House of Commons photoWon his last election, in 1993, with 37% of the vote.
National Defence March 28th, 1995
Mr. Speaker, in debate last Thursday, the Minister of National Defence stated that the cabinet had not yet taken a decision as to renewing or ending the commitment of Canadians to Bosnia-Croatia. He repeated that today.
Can the minister tell the House what special considerations or concerns have caused the government and the minister to delay to this last minute before making a decision one way or the other?
Supply March 23rd, 1995
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.
Supply March 23rd, 1995
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?
Supply March 23rd, 1995
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?
Supply March 23rd, 1995
Mr. Speaker, I listened very carefully to the member for Perth-Wellington-Waterloo. I agree with many of his comments. I am concerned with the repeated suggestion in the House today from the government that the inquiry is broadly based.
Mr. Speaker, if I may I would like to quote from the committee directive:
-to inquire into and report on the chain of command system, leadership within the chain of command, discipline, operations, actions and decisions of the Canadian forces and the actions and decisions of the Department of National Defence in respect to the Canadian forces deployment to Somalia and without restricting the generality of the foregoing, the following matters related to the pre-deployment, in theatre and post-deployment phases of the Somalia deployment.
Unquestionably I agree that fallout from the report will extend far beyond the Somalia commitment. I do believe that the Somalia investigation will concentrate primarily on that and will not expand its base to encompass the things I would like to see and which the motion we have made goes to.
The problem I see is that I am not sure the Minister of National Defence really appreciates he has problem. That is my concern. The member mentioned the minister has been very good at seeking advice. He has not sought advice from our party on our commitment to Bosnia nor to Croatia. He has not sought advice about committing 474 members of the Canadian forces to Haiti. I suspect that he has not approached the members of the official opposition either. Is this the way the minister consults, gets input and appreciates the situation? I do not think so.
We are sitting right now with eight days to go before the end of our current mandate in Bosnia-Croatia. The minister has not consulted us about this. Are we going to extend or not? We are told they do not know yet. Surely this cannot be the case. If it is, it is a dismal failure on the part of the government.
Does the member think the minister of defence has really consulted adequately? Does he think the minister has taken every opportunity to allow parliamentarians to have input into commitments which put the lives of our forces at risk?
Operation Varsity March 23rd, 1995
Mr. Speaker, 50 years ago tomorrow morning, on March 24, 1945, the first Canadian parachute battalion made its last wartime strike from the skies into enemy territory in a major allied attack across the heavily defended Rhine River. The battalion had first jumped into battle on D-Day in Normandy as part of the 6th British Airborne Division.
Its air assault over the Rhine, which saw one of its members, Corporal George Topham, win the Victoria Cross, was once again marked by success.
The bravery of this hard-hitting unit, dropped in the midst of a desperate enemy defending their homeland, should never be forgotten.
Our Canadian airborne won the respect and hearts of their comrades, joining an airborne brotherhood which transcended all borders of the Commonwealth.
Historically, Operation Varsity was the largest and most successful airborne operation and is recorded among the battle honours, borne on the colours of the Canadian airborne regiment.
Dawn tomorrow will mark a special anniversary for paratroopers who played a significant role in hastening the end of World War II. We extend to them our sincere congratulations.
Supply March 23rd, 1995
Madam Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for his comments. He has always been an impassioned and fervent advocator of the military and once again I support his contention that our military people are doing excellent work.
I did want to point out to the hon. member that while media condemnation has undoubtedly played a part in the downfall of the airborne regiment, the reports that I referred to do not come from the media. They come from commanders, good commanders. I refer to General Jeffries, who said that not only he but all of his commanders were unanimous in reflecting that leadership was a problem, that the lack of apparent concern for leaders in their troops was a problem.
In the instance of the report from Colonel Oehring at land forces headquarters, this is not a narrowly based report. This report covers the army from coast to coast. He too identified a leadership shortfall. While the media impacts, the media is not the total cause of the problem.
With regard to the airborne regiment, I would also point out to the hon. member that it was not the media which disbanded the regiment. That was done by the Liberal Minister of National Defence.
When the member referred to throwing the baby out with the bath water, I would like to suggest that he consider that in this light. I must say that if I had been the Minister of National Defence I would have waited until I had the facts before acting.
He pointed out that some of the recommendations of the special joint committee had been adopted by the government. I agree with that. However, a number of what I consider to be excellent suggestions have not been acknowledged.
If the aim of the game is to correct faults, as he pointed out, does he not agree that is the point of this motion? We are trying to establish that there is a need for an ongoing, in depth, open investigation of what is wrong with the Department of National Defence. If there is nothing wrong, let us put it out there and let the media present that. However, if there is something wrong, let us find it and fix it.
Supply March 23rd, 1995
Madam Speaker, I want to thank the parliamentary secretary for his very interesting remarks; a lot of history that perhaps was not exactly on the subject of the motion this morning but certainly of relevance.
I also would like to recognize the remarks made by the parliamentary secretary that in fact the Liberal government has introduced a white paper which I think was vital. It is not that I agree with everything that is in it, but it is certainly a step in the right direction.
I want to address the remarks he made with regard to the change of mind I have had since the conclusion of the defence review. Obviously I was a signatory to the report which said that senior leadership in the armed forces is excellent. I do not doubt that it is excellent in a lot of cases.
However, I have since been made privy to not one but two reports from senior officers, one of them a gentleman we met in Bosnia when he was the deputy commander down there, Colonel Oehring. He makes it very clear that the problem with the morale of our soldiers can be summed up in one short phrase, a loss of confidence and trust. In a second report, from General Jeffries, whom the parliamentary secretary has referred to, he said referring to morale: "While this side of the problem is serious, it pales in comparison with the evolving lack of confidence in the chain of command which every commanding officer has identified. This confidence is the foundation of our military system. If it is weakening, let alone in danger of disappearing, it needs immediate attention".
Basically this is what the motion is all about. It also involves decisions that have been taken by the government which may either diminish or not adequately address Canada's defence needs. I believe the parliamentary secretary may have overlooked that in some of his comments.
It is also worthwhile commenting that the chief of defence staff has mentioned that he will be cutting 24 generals from the senior ranks of the Canadian Armed Forces. This will still leave well in excess of 70 generals to command an eventual force of 60,000 people. That is more than one general per thousand people and I think that is excessive. I am not saying for a moment that we do not have requirements to serve overseas in NATO and NORAD where there is a requirement for a certain rank level, but that can be addressed without the overabundance
of senior ranks we presently have in the armed forces. That was addressed in my remarks with regard to headquarters things.
I would say to the parliamentary secretary that I agree, unquestionably, that things which come out of the inquiry on Somalia will impact on other areas of defence. There is no question about that. I ask him why, when we know there is a distinct problem with morale and loss of confidence in the leadership of the Canadian Armed Forces, is the minister so unwilling to institute an inquiry to find out what is the problem. Either there is a problem or there is not a problem. If there is one, let us address it.
Supply March 23rd, 1995
Madam Speaker, I listened very carefully and with great interest to the remarks of the hon. member for Charlesbourg.
I think I heard correctly but I ask for confirmation that he was speaking about overcommitment in the armed forces and about bureaucracy. I wanted to ask him if in the bureaucracy he was speaking of he included the head man in the shop, the minister.
Does the member for Charlesbourg see the minister being responsible for some of the bureaucracy and some of the problems that are created for the armed forces? In other words, does the overcommitment result from decisions taken from the top?
Supply March 23rd, 1995
In response to the member's question, I would like to see two inquiries at the moment, one on Somalia and one on the command and control in the armed forces.