Madam Speaker, Canada has a glorious history of defence matters starting with the Boer war, the first world war, the second world war and Korea. Now I think the tradition continues in our commitment to UN obligations in several parts of the world.
People have very mixed views when it comes to matters of defence. In the defence committee and our travels around the country, we had representations from groups which called for a
very strong or strengthened defence position. We also heard from others who said that there is no threat and no need for the armed forces, so let us do away with the defence department.
The defence department is much like an insurance corporation in that we do not really want to pay the cost of its protection but we recognize that there comes a time when we may need it. It is like a fire department or a police department. It is obvious to anyone who thinks about it that a country that does not have the ability to control its boundaries, its sea approaches, its air and its interior territory cannot really call itself a sovereign country. Therefore, without question, there is a need for defence.
The problem is that in our current fiscal constraints, Canada must get the very best value for each dollar that is spent on defence. That is really the purpose of the motion this morning.
What I would like to do is provide an overview of happenings in the defence realm since the government assumed power in October 1993 and then deal with some of the perceived shortcomings that we see. I will then leave it up to my colleagues to expand on specific areas within that group.
I will start with October 23 when the government was elected. Shortly thereafter, it fulfilled a red book promise and cancelled the purchase of the EH-101 helicopter. In February, it brought down a budget which downsized the regular forces from 74,900 to 66,700, the reserves of 29,400 people remained at 29,400 until 1998, and the civilian component was downsized from 32,500 to 25,200.
The government closed bases at Cornwallis, Chatham, Moncton, Calgary and Langley. It closed the Collège militaire royal at Saint-Jean and Royal Roads Military College in Victoria.
There was an announcement of a peacekeeping school to be formed at Cornwallis. The government commissioned the special joint committee on defence and the special joint committee on foreign affairs. In March, the government renewed the commitments for the Canadian forces to remain in Bosnia and Croatia. It also announced that Canadians would provide assistance to Haiti.
In September 1994 came the release of the Lagueux report. In response to queries requiring an inquiry into the incidents in Somalia, the minister refused, saying that the investigations to date had been adequate.
Again in September, the commitments to Bosnia and Croatia were renewed.
At the end of October the government received the defence review report. In November, Major Armstrong, the surgeon who was in Somalia, brought forward evidence that finally compelled the minister to say: "Yes, there would be a full public and open inquiry into events in and surrounding the Somalia issue".
On December 1 the minister presented the defence white paper. Four days later in that same month the Colonel Oehring report was made public.
Moving into January, the airborne videos, first and second, emerged. In February we saw the airborne video plus naval hazing videos. In that same month the minister announced the disbandment of the airborne regiment.
The 1995-96 budget was introduced in February. It further reduced the forces, regulars to 60,000, the reserves to 23,000, and the civilian component to 20,000 to be achieved by 1999.
The budget closed Chilliwack, Jericho, Calgary, Air Command Winnipeg, Toronto, London, Land Force Command St. Hubert, Moncton, and Maritime Command Halifax. It reduced Canadian Forces Base Cold Lake, National Defence Headquarters and Canadian Forces Base Bagotville. Also, the government announced a forthcoming study on reserves.
In March of this year the airborne regiment was formally disbanded. A couple of days later the Jeffries report was made public.
To return to discuss some of the issues that were forthcoming in the area of defence, the cancellation of the EH-101 was a promise made by the government and it fulfilled that promise. I question whether sufficient in depth study had been given to the prospect of what should have been done. Unquestionably, the search and rescue helicopters and the shipborne helicopters had to be replaced; they were experiencing further and further fatigue. Although I think they are quite safe to fly, they definitely need replacement.
The cost of the EH-101 was misrepresented, initially by the media, but it was then picked up by the Liberal Party in its election campaign. The actual cost of $4.3 billion was transposed into the inflated cost at the end the cycle to $5.8 billion. It was always this $5.8 billion that was quoted as opposed to the appropriate $4.3 billion which was the real figure.
The EH-101, granted, was an expensive helicopter, but it also incorporated components that enabled it to interface with the frigates. The judgment of the defence committee and of anybody in the defence department has been that the frigates are basically severely constrained and in fact, much reduced in their usage unless they have a helicopter aboard.
Whatever helicopter the government eventually decides to buy to replace the EH-101, it will have to be able to interface with a frigate. I will be watching very carefully to see what the final price tag on that acquisition will be.
The additional thing to the EH-101 cancellation is that it basically did away with a whole lot of very high tech jobs. For a government that proposes jobs, jobs, jobs, this was an area where Canada had really forgone the ability to become more deeply involved in the high tech area.
Of the EH-101s to be built worldwide, 10 per cent of each one would have been built in Canada. Of the initial buy for Canada is that more than half would have been built in this country. The benefits of that would spread from coast to coast. It seems to me the government may have been very short-sighted in deciding to do away with that helicopter without adequate study.
In the February 1994-95 budget the government also reduced the size of the forces to 60,000 permanent people. This is 6,700 below the actual minimum the review committee had ascertained was the required number. The review committee basically said that if you go below that number, you must identify some capability you want to give up. The government has not as yet recognized which capability will be forgone.
The decision to place the Lester B. Pearson peacekeeping school at Cornwallis is, I think, a purely political one based on a promise made by the Liberal Party during the election campaign. The location is rather questionable as is the plant on the base. It is going to require a substantial upgrading of facilities. I believe better alternatives were available to the government which could have been pursued at a far better service to the country and also at less cost to the country.
