Bob Mills

[National Defence, March 30th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, the head of the Somalia inquiry, Justice Gilles Letourneau, has stated that the Privy Council Office was informed personally by Anne-Marie Doyle about her conflict of interest with Robert Fowler.

Why did the Privy Council Office not tell the defence minister and why was the government's ethics counsellor not immediately asked to rule on the matter?

[Peacekeeping, March 29th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, it is truly a pleasure to speak this evening on peacekeeping in the former Yugoslavia.

I emphasize a few of our concerns regarding the lateness of the debate and how it is just two days away from the mandate ending. I discussed this point with the minister a month ago. It was felt that we could be part of briefings much earlier and that then we would look at whether we needed to have this debate. We felt that before a decision was made there could be all-party involvement. We would agree. We would work toward that. We would co-operate in every way possible.

This last minute type of thing certainly makes us wonder how serious the government is and what is the real purpose of our being here. Let us take that it is for honest reasons and that the government really wants to hear what we have to say.

To move to the issue itself, as the foreign affairs critic for the Reform Party I state very strongly and clearly, as did the last speaker, that Canada should not renew its peacekeeping commitment to Bosnia or Croatia.

Canadians have served honourably for almost three years now but enough is enough. Canada has performed above and beyond the call of duty in all its commitments to the UN. No country can say that we did not try our utmost to re-establish peace and facilitate a long term negotiated settlement to the disputes.

The facts are sad but obvious. The warring parties have shown no serious commitment to peace negotiations. Over the winter many have rearmed and resupplied their soldiers so they can start fresh fighting in the spring. The mid to long term prospects for peace are bleak and no amount of Canadian peacekeepers can change that fact. If we could just see light at the end of the tunnel, possibly this speech could be quite different.

The Reform Party believes the time to leave is now. If predictions about an increase in the level of fighting over the late spring and summer are true, we must act quickly to pull out our troops now. It may not be easy but now is our best chance to get them home without incident. If we wait and things get tougher, our troops will face an even greater unnecessary risk.

Last fall we saw how increased levels of fighting led to a corresponding increase in hostage taking of UN soldiers. This could happen again if we fail to act decisively now. The conditions in Bosnia during high levels of fighting remind me of the Eagles song "Hotel California". I will not sing it because it would certainly clear the House. Basically the words are: "You can check out any time you like but you can never leave".

If Parliament dithers we may find some time down the road that we want to check out but will not be allowed to leave without fighting our way out through militias and possibly even through civilians. If we are to act responsibly we must leave now.

As far as Croatia is concerned its president does not want UN peacekeepers any more. Although he is no longer forcing the UN out, he has demanded that it scale down its operations dramatically. As the process is going on Canadian troops would have a perfect opportunity to end their tour there without disrupting the ability of the UN to fulfil its new and more modest mandate.

Speaking in more general terms about Canada's role in peacekeeping around the world, it is high time that Parliament rethink how we can be most effective in our UN commitments and set clear criteria for our participation in future missions. We are not saying to get out of peacekeeping; we are saying to set the criteria.

Canadians are not prepared to give up on their proud traditions of caring and intervention for the sake of peace. However these times cannot be seen from a purely international perspec-

tive. Our foreign commitments must be in harmony with our domestic needs. Therefore we must be sure when we support peacekeeping that we are operating in Canada's best interests and within the very real financial constraint that must be the primary concern of any good government.

We must pick our spots and we must choose wisely. Today's debate should be a step in that direction. One thing is clear. Canada can no longer be the 911 phone number for the world or for the UN. As much as we want to help others, this desire is tempered by the fact that we cannot be all things to all people. Therefore it is better that we help effectively in a few cases rather than spread ourselves too thin. In this way Canada can protect its own vital interests and provide the most effective help for the international community.

As we examine the issue of peacekeeping it is worthy of note that since the end of the cold war the demand for peacekeepers around the world has sky-rocketed. If the past few years have taught us any lesson it is that instability will continue. New hot spots will continue to crop up and Canada must be ready.

If more requests come from Africa, Southeast Asia or the former Soviet republics, how will Canada respond? Clearly Canada must establish criteria to test the importance of each request for our help. While this is a sensitive issue and I do not claim to have all the answers, I would argue the following could be considered by Parliament when deciding whether to approve of peacekeeping missions.

First, the conflict's impact on the state of international stability is an obvious test of whether Canada should get involved. If the conflict has a serious potential to escalate or destabilize a whole region, we should consider it seriously when making our decision.

Second, geographical ties are very important. For reasons of regional stability, the world would be a better place if countries co-operated to make sure that their own part of the world remained stable. Where peace does break down, regional organizations should co-operate to make things right. After all, it will be the member nations of such regional groups that have the greatest interest in restoring stability. For logistical reasons as well, proximity is an important factor in determining whether a country can respond to a crisis in a timely and effective manner.

