Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to take part in this debate this morning. I think this is a good opportunity to discuss all aspects of national defence policy.
I notice the hon. member asked why there had been no debate on our future commitment in the former Yugoslavia. Quite frankly, we did intend to have a debate on the future of our commitment in the former Yugoslavia, but it does not really make sense to have a debate initiated by the government, since the opposition gives us a chance to discuss the matter today.
In other words, the hon. member has berated us for not providing opportunity to talk about future Canadian forces engagements in the next few weeks. It has been our intention to have that dialogue with the House, but given the fact that the opposition has culled today with defence as the subject matter, the government will consider today's debate, the opposition motion, as an occasion for all members to express their views not just generally on defence policy on the Somali inquiry but also on the future engagements of the Canadian forces.
I beg to differ with the hon. member. The decision to redeploy for a further six months has not been taken by the government and therefore what is said in the House today will be very useful for the cabinet when it makes up its mind.
I share the concerns of my colleague, the parliamentary secretary, who did such a terrific job for me in the special joint committee and was really one of the reasons that we were able to meet our deadlines and get a white paper out. The whole process was managed very well. Members should recognize the contribution my parliamentary secretary made to the process.
The parliamentary secretary raised a point that the motion today condemning the government "for failing to commission a broad and public inquiry with a mandate to investigate the government's failure to hold senior officials at the Department of National Defence accountable", et cetera, was put on the Order Paper. However, the hon. member did not really address the subject matter.
I was rather amused yesterday evening when I read the opposition motion because I wondered why on earth such a motion would be put down, given the fact that two days ago I announced a full public inquiry under part I of the Inquiries Act to look into all aspects of the Canadian forces deployment in Somalia in 1992.
When we talk about the pre-deployment phase and the post-deployment phase going back to November 28, 1994, that is a period of almost two years when perhaps one of the most important missions every undertaken by the Canadian forces will be examined by an independent inquiry, headed by a Federal Court judge.
The inquiry is not solely restricted to what was actually in the order in council. We made it broad. We included a clause at the beginning which gave the commissioners great latitude. If the hon. member looked at that he would know that all aspects of command and control as they relate to the Somalia deployment will be subject to the inquiry. If one is examining that particular deployment, one can also draw conclusions on the general state of command and control within the Canadian Armed Forces. I am sorry he did not really address the matter in detail.
I am very grateful that he agrees with the government that the inquiry should have been under part I of the Inquiries Act rather than the National Defence Act. As I explained in my press conference the other day, it was our intention to have the inquiry under the NDA originally but we felt that we were somewhat constrained especially with the rules of evidence and the compelling of witnesses. Therefore it will be held under part I. I note that both opposition parties and people in the country generally have advocated that type of inquiry. We are providing the vehicle with three prominent Canadians to lead that discussion. We have put a time limit on it, not for any nefarious reason but simply to get the job done.
We have been somewhat constrained. Judicial proceedings have gone on for the last year and we have been unable to convene the inquiry. Now the inquiry is under way and will look into all aspects of the deployment to Somalia. In doing its work it will also reflect upon the general state of command and control within the armed forces, the leadership, the effectiveness of decision making and so forth.
It has not been an easy 18 months since I took over this portfolio. One thing that has troubled me as Minister of National Defence is how an institution such as the armed forces, which has an enviable and wonderful reputation that Canadians have admired for years and years and which has served us so well, has come under such negative public scrutiny.
The hon. member opposite for Saanich-Gulf Islands is a former member of the Canadian forces, but I invite other members who have not been in the forces to come with me some day to defence and go through a normal day or visit a base such as the one I visited last Friday at Val Cartier, Quebec; I am going to Borden on Friday. They would see an incredible dedication.
These men and women are prepared to serve their country. Contrary to what the hon. member says, when they join the armed forces they sign on for any conceivable duty. They know they may have to go to some of the world's most dangerous zones. They know that the job is not simply pushing pencils. There is humanitarian work and work helping Canadians cope
with natural disasters. At the request of a local community last week we sent the army to a village in Quebec to help with problems resulting from an avalanche.
The armed forces are available at any time. Domestically, it is available at any time to go abroad.
Tragically last weekend a number of young people went missing on Lake Ontario. The Canadian Armed Forces out of Trenton, the search and rescue helicopters and the Hercules planes led the search.
Those people who serve in the armed forces are prepared to do the rewarding domestic work in terms of search and rescue, helping communities that have problems such as the one in Quebec with the avalanche. They are also prepared to go to places like Somalia, Haiti, Bosnia and Croatia, the Golan Heights, Cambodia, everywhere else to serve their country's interests. Canada's interests are ones the United Nations articulates in terms of bringing peace and civility to various parts of the world.
The dedication in the armed forces is second to none. I am amazed given the fact that we have now had about six successive budget cutbacks. I am glad the Minister of Finance left before my speech because he would not welcome some of the things I say. He has a tough job to do and we are solidly behind him.
The armed forces has had to go through about six successive budgetary cutbacks. During the 18 months we have been in office we have cut about $10 billion in projected and actual expenditures from the budget. That is tough to manage.
There was a wage freeze on for all public employees. The armed forces has traditionally lagged. I find that unacceptable and I am trying to find ways with my colleague, the President of the Treasury Board, to see if we can address the compensation problem within national defence and within the armed forces without undermining the program of financial restrain of the government in general. We are working to do that.
