Under this initiative, which was announced last November, industry partners will carry out most of the functions that are now handled by the defence organization. This project will significantly reduce the cost of training military pilots. It will also mean almost $1 billion in direct industrial benefits for this country.

These are just two types of changes, but there are other major areas of reform that show leadership. For example, the Minister of National Defence responded last October to the report of the Somalia commission of inquiry in a report very aptly entitled “A Commitment to Change”. This report addressed each of the commission's recommendations and indicated agreement with some 83% of them. Of the 28 recommendations that were not accepted, most of the underlying concerns have been or will be addressed in a different way than the commission members specified. But they will be addressed.

In many cases the commission's recommendations were already implemented and others have specific target dates for implementation.

The commission of inquiry requested that the minister report to parliament on the department's implementation of the commission's recommendations. In addition to this report, the minister has asked prominent Canadians to participate in the minister's monitoring committee on change, which will report semi-annually to him on the department's progress.

Another important initiative is amending the National Defence Act to allow for comprehensive change to the military justice system. These amendments, which were referred to the Standing Committee on National Defence and Veterans Affairs, will help to renew the Canadian forces by enhancing the transparency, fairness and effectiveness of the military justice system.

In fact, following this morning's very productive meeting, I expect a favourable report to the House to be forthcoming.

These amendments, the most comprehensive ever since the enactment of the NDA in 1950, clarify the roles and responsibilities of key figures in the military justice system and establish a clear separation between investigative, prosecutorial, defence and judicial functions. The amendments improve accountability and transparency by creating two oversight bodies, namely, the Military Police Complaints Commission and the Canadian Forces Grievance Board, both of whose reports will be tabled in parliament by the minister.

Implementing these reforms is all about being able to maintain multipurpose, combat-capable forces that are able to defend Canadian interests and contribute to international peace and security. Moreover, these reforms are also about ensuring the trust, respect and confidence of Canadians as the forces carry out these tasks.

Because the government believes this policy stands firm, it has also taken steps in the past year on certain white paper issues, such as equipping the forces. For example, among the various capital investments made under our leadership, the government is acquiring four Upholder class, diesel-electric submarines from the United Kingdom.

The government has also decided to purchase 15 search and rescue helicopters for the Canadian forces. The Cormorants have the power, speed and endurance to cope with the extreme weather conditions and vast distances that characterize Canada's unique and challenging search and rescue environment.

Of course, since last year there has been a very busy slate of operations, both at home and abroad.

I do not need to remind members about the natural disasters Canadians faced over the last year and that the Canadian forces took part in all of them. We have recently sent 50 Canadian forces personnel, including 16 reservists and some equipment, to help fight the terrible forest fires in Alberta.

At the same time as undertaking these domestic operations there have also been changes in the forces' international activities.

For example, just yesterday the minister announced that we are sending 20 to 30 personnel and 10 specialized front-end loaders to Italy to assist in the clean-up of the devastating mudslides in the area of Sarno, Italy.

Last December members of the forces returned from serving with the United Nations mission in Haiti, where they assisted in sustaining a secure and stable environment.

Recently Canada agreed to participate in two new missions. In February the government announced that Canada would send the patrol frigate HMCS Toronto and two KC-130 Hercules tactical air-to-air refuelling planes to the gulf as Canada's contribution to possible military action against Iraq. The government has also approved Canadian participation in a new three-month United Nations peace support mission in Central Africa.

From what I have described so far we can see that a great deal of work has been done over the last year. Changes are being made on every front. I believe these changes have demanded strong and effective leadership from the government.

These are changes that will improve transparency and accountability, changes that will improve the quality of life for members of the forces, changes that will ensure the forces can continue to do the job that the government has assigned to them.

I believe that the government has indeed shown and will continue to show leadership with respect to the Canadian forces and it should be commended for that.