EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Wednesday, February 12, 1997

.1530

[English]

The Chair: I call this meeting of the committee on defence and veterans affairs to order.

I welcome the Hon. Minister of National Defence, Doug Young.

Mr. Minister, I assume you have an opening statement.

Hon. Douglas Young (Minister of National Defence and Veterans Affairs): Yes. Thank you very much.

I have a prepared statement, and then of course I'll be happy to respond to questions and participate in whatever way I can, with Admiral Murray and General Kinsman to give me able and, I'm sure, very judicious assistance.

[Translation]

I'm very pleased to have this opportunity to expand on my suggestion that your committee study the social and the economic challenges facing the Canadian Forces. I'll also briefly touch on my report to the Prime Minister, the Somalia Inquiry and the restructuring of the Reserves.

Let me say at the outset that I'm delighted you have agreed to take on such a complex and demanding study. I know that this decision reflects the commitment of each of you to the long-term well being of the Canadian Forces and their families.

These issues have an impact on the future of the organization, in terms of its ability to attract and retain high-quality people. Your study will be extremely important to help us improve the quality of military life. Your study will also help safeguard the future operational effectiveness and sustainability of the Canadian Forces.

Many concerns have been raised about the state of morale in the Canadian Forces and the way the department and the Forces support our military personnel and their families. Obviously, members of the Forces must deal with the same basic stresses as other Canadians, such as job security, and income and family problems to name a few. Because of the imperative of their mission, members of the Forces must also deal with stresses unique to the military: frequent moves within Canada and abroad; deployment on operations at very short notice; prolonged separation from loved ones; many personal sacrifices and limits on personal freedom and, ultimately, the risk of injury or death on duty.

In recent years these stresses have been intensified by a full slate of operational missions at a time when the organization is being downsized and the budget reduced through the introduction of new technologies and management practices, the five-year freeze on military pay and intense media and public scrutiny. All this is having a serious effect on the morale of our people and their families.

I've visited Canadian Forces bases across the country and talked with our troops abroad; I've met many of the men and women of the Forces, I've seen the work they do and I've listened to what they have to say.

[English]

Madam Chair, I've been struck by the professionalism of the men and women in the Canadian forces. I've been impressed by their pride and their commitment to serving Canada, but I've also been saddened by their frustration and their concerns for the future. That's why I've suggested this study. The time has come to sort out the source of these problems and to recommend the changes needed to improve morale.

This review of the people needs of the Canadian forces is long overdue. In 1990 the Auditor General observed that our personnel policies do not always keep pace with social reality in Canada and the stresses of military life. We need to review a wide range of issues, such as pay, compensation and benefits, housing policy, family support systems, and other matters that have a significant impact on our personnel and their families.

As I stated in my letter to you, you as a group will need to define the nature of the compensation, benefits, and support the government should provide to members of the forces and their families. You must take into account the uniqueness of the Canadian forces, their vital importance to the nation, and of course their unlimited liability in the carrying out of their duties.

.1535

You must also keep in mind two very important realities. First is funding. We must be careful to manage expectations and not build false hopes. We also have to take into account the social realities in Canada. An important benchmark for measuring the appropriate level of compensation and benefits for our people in the Canadian forces must be an evaluation of the circumstances of other Canadians.

In addition, it will be very important to look at what our allies are doing. A comparison of the Canadian forces' situation with that of other forces will be very useful.

With a clear understanding of all these factors, you will be in a better position to determine the social and economic needs of Canadian forces members and their families.

There are a number of areas in which we would particularly appreciate recommendations, such as pay and benefits. For example, should military pay and benefits be comparable with those of the public service, or should there be a totally separate regime?

Another issue is travel and relocation. Considering the unique circumstances of military service, should the government do more to help forces members and their families cope with the disruptions caused by frequent postings? Are they adequately compensated for financial inconvenience and sometimes significant losses incurred when they are required to move to new postings? Should we provide assistance in the area of spouses' employment and dependents' education?

Housing is a significant and very complex issue. What should the government's role be in ensuring the availability of suitable, affordable housing for members of the Canadian forces and their families? The committee may want to look into whether or not the recently created Canadian Forces Housing Agency has the proper mandate, authority, and financial resources to do an appropriate job.

Other questions relate to our various support programs and facilities in areas such as medical, dental, and education assistance; family support; physical fitness; recreation; and community services. What is the requirement and what should the role of the government be in providing and supporting such programs?