The formation of the special joint committee on defence and the special joint committee on foreign affairs was again a promise made by the government that was fulfilled. I commend the government on that.
However, it is obvious to anyone that the committee on foreign affairs should have been given a mandate which required its report to be tabled at least three months prior to the tabling of the defence report. As it was, they ran concurrently. There was some consolidation of the reports, but it would have been far better for the defence review committee if it had been able to see exactly where the foreign affairs committee said Canada should be going before the decision was made to table the defence report.
The white paper of December 1994 said that the report of the special joint committee played an integral role in shaping Canada's new defence policy. Virtually all its recommendations are reflected in the white paper. I would like to question this by pointing out those recommendations of the report which the government did not institute.
First is that Canada retain enough military personnel to do the job Canadians expect of their military, a force of sufficient size to cope with eventualities that cannot be predicted.
As I said a few moments ago, the cut from the defence committee's recommended absolute minimum of 66,700 was violated to the tune of 6,700 personnel. The question is: Does Canada now have sufficient forces to fulfil the recommendation of the report? I do not think so.
The white paper said that the committee's recommendation concerning the size of the regular forces was judged to be inconsistent with the financial parameters within which the Department of National Defence must operate. Of course, defence was cut to $10.5 billion in 1994 dollars, which was the recommendation of the committee as a minimum. The white paper stated that cuts to the defence budget deeper than those envisioned by the committee would be required to meet the government's deficit reduction targets.
The Reform Party is on record as recommending and insisting on fiscal responsibility. We do not question this. We just think that if the government is going to cut, it should identify where those cuts will take place and what effect they will have on the outcome.
At the same time the government was reducing funding in these areas, the white paper also committed Canada to expand the program of exchanges and extended scope to other countries. It stated:
To this end, we will increase substantially the budget devoted to the Military Training Assistance Program to build up contact programs with Central and Eastern Europe, the Commonwealth of Independent States, Asia, Latin America, and Africa.
Also the Department government will sponsor peacekeeping training at the Centre for military personnel from countries participating in NATO's Partnership for Peace and developing countries under the Military Training Assistance Program.
I have had personal experience with the military training assistance program. It is a good program. It results in people from other countries being exposed to Canadian standards in military training. However, the results of the military training assistance program come down to assisting the relationship between Canada and the other country. I saw it in Tanzania where as a result of Canada training Tanzanian officers there was a very warm feeling for Canada. That affected the relations between our countries dramatically. Therefore, I would recommend that the military training assistance program, rather than being in the defence budget, be in another place, preferably in foreign affairs.
The defence review report recommended that headquarters strength be reduced by one-third, that is, from 37 to 25 and that personnel be reduced by 50 per cent, that is, 4,000. The white paper stated:
The command of military operations will continue to be exercised by the Chief of the Defence Staff-normally through a designated operational commander-and one layer of headquarters will be eliminated.
The intent of the defence review was to reduce the proliferation of headquarters across the country. The recommendation was that there be one joint headquarters in the west, one located
centrally, and one in the east. This would have enabled the command and control to have been effective and would have done away with a proliferation of unneeded headquarters staff.
The defence report also recommended that National Defence Headquarters be studied to determine if it should be returned to separate military and civilian headquarters. The white paper says: "The government can see no compelling reason that would justify reversing the civilian-military integration of National Defence Headquarters". Yet in testimony, the defence committee heard much from many people saying that there were crossed lines of command. There was blurred judgment. There were concerns about who was really in charge.
We did not say that NDHQ should be done away with and separated into Canadians forces headquarters and National Defence Headquarters. We said to look at it and study it. The government refused to do this.
The committee recommended that the government create a standing joint committee of the Senate and the House of Commons on defence with appropriate regional representation. The government has been silent on this one. The aim of the game here was to give Parliament some ability to monitor and control what went on in the defence department. The government when in opposition was in favour of this, but apparently when in power it does not seem to see the need for it. I contend this should happen.
We think DND's annual capital plan should be tabled with the new joint committee. If the government in its wisdom should say that a standing joint committee is not required, we think that capital plan should be tabled with the Standing Committee on National Defence and Veterans Affairs.
We asked that the committee be informed when all capital products over $30 million pass defence program management milestones so it can examine cases it considers significant. The government has again been silent on this. Once again, we are looking for Parliament to be able to have a little more knowledge and control over what goes on.
We asked that the Minister of National Defence deliver a comprehensive annual defence review and assessment by the minister. It would set out the minister's view of the global security environment and within it the specific challenges to Canadian policy and interests, issues that the minister believes will require parliamentary attention or a government decision over the coming months. This report would also be referred to the standing joint committee. Once again, there has been silence on this, although it may be the government's intention to do so. I would be delighted to hear that is its intention.
We also asked for an annual debate on defence policy. This is vital if Canadians, the public and parliamentarians, are to be aware of what is going on in defence.
Finally and perhaps most important, we said that full parliamentary debate should be invoked before any deployment of Canadian forces abroad. We now have commitment. I understand they are going to renew our commitment in Bosnia and Croatia. We have not been informed formally yet, but the time is getting fast to the point where it must have been made. We have deployed troops to Haiti and there has been no parliamentary debate on that. I think this is a shortcoming.