We recently put in motion a means by which privates can be accelerated into the corporal rank and therefore by about six months gain some kind of advantage in terms of getting to the next salary rung.
We have a group of people who had to move around as bases closed and have had to serve in difficult parts of the world and had to do their jobs at a time of profound social change.
In the last number of years the charter of rights has been enacted, the Privacy Act and human rights legislation. The armed forces, like all other government departments, is under the microscope on a daily basis.
When we compare the Canadian Armed Forces and the way it is dealing with these challenges of being deployed in some of the world's hot spots, of having to deal with budget cuts, of having to be under public scrutiny with respect to changing social mores, and the expectation the forces must at least try to accommodate changing social mores, we find the Canadian Armed Forces is second to none.
Take for example the very controversial issue of sexual preference within the armed forces. The President of the United States must wonder in amazement how the Canadian armed forces changed its policy and allowed people of various sexual preferences to work openly and with dignity within the Canadian Armed Forces and integrate this within our operations.
In trying to get the United States armed forces to accept the same changes, he found out there was such incredible resistance it really has been one of the things that has helped to undermine his presidency in his early years. How could Canada do it and not the U.S.?
I have had these discussions with my counterpart Bill Perry and some of the others in Europe, Malcolm Rifkind and François Léotard and Volker Ruer. They are amazed at the adaptability of the Canadian Armed Forces, the flexibility, the willingness to accommodate ideas and changes in very difficult circumstances.
One of the frustrations I have had is we have had some people who have left the Ministry of National Defence and have not been happy. They have taken certain information away with them and they have grievances. Some would say they are seeking retribution. Against whom, I do not know.
They were not employed there since this government has been in office. Maybe they want retribution against senior officials or the chief of defence staff. I do not know.
This information is being leaked to the opposition and to the media. It is publicized and it gives the impression the armed forces is in a state of chaos. The armed forces is not in a state of chaos.
I will do anything possible to walk my colleagues through the lives of men and women in the armed forces on a daily basis. We will take members of Parliament to bases. We will have brief-
ings. We will let them find out once and for all that the armed forces is in pretty good shape. There are some morale problems and they have surfaced in certain memoranda. They have to do with financial restraint, with budget cutbacks, with the changing role of defence in the post cold war era and adapting to changing social mores.
There will always be personality differences in any organization. Do all the generals like each other? I hope so. I am sure there are rivalries. Does everybody in the House of Commons like each other? I am sure we all do, although from time to time we may have some rivalry.
We are looking at the largest quasi-corporate organization in the country, an organization that at a moment's notice can deploy troops anywhere in the world. It can discharge its obligations with such quality that our allies, even our opponents such as the three factions in the former Yugoslavia, say Canadians are the best.
Ask the Serbs, ask the Croats and ask the Muslims who are the best. They will say the Canadians. They do not want us to leave because they know we are fair, we are impartial and we are tough. We are professionals.
We are that way because it is a reflection of Canadian society and it is also a reflection of the cumulative leadership in the organization over decades. It goes back to the Boer war, to the first world war, to the second world war. The military tradition in this country is rich. It is alive. It is going to continue to stay rich and alive even in a changing world.
It is my job to answer the hon. member's criticisms and to assure Canadians the tax dollars being spent on defence are done so effectively and that operations are conducted properly. I will do that every day of the week. However, I get frustrated because many of the points raised are not thought through properly. They come from disgruntled people. They come from people with a lack of information, people who do not have full knowledge of the institution or know the full scope of the department's activities. These events are magnified on a daily basis.
The chain of command as it pertains to the deployment in Somalia will be looked at by the inquiry. In principle I want to assure my colleagues in the House and all Canadians that we have outstanding leadership in the Canadian Armed Forces. We have men and women who have gone through rigorous training, who are well educated, who have served in many different theatres of conflict. These people are true professionals.
As the Prime Minister and I have said, we have full confidence in the chief of defence staff, John de Chastelain. We have full confidence in the other members of the high command of the Canadian Armed Forces. We have full confidence in the institution. That does not mean to say the institution should not and cannot be changed. Sometimes there is resistance.
After all, I am a Liberal. We look at the political perspective through certain lenses. The opposition has different views. That is what democracy is all about. It may very well be that the course of action the government wishes to follow will not be accepted by everyone within the department or within the forces. They are loyal Canadians and they recognize that the government is elected to direct the affairs of the state and they obviously will follow and implement the policy decisions of the government.
When we disbanded the airborne, General Reay, the head of land forces, and General de Chastelain, chief of defence staff, said to me: "You have our recommendations. You might not wish to follow our recommendations". We did not. We disbanded the airborne They said: "Whatever you decide, we as loyal members of the armed forces will implement that decision faithfully and honestly". To their credit they have done that.
General Jeffries, the brigade commander at Petawawa, and Lt. Col. Kenward, the former commanding officer of the airborne regiment, did an outstanding job in difficult circumstances when we made a decision for which I will not apologize and which I will defend from now on. They did an admirable job in explaining this decision to their colleagues. As the chief of defence staff said, the airborne had achieved much over 25 years and had to be disbanded with dignity. It was disbanded with dignity.
We do not have a problem in the Canadian Armed Forces. Like all organizations, difficulties arise from time to time. I urge members when they stand in their place to give criticism, which is their due, they should also try to stand back and look at the reputation, the integrity, the experience Canada has had with the best armed forces in the world today. Let Canadians know they are behind the men and women who serve them so well.