Third, humanitarian considerations must also be taken into account. While Canadians want bang for the buck they also want Canada to maintain its tradition for compassion.

Fourth, our prior commitments must be given more weight than is the current practice when determining what else we are going to do. We only have so many troops and a limited amount of high quality equipment. We owe it to our troops to be fair in our decisions where to send them and to make sure that we do not overcommit our forces. They are the Canadian forces, not the Canadian foreign legion.

Fifth, Canada's economic ties are an important factor in determining how willing Canadians should be to commit their resources.

In conclusion, the time has come for us to take a step back to reorganize ourselves. The first thing we have to do is withdraw from the former Yugoslavia. Canadians have been looking for a negotiated peace there for three years but none is on the horizon.

If the UN sees value in continuing the peacekeeping mission, then it is time for some other UN country to hold the fort that Canada has so admirably defended for so many years. Our troops should be congratulated and brought home to their families.

Once we withdraw from Bosnia and Croatia and before we send our troops on yet another indefinite mission with uncertain dangers and at an unknown cost, let us establish a credible set of criteria upon which we can depend to make sure that we pick our spots wisely. Canada can still be an innovator and a leader in the area of peacekeeping, but we have to make some difficult choices and we have to make them now.

[National Defence, March 28th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I am glad that the government has finally bowed to pressure and has arranged for Ms. Doyle to resign from the Somalia inquiry, but the question still remains. I cannot believe that inquiries were not made on this sort of person. Why can the defence minister not anticipate these problems until they blow up in his face? Has the minister lost control of his entire department?

[National Defence, March 28th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, the Somalia inquiry was to look into the possibility that a high level cover-up occurred in DND, yet the Prime Minister's office approved the appointment of one of Fowler's oldest friends to the inquiry and strongly defended Mr. Fowler's record in question period.

Since the Prime Minister's actions have prematurely judged Mr. Fowler's role in the Somalia affair, does he not believe he has compromised the integrity of the entire inquiry?

[National Defence, March 27th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, the minister continues to skate around the issue. All we really want are the facts and we want to see some impartiality surrounding the Somali inquiry. We do not want it to be compromised.

Despite the reassurances of both the minister and Ms. Doyle there is a public perception that the inquiry is no longer objective and that it will be hindered in getting to the bottom of the Somali affair.

Will the defence minister restore the integrity of the public inquiry by removing Anne-Marie Doyle immediately?

[National Defence, March 27th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, the Reform Party is not questioning the abilities or the integrity of Anne-Marie Doyle. We are questioning the ability of the minister's staff. Surely the minister should have known about Ms. Doyle's 27-year friendship with Mr. Fowler.

This is not the first time the minister's office has dropped the ball. Last month it was the third airborne video. Last week it was the investigation of the military police. This is getting rather ridiculous.

I have a supplementary question. Who nominated the commissioners and why was the minister unaware of Ms. Doyle's 27-year connection to Bob Fowler?

[National Defence, March 27th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, when the Minister of National Defence announced his long awaited public inquiry into the Somalia affair he promised it would get to the bottom of all questions surrounding DND headquarters and the military hierarchy.

Former deputy defence minister Bob Fowler is at the centre of the allegations. Yet we learned that Anne-Marie Doyle, one of the three commissioners appointed to look into the Somalia incident, is a close personal friend of Mr. Fowler.

How does the Minister of National Defence plan to deal with the perception that the impartiality of the inquiry has been compromised?

[Supply, March 23rd, 1995]

Madam Speaker, I would just like to say that many times after question period is when press conferences are held. I do not understand why it had to be at 10 o'clock in the morning of the very day that the deputy minister was to appear before the committee. To me the perception of that is totally wrong. The point I am trying to make is that the perception is wrong.

[Supply, March 23rd, 1995]

Madam Speaker, if everything was so honourable, as was mentioned with the deputy minister, I think there is a fair amount of disagreement about that. That was proven because this investigation is needed.

As far as the day it was announced, I find it a little hard to understand why it had to be at 10.00 a.m., at the very same time that the cross-examination was occurring. Why would it not be at three o'clock right after question period? It is the appearance; it has to appear to be above board.

[Supply, March 23rd, 1995]

Madam Speaker, as a matter of introduction I feel it is important for us as members of Parliament to scrutinize our federal bureaucracy.

Just two days ago the foreign affairs committee tried to examine former deputy minister Bob Fowler. I did a lot of research and checked out a lot of information about the matter. One area we wanted to examine in detail was management skills, fiscal restraint, organizational abilities and morale building. These major issues should be discussed when we look at the organization of a particular department.