What about military family support programs? Are we doing an adequate job of meeting the support needs of our personnel and their families before, during, and after deployment on operational missions abroad? Are we helping them deal with these stresses and others, including repeated deployments?

Finally, for any issue you choose to study with respect to the regular forces, you should ask the same questions and perhaps others that are applicable to the reserves. Do we require additional programs for reservists? Are there any areas where our various financial and support initiatives do not apply to the reserves? Are these issues requiring special consideration being pursued actively as we go through the restructuring of the reserves?

Madam Chair, your study is an important part of the broad agenda we have set for the Canadian forces. This agenda will include changes that will be outlined in a report to the Prime Minister, which will be delivered to him by March 31, and of course our initiatives to restructure the reserves.

Mr. Mills (Red Deer): Madam Chair, at this point could I please get on the record that you refused the motion?

The Chair: Excuse me, you're out of order, Mr. Mills. Until the minister has finished his remarks, I won't recognize you.

Mr. Young: As you know, Madam Chair, we are very much aware of a number of things that have occurred since December 10, when I first discussed the possibility of a review of the people needs of the Canadian forces. At the end of December I announced I would report to Prime Minister Chrétien with specific recommendations on the future of the Canadian forces.

As I said to the Conference of Defence Associations two weeks ago, we must get the forces and the department back on course. We must ensure that the military is well led, well managed, effective, and efficient.

The reviews leading up to my report to the Prime Minister will focus on the military justice system and the military police investigative capability and on leadership and management systems, including professional development and military training.

An independent advisory group chaired by the Right Hon. Brian Dickson, retired Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Canada, will address the many concerns and allegations about the administration of military justice and the effectiveness of military police investigations. The advisory group will report to me by March 15, two and a half months after they were asked to do the job.

In addition, many Canadians will provide their views and are providing their views on the management and control of the Canadian forces; military ethos and discipline; the officer corps, including selection, promotion, and leadership; and the issue of responsibility and accountability in the military, among other things. I hope to have a broad cross-section of the views of Canadians developed in time for my report to the Prime Minister.

I am convinced we must move as quickly as possible to deal with the mounting challenges faced by the men and women of the Canadian forces, for their sake and equally importantly for Canada's sake. That's why the government has instructed the Somalia inquiry that after an extension to June 30 it must report on that date.

.1540

This is the third extension granted to the commission of inquiry, an inquiry that's been under way for some 21 months. I don't believe we need another two, or three, or four years of testimony. What we need are the findings and the recommendations that are contemporary and useful to us and that will allow us to go forward.

In 1996 we made solid progress toward our goal of creating a more effective and efficient reserve force. In these efforts we were guided by several studies, including work by this committee and by our own consultation with the reserve community.

As I reported to you last November, we intend to increase the strength of the primary reserve to about 30,000 and to significantly restructure the militia. Over the next few months we will move to create nine militia brigades across the country. This new structure will be in place by late 1999.

Individual militia units - and I know this is of great concern to many members of Parliament and Canadians in every part of the country - will be assessed according to six carefully developed criteria. These criteria were developed as result of discussions with the reserve community, and by and large they are widely accepted by that community.

The evaluation criteria are as follows:

(1) the unit's contribution to land force command's operational requirements and activities;

(2) the unit's capacity to train;

(3) its ability to recruit and retain the number of individuals needed to maintain an effective unit strength;

(4) cost-effectiveness, or the unit's ability to effectively manage its personnel, operations and maintenance budgets;

(5) the unit's historical performance and battle honours; and of course

(6) the unit's links to its community.

The full assessment will take until November 1998. By then we will have completed an initial assessment of every militia unit and will have issued a report to them. The full assessment, I should point out, will be conducted through until November 1999.

The process of getting an interim report in will provide each unit with an extra year in which to meet assessment criteria. The process will end with final unit evaluations and the complete restructuring of the Canadian militia.

We will be providing a fact sheet today. I know there was a document provided yesterday but there are some additions to it that will provide additional detail on this subject.

Many other initiatives are planned or are under way as part of the renewal of the reserves. The important thing is that we are taking action to ensure the operational effectiveness of the total force.

Ultimately, Madam Chair and members of the committee, the Canadian forces have a job to do, the vital job they have done very well for a very long time and the job they continue to do very well today. They must have the operational capability to defend Canada and Canadian interests and to contribute to international peace and security.

This capability depends in part on the social and economic well-being of our military members and their families - in other words, their quality of life. That's why the study you're about to undertake is so important to them and to us.

I mentioned that I've visited many bases and several of our peacekeeping and other missions abroad. I urge you to listen to the men and women of the forces, as I have, and to particularly hear from their families. I'm sure you will provide for fora in which a wide variety of views can be heard from the Canadian forces and their families. But I'm sure you'll also want to consult with the Canadian community at large - many people have views on many of these issues - and try to obtain as broad a sampling of views as possible.

Former U.S. Secretary of Defense Dr. William Perry said recently, just before he retired, ``No single investment we make is more important than an investment in our people''. We need to affirm a similar commitment to our men and women in uniform in the Canadian forces. We need to determine, with your help and the help of your colleagues, the best approach to taking care of the Canadian forces' members and their families.

I want to thank all of you for your commitment to the cause of improving the lot of the Canadian forces. I look forward to working with you and to receiving your report on behalf of the government later this year.

Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr. Minister. I believe you and your officials would be prepared to take questions from members of the committee.

Mr. Young: It would be a pleasure.

The Chair: I wonder if members of the official opposition would care to begin.

[Translation]

Mr. Brien.

Mr. Brien (Témiscamingue): Minister, as you have alluded to the Somalia Inquiry, you won't mind if I put a few questions to you on it. You say that what interests you are the Commission's conclusions and recommendations. How could you think that the conclusions are going to be efficacious if it can't complete its work?

.1545

You say you want this done as soon as possible whereas, in reality, we know that there has been a lot of time wasted because of hidden or disappeared documents, problems in obtaining quick testimony and the lack of co-operation shown by many people within the department.

Finally, because of the department, we can't hear people, which means that we won't know the truth on what happened during the document camouflage and falsification operation. Those six months your department made them waste, why don't you give them to the Commission for it to be able to present a complete and efficacious report that will prove to be useful?

Mr. Young: Sir, as you know, it would be inappropriate for me to comment on the Commission's work to date. We know that they have heard over 100 witnesses and verified hundreds of thousands of pages of documents. They have decided on their work schedule for better or for worse.

It's important for the government to know what's going to be done to make sure that insofar as possible we can avoid incidents like those that happened in Somalia. Doubtless there will still be problems within the Canadian Forces and the Department of National Defence. In such a huge organization, there will always be problems. How are we going to react to those problems? How are we going to structure our policies and procedures to make sure that awkward incidents like Somalia don't happen again?

As far as I'm concerned, when I arrived at the department, and I've said so many times, I was hoping the Commission that had already obtained two extensions of its mandate would be in a position to present a final report on March 31. We later got a request for a third extension and we accepted it but the government stated that the final report would have to be presented June 30, at the latest.

Allow me to put things into their context. The incidents in Somalia happened in 1993. We're already in 1997. In a report on the CBC, it was shown that in view of the Commission's work schedule that I don't want to comment on but that those people did evaluate, and in view of the approach taken by the Commission on Somalia till January this year, it was easy to see that the investigation could last as long as six or eight years.

In my opinion, starting the year 2000 with a series of recommendations and conclusions based on events that happened in 1993 or during the subsequent period would be of very little value in the contemporary context. Historically speaking, perhaps it could have been interesting. In fact, anyone involved would already have left or be far removed from the situation they were in at that point.

In the meantime, what to do? If we really wanted to take the Commission's conclusions and recommendations into account, there had to be a reaction within a reasonable time frame. If Canadians and members of the committee believe, and I'm totally open to any recommendation of this kind, that in future whenever there's a commission of inquiry set up we should give it a blank cheque to hear all witnesses, verify all documents and ensure that all interveners are absolutely satisfied and that everything has gone according to their standards, then I'm ready to listen to that kind of suggestion.

As for us, we decided it might be a very interesting exercise that might provide a whole series of useful information in a historical context, but that would not be of much value practically speaking. That's why we came to the conclusion it was best to put an end to the Commission's third extension of its mandate.

Mr. Brien: Minister, you're emphasizing the Somalia events, but you're purposely toning down the third aspect of the inquiry having to do with document falsification, people bearing false witness and so forth. You're toning down that part by saying it's important to know what happened in Somalia to be able to correct that aspect of it. Clarifying the other aspect, that of falsification and disappearance of documents doesn't seem to interest you because you're stating that it's normal, it will always happen so it's almost acceptable. That's the conclusion I draw from your comments.