I found many media allegations about Mr. Fowler and his management of DND. As I did more and more research starting in the early part of January, I found the disturbing clouds of five and a half years as deputy minister certainly brought forward a lot of concerns I know Canadians would like to hear about.

Most of the problems were fairly obvious and had been dealt with in detail. I felt it was very important to show that there was no problem and there must appear to be no problem. Perception is everything in this area and is vital to the public's understanding of what is happening.

What perceptions concerned us? If we look at the appointment that had taken place and the very rapid departure of the Mr. Fowler on December 23, that was a concern. It was a concern that our committee was examining Mr. Fowler on the last day possible. It was a concern that the minister chose that time, the middle of that examination, to announce the Somali affair. It was a very poor perception when the press had to be called out of the hearing so they could meet with the minister.

What about the research? What happened? There were shocking and surprising revelations. There were many media stories. Another concern, and it is still ongoing today, is the number of people coming forward who are saying that there is something wrong with DND, that there has been something wrong for a long time with the management. That is why we are having such morale problems. That is why we are having the public problems of which most Canadians are aware now.

We need to look at the issue. We need to get into more detail. We need to look at the management skills involved and the cut in the size of DND that is occurring. The rising debt and deficit have made that necessary. All of us would agree that we must do more with less. That is the reality.

In 1984 the debt was under $200 billion. It increased until 1993 to $489 billion and today to $550 billion. As it escalates out of control we must look at all departments including DND. DND was cut from 87,000 soldiers, 34,000 civilians and a $12 billion budget a few years ago to new targets of 60,000 soldiers, 20,000 civilians and less than a $10 billion budget.

We also have to look at what was happening in the management of DND for the last five and a half years. We came up with a number of very interesting points that should be emphasized.

We came up with the deputy minister's office that has been totally renovated. Its size was increased by more than 65 per cent. The renovations were $250,000 plus, ranging upward to estimates of $500,000. When some of the troops in the field did not even have helmets to wear and had 30 to 40 year old equipment this kind of spending was going on at management level in Ottawa.

While some privates were reported in the media to be going to food banks, which may or may not be true, the deputy minister's salary went from $145,000 per year to $170,000 per year. The senior bureaucracy ballooned. DND went from four ADMs to eight ADMs, a doubling of the amount of senior bureaucracy at that level.

There are other items we should look at in terms of management such as real estate deals. In 1991, DND entered into a 25-year lease on the Louis St. Laurent Building in Hull. The annual payments were based on negotiated value of the property at $73 million. Two separate appraisals were done on the building which came in at $62 million and $65 million. The Auditor General said that DND insisted on a long term lease which public works then negotiated. Six months after the lease was signed DND decided it did not need the space for 25 years. The Auditor General called this a lack of due regard for the economy. I call it a scandal and a loss of $8 million to $11 million.

Basically we have to question that kind of decision from the top of DND. We have questions about the decommissioning of bases. We have questions about moving expenses, which I know will come out later today. The biggest question most of us will ask about is the airborne, a proud regiment. It is a glaring example of management gone wrong.

If we would have acted sooner, if the guys at the top would have known there were discipline problems and would have acted on them, I do not think we would have had what we are all ashamed of. If the information had not been covered up and had been opened to the public, the public would have forgiven and would have understood. However, because of the way it was handled it did not and the airborne does not exist today.

We need to talk about the deputy minister's rich lifestyle. We need to talk about a $60,000 per year chauffeur. We need to talk about flowers for generals' wives. We need to talk about lunches twice a week paid for by the taxpayer. We need to talk about extensive travel and overseas military operations done by the deputy minister's office. We need to look at these concerns but as those who attended the hearings will know none of them were answered.

We have to look at the controversy and ask who is responsible for much of it. We had a deputy minister who was prepared to say: "None of it was my responsibility. It was totally that of the politicians". He made none of those decisions even though in the five and half years he went through six ministers. If he was not the guy in charge I do not really know how the six ministers could be held responsible for everything. If the top dog will not accept any responsibility, it is no wonder we have problems today.

We have other examples. Micheline Clairoux was hired as the director of facilities management. She has been a very controversial person in her office. We could talk more and more about that.

Let us end on morale and where that is at. In 1993 a survey of DND employees found sufficient widespread dissatisfaction to warrant immediate corrective action. One pollster said that if DND were a private corporation, it would have been bankrupt long ago.

In December 1994 Colonel Oehring wrote a report revealing just how desperate and abandoned Canadian troops feel. A report written by Brigadier General Jeffries recently surfaced saying much the same thing. Both blamed the problem on a deterioration of senior leadership. Jeffries was blunt. He said that political agendas and careerism have replaced leadership in the defence hierarchy. He warned about a rapidly developing crisis in confidence in the ability of the chain of command to do its job. I would say that those are fairly condemning comments made by reputable people.