Mr. Young: In that case, you misunderstand me.

.1550

Mr. Brien: I'll finish my question.

Mr. Young: Go ahead.

Mr. Brien: Secondly, you're exaggerating when you say a report will be ready in the year 2000. We're not necessarily talking about a report in the year 2000. However, you do admit that because of its lack of co-operation, your department caused the Commission to waste at least six months of its time. Now, they need those six months. It would probably allow them to hear the key witnesses.

As you don't want to see it back down from that, as a minimum could you not ask the members of this committee to meet Mr. Fowler and Ms Campbell and the other witnesses who didn't manage to be heard in the media because your concern is to have a complete report by June 30? At the very least, we could meet these important witnesses.

[English]

The Chair: Monsieur Brien, excuse me, but business of this committee is dealt with at this committee and not by the minister. So perhaps you would pose questions that are relevant to the minister's brief and not to this committee and you would keep yourself to the correct questions. Thank you.

[Translation]

Mr. Brien: Madam Chair, I would simply remind you that what we'll be doing will be at the request...

[English]

The Chair: Well, you should point out to me, Mr. Brien, what is to be done on the committee.

[Translation]

Mr. Brien: I'd appreciate it if you'd let me finish. We know how things work in reality. We would consult at the Minister's request.

So would you agree to a motion by both opposition parties requesting that this committee hear witnesses so they can be heard here, in public, on the events that went on in Somalia?

[English]

The Chair: Mr. Brien, that question is out of order. It relates to committee business. If you have a question for the minister regarding the minister's brief, please pose it. Questions regarding committee business are dealt with in the steering committee of this committee, which you know well. Do you have a question for the minister?

[Translation]

Mr. Brien: Yes, I will put some. In any case, there are some elements in my preamble that you might want to pick up on but you have heard my question and I hope you'll answer it anyway.

I'm getting to what you're doing. You're suggesting very specific alignments for this vast consultation on the social and economic conditions of the military.

Do you sincerely believe that those people are going to come before us and tell us what's going on, complain about their relations with their superiors, complain about mistreatment? Do you think that francophones are going to come here to say that they'd like to have more service in French? That's an example we can get back to later.

Do you think that those people are going to come here before us and that we'll put on our little show and that the next day we can get on with our lives while they'll have to live with potential reprisals they'll be exposing themselves to in their environment? Do you really think that people are going to come here and express themselves and complain about the social and economic conditions in which they live, except for the technical aspects? Do you sincerely think that they're going to come before us to testify about the human aspects of the matter even though we know what kind of culture of secrecy, silence and even terrorism exists in our Armed Forces at the present time?

Mr. Young: Madam Chair, I had hoped for a debate on this extremely important matter. I can see that the honourable member has been telling us what he thinks of my initial presentation.

Of course, I know that the honourable member and his party have very little respect for the Canadian parliamentary system. That's why they're trying to destroy us. I for one...

Mr. Brien: You should...

Mr. Young: ... simply want to repeat that never, at any time, will I ever order this committee to do anything. I've been a parliamentarian for almost 20 years and I've long since learned to live within a parliamentary context. I have no lessons to be served me by a young member who clearly does not understand what he's doing on a committee of this House.

Mr. Brien: If you don't mind...

Mr. Young: Someone stated that I'm supposed to have ordered your committee to examine an aspect... That's not the case. I respect Canadian Forces personnel and I know they're not afraid to express themselves. I've travelled all across the country and young people, both men and women, have told me what the impact of all that was on their lives and how it had been hard on them and their families. They have problems in some areas of their daily lives and I've listed them in my presentation today. I pointed out that those people were courageous, that they're ready to put their lives at stake for their country and that they were not afraid to testify before a parliamentary committee.

The reign of terror you've mentioned may be something familiar to you, but I have no doubt that if this committee were to allow these people to explain certain points which, for them, are very important, you will show respect for them. We also, on the government side, are going to show respect for them as well as for people within the system because they are people who have problems that are tremendously similar.

.1555

One last thing, Madam Chair. For people who are really interested in the well-being of the Canadian Forces personnel and their families, this work is probably just as important as anything else we could do. We can talk about the equipment, the mandate, the role and the responsibilities of the military, but they are still men and women who share the concerns, worries and social and economic problems of every other Canadian. For too long, they have been left aside. That's why I'm very proud that you have decided, by consensus I hope, to pursue this very important work.

Mr. Brien: Madam Chair, you will allow me to rise on a point of privilege.

[English]

The Chair: I'm sorry, your time is up. You'll have another round. Point of privilege?

[Translation]

Mr. Brien: Yes, it's a point of privilege. In his answer, the minister alluded to my youth or something like that and I don't appreciate it.

[English]

The Chair: That's not a point of privilege.

[Translation]

Mr. Brien: I was elected by fellow citizens the same as he was.

Mr. Young: I was addressing your lack of experience, not your chronological age.

Mr. Brien: Judgment is more important than experience.

[English]

The Chair: Monsieur Brien, you're out of order. Your age is not a privilege.

Mr. Young: It's something we all envy.

The Chair: Indeed. Well, some of us, Mr. Minister.

At any rate, Mr. Mills, do you have questions?

Mr. Mills: Yes, I do.

I want to start, Madam Chairman, by saying that I do have respect for the minister's political ability, that I do have respect for the Canadian Armed Forces, at the lower level at least. I have met with them in Haiti, in Europe, in other parts of the world, and I believe they honestly are doing a good job, want to do a good job, and Canadians want to be proud of the job they're doing.

However, having said that, I think that Canadians just at the grassroots level are saying we have a problem. And I think that all of us would agree that the problem exists. So when we have an inquiry like the Somalia inquiry, that draws attention; it draws focus on the military that wouldn't be there otherwise. So when there's something that appears isn't going the way it should and is fair to all concerned.... As an example, when a deputy minister is hustled out of the country on December 23, or when one of the people on the commission happens to be a close friend of the then defence minister so she has to get off the committee immediately, or when there are all of the various testimonies of the people at the bottom and people at the bottom are thrown in jail, there's a perception that at the bottom you don't have much trouble going after them, but what about the top?

I've talked to a lot of military people at the bottom end, and they have said that is the perception and that's how they feel. That's what's hurting their morale.

I sat here two years ago when we had Mr. Fowler before the foreign affairs committee, and again three hours of questions, and not one was answered, because the chairman kept shutting it down: out of order, out of order, out of order. I think back to that and say the frustration.... And I think I would be old enough to say to the minister that had we gotten to the bottom of those questions, had those questions been answered, we wouldn't have had to have a two-year Somalia inquiry, because we would have started at the top.

How can this minister rebuild the military when there's this cloud hanging over the top? You won't get to the bottom. I don't care what government was there when whoever was appointed or whatever. Our interest is to make our military something we can be proud of. That we don't mind paying $10 billion in tax money toward, because it's Canadian and it makes us proud to be Canadians.

So why, from a politically astute person like this minister, would you shut this hearing down when the perception out there is that we're protecting the people at the top? When this is drawn into question by a former Prime Minister, drawn into question by three honourable gentlemen who were appointed by this government as the Somalia inquiry, and when they have received this vote of non-confidence from the Prime Minister and from the minister, that does nothing but hurt the military morale, does nothing but hurt Canadians. I cannot believe that the minister can't see that. I can't. I can't believe we should be playing politics with an issue like this. I mean, you know what the quotes are, and these are devastating.

The Chair: Is this a question?

Mr. Mills: Yes, this is a question.

The Chair: Okay.

.1600

Mr. Mills: These are devastating. The minister needs to hear them, if he hasn't seen them already. These are devastating. They say the government is a political institution, and the government interfered with the flow of the inquiry, so it's political interference. That was said by Justice Létourneau, appointed by this government.

I'm horrified that for the first time in Canadian history a government has terminated and interrupted an independent inquiry. And it goes on. The commissioner believes that even if sufficient time remained, it does not allow time to call four to six senior witnesses rather than the two we have reserved hearing time for. They say that they can't build a case, they don't have time.

You can say that's mismanagement or whatever, but they're saying that it is a cover-up. This doesn't help the military in the public's eyes, and that's the very point you're here to address. How do we fix the military as long as you have these kinds of statements appearing in the press: it's a cover-up, it's misleading, it's unfair; the government's decision has effectively precluded the investigation of cover-up at the senior level; any suggestions to the contrary by Mr. Chrétien or Mr. Young are misleading and unfair. That's how these people feel today, and that's how the Canadian public feels. They're saying let's get it over with, but go after it, get it done, and do it right.

Mr. Minister, you don't appear to be covering it up.

Mr. Collins (Souris - Moose Mountain): I'm calling for the question.

Mr. Mills: So obviously -

The Chair: Mr. Mills, I've given you a fair amount of leeway. Would you please pose your question to the minister? Your time is almost up.

Mr. Mills: The obvious question is you don't really believe all that rhetoric you just went through. How do we solve this problem? How do we get the perception out there to become the reality of really dealing with this problem? How do we do that?

Mr. Young: I don't want to sound presumptuous. I just do the best I can. I have never pretended, in any undertaking I've ever been made responsible for, to be perfect. I must say, with all due respect to my honourable friend, that I'm appalled that he would by inference suggest that the only good people in the Canadian forces are - and I use his term - the people at the lower levels. I think that people who take on unlimited liability are pretty good people at all levels. I tend to be very -

Mr. Mills: We have to prove it, Doug, we have to prove it.

Mr. Young: What we have done, I think, is get into a mindset where it's become a chase - and a chase for individuals. I hear names of people being named over and over again. People are free to do that. The pursuit I have begun, and which I'm sure the government will be very aggressive in continuing, is how we answer the hon. member's question - that is, what do we do for the Canadian forces.

There is an ultimate court in this country, and that is the people, and I have been hammered by the people. As I said to the hon. member who led off the questioning today, I have been in public life now for 20 years, and I have been rejected as a leader in public life in general elections, sometimes elected, sometimes in opposition, sometimes in government. One thing for sure is that I am not the holder of all the truth.

I can say that with respect to the perceptions the hon. member referred to, I am confident that Canadians who have followed the commission of inquiry understand very well what was going on there, understand very well what the process was, understand very well that the commission had a very long time and spent a lot of effort at doing what they felt was appropriate. And eventually Canadians in every part of the country will decide - on a number of other issues, but this will be part of it - whether or not the government made the right decision. That will have an impact on us politically, for the better or for the worse.

.1605

To the hon. member, in terms of answering your question directly, I came into the department in October. By March 31 we won't be submitting a flimsy or inconsequential piece of paper to the Prime Minister and the government - and to the people of Canada, incidentally. It will be something on which I expect to be judged, and judged very harshly, by people who have, I think, the same motive you have - that we do the best we can for the Canadian forces. This will be this minister's attempt to do the best we can at this stage to try to improve the situation for the Canadian forces.

In the same context - and I think the hon. member is right when he says, again, there's a perception about fairness and equity in the system in terms of who gets caught up in the system and who pays the price - I asked a respected retired chief justice of the Supreme Court of Canada toward the end of December to look at the military justice system and to report to me by March 15.

Mr. Justice Dickson agreed to do that in two and a half months. He and his colleagues will report to me by the middle of March. I will submit the work of Mr. Justice Dickson and his colleagues verbatim, without changing a comma or a line, to the Prime Minister, the government and the people of Canada. That report will be judged - and I'm sure it will be scrutinized very harshly - to see what are the recommendations and the conclusions drawn on how we can do a better job in the military justice system.

We have a subcommittee of that working group dealing with the military investigative capability, the role and responsibilities, training, etc., of the military police. We will submit that to the Prime Minister, the government and the people of Canada by the end of March.

Madam Chair, it's very difficult. I am not suggesting that the report that will be submitted to the government and to the people of Canada will be the panacea for all of our evils or all of the perceived problems, but it will be a tangible piece of work that walks the talk.

I have listened to a lot of people. I will never comment on any comments made by the commissioners of the Somalia inquiry until it's all over and it's history. I am very careful about not getting involved in judicial or quasi-judicial proceedings. I don't comment on how commissioners conduct themselves, how their agenda is arranged, what witnesses they call or the testimony of people who appear before that commission. It is totally within the right of those commissioners to say whatever they wish to say about me or anybody else. That is fair ball if that's the way they see their role.

I will say this. By the end of March of this year, Canadians will be able to make a judgment on what the Minister of National Defence thinks should be done with the Canadian forces and on what Mr. Justice Dickson and others think should be done with the military justice system and the military police and their role.

I hope in this process politicians and interveners from all walks of life will make their views known either into the process by feeding it into a very broad array of opportunities we're providing to Canadians, or by standing, as a political entity or a party, and telling me what it is they would do with the Canadian forces in a very extensive way, in practical, pragmatic ways people can understand.

Let me conclude. I know in the Reform Party there are people - and a gentleman here today is an example of that - who have provided honourable and distinguished service to Canada, not all of them at the lowest levels, to use the hon. member's term, but at the very highest levels, some of them.

Madam Chair, I want it to be on the record today that I have respect for the Canadian forces at all levels. There are problems in the Canadian forces. There were problems in the past. I have spent the last few months, when I've had a bit of free time, reading such documents or books as relate to Brooke Claxton's period as Minister of Defence, and the latest histories and accounts of the Dieppe raid. I've learned a great deal. What I now know happened in 1933 or 1944 is quite different from what I, at the age of 17, had thought had happened then.

Without being too difficult about this, I hope the Reform Party, with the cadre of knowledge it has within it, will decide to do - and I'm a political realist; I don't expect them to come to me before March 31 to tell me what it is they think I should do - before the next election, very clear-cut, substantive, tough work on what the Canadian forces should be, what the leadership should look like, how it should be trained, accountability in the Canadian forces and the military justice system.

.1610

And most importantly, Madam Chair, if the Reform Party were to win the election or become part of a government, would it reopen the Somalia inquiry and go into the pursuit of the personalities and incidents that the hon. member and some members of his party have been talking about over the last few weeks?

We need to know the answers to those questions, because it puts a lot of the debate in a very realistic context. In other words, are we worried about what happened, why it happened, and what happened after it happened because we want to correct it, or is there some political advantage in it somewhere for someone?

There is no doubt that the easy thing for me would have been to disregard the advice of the leader of the Reform Party given to us on September 16, when he asked that the Somalia inquiry report before the next general election. Because I don't know when the next general election is to be called, I recommended to the government that we should provide an extension to the Somalia inquiry, but ask it to report by June 30 in the hope that we'd be able to use the information it gleans from the tens of millions of dollars that will have been spent and the several years of work that will have been involved in trying to get as much information as possible before them and before the Canadian public.

The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr. Minister.

Mr. Mills, your time is up. You can have another round.

Mr. Hopkins.

Mr. Hopkins (Renfrew - Nipissing - Pembroke): Thank you, Madam Chairman.

I want to restate here that I gather this is a review of the social and economic challenges facing members of the Canadian forces. Statements are being made about the forces today that certainly do anything but provide that kind of encouragement to them.

Mr. Mills, in his comments, talked about the lower levels of the forces as credible, and his insinuation was that others are not. Well, Madam Chair, I want to put on the record that sitting to the right of Mr. Mills is a former colonel in the Canadian forces whom I had the pleasure of being briefed by in Europe about 15 or 20 years ago, when he had a very distinguished career. We have many of those in the forces today.

I want to put on the record in the strongest possible way that a handful of people who go wrong in any organization should not be used as living proof that the whole organization and everybody in it is wrong. I resent that kind of judgment and I resent it being said in a public forum today, because it does harm to the innocent and to those who are really doing a great job for this country and for the international community.

I say this through you, Madam Chair, to the minister. Our young people out there today in the forces are facing some great challenges with the duties they are performing around the world and with young families at home, where one parent has to look after them and provide for them, with the help, I must say, of a good built-in mechanism on the part of their comrades in the Canadian forces.

Indeed, in my own home community of Petawawa, the civilian community has moved in and has been helping out families who are under stress and concerned. There's a great relationship in the Ottawa Valley between the Canadian forces and the civilian community, in both western Quebec and eastern Ontario.

We hear this word ``cover-up''. Well, my suggestion here is that in any organization, in any hearing that takes place, priorities have to be considered. If people stand out who should be called before the commission, I would suggest that be undertaken and those people be there, but you can't keep things going forever and a day. You get the people in and you have your hearings.

I want to point out that in our system of democracy and justice, one has to be proven guilty before they are guilty. The comment has been made here, I believe by Mr. Mills, that we want our military to be something we can be proud of. Well, who says we're not proud of them?

A voice: Absolutely.

.1615

Mr. Hopkins: There are many people across Canada who look upon the forces as one of the greatest organizations and images of this country. I will stand up anywhere and defend that particular image.

We want them to help us out in the floods in the Saguenay. We want them to go overseas in all kinds of cultures and mix with people to keep the peace and to provide harmony and try to build a base of democracy, as we have in Haiti. But when a few people go wrong, all hell breaks loose and the whole organization is looked upon.

I want to ask the minister this question, Madam Chair. What does he see as some of the real morale boosters we can put into place in the forces today, based on the good public image people have of them? What does he see as the greatest priorities to bring good morale, a better spirit, and more encouragement to these young men and women who are serving this country well and in a distinguished manner?

Mr. Young: The two greatest problems, if I can describe them that way, facing members of the Canadian forces and their families in terms of their work and their role is, one, how they're perceived.

In an earlier round of questioning the hon. member spoke about this perception that the Canadian forces are under a terrible cloud and that they're not up to the levels Canadians expect of them. It is very hard on them. There's no question about that. Soldiers have told me that all over the country. Sailors and people in the air force have been perhaps a little bit less affected by that - and I want to be very candid today - but they also feel, because of the organization, that a broad brush is being applied to the Canadian forces.

I've had people tell me about how it affects their children, how it affects their spouses, how it affects their families on an extended basis - parents, relatives, and so forth. That's a reality. There's no doubt that what the hon. member has referred to has now permeated to a certain extent, and it causes a great deal of anxiety and concern for the members and their families.

However, I think they're wrong. There's a lot of noise out there and it catches a lot of attention, but I honestly believe, based on my own experience in the last several months, that there's a huge reservoir of goodwill amongst Canadians for the Canadian forces. They know there are problems. They're not sweeping anything under the rug. They know there are problems, but they also understand to a very large extent the job they do, what they have done, and what undoubtedly they'll be called upon to do.

So there's that one area that causes concern, and it is this whole notion of a continual water-torture kind of approach. Every day there's something else, and we're hammering people on incidents that occurred in 1993 and 1994, etc.

The other side of it, to come to the reason we're here today, in part at least, is that there's no question the social and economic challenges facing the Canadian forces are cause for concern. When I took on the job I said I would travel, I would meet with them, and particularly I would listen. The one common theme I heard in many parts of the country, from people at all levels and in all ranks, is that the kinds of things I've talked about today are serious problems that need to be addressed.

These problems include very wide gaps and disparities between salary levels and benefits, slippage over the years, the freeze, the traditional connection with the public service not having been respected, the huge downsizing, and the restructuring of the forces. Those social and economic aspects affect members and families of the Canadian forces exactly the same way as they affect any one of us and all the rest of our electorate.

So it seemed to me a very appropriate area, and because of the nature of it, I hoped and I'm very pleased that you've taken on the mandate to go and find out from them: ``What is troubling you? How can we help? What is the appropriate kind of response?''

To answer the hon. member, those two things are the two areas we need to address, and I hope that with the help of your committee we'll address the people needs question over this year. I hope that with the help of the Somalia commission inquiry, with the help of Mr. Justice Dickson and his team, and with the help of literally hundreds of Canadians from many walks of life who are providing us with an awful lot of information on what they think should be the forces' future, we'll be able to improve both aspects of those problems in this current year.

We'll try not to procrastinate too much. I'm trying to lead by example here, trying to get things done in this century, when it's possible.

.1620

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Minister.

There are two minutes left in the government round. Mr. Richardson.

Mr. Richardson (Perth - Wellington - Waterloo): Thank you, Madam Chairman - or Madam Chairperson.

The Chair: Whatever.

Mr. Richardson: Thank you very much, Mr. Minister, for coming. I extend that to the two senior officers with you.

I think many of us around the table had the same perception of the need to look at this. If you look back at the last time we looked at this type of social service investigation, it's probably about 1970 or 1972, in that range. A lot of things have happened in our economy since that time.

How we organized the initial organization of the Canadian forces and the bases, etc., and the roles, has brought about a different way of delivering and a different way of interacting with the troops. Whether they be air crew, on a ship or in a battalion of infantry, all have a different way of interacting. Some of those kinds of social problems, such as leadership at the lowest level, have a different flavour now than 27 years ago. You see families disrupted. We used to be posted in large numbers to Europe, but we were there. We came home at night. We came home with the air base. The ships came back to port.

Now we're in the stage of what's almost a treadmill of service in the cause of peace and special cases. We are putting people through faster than ever before. They may not be on as long a tour, but they're away from home on an intermittent basis. They're young people, in many cases newly married, even the senior NCOs and junior officers. They're suffering more strain than normally would be seen, in my opinion, in a job in private enterprise or with the government.

I think we will find what you have found, that there is need to be met. We will do our very best. But if we find that there is a need - and you've given us a very broad spectrum - can we consult back with you at a certain time and say, for instance, can we look at this part as well?

Mr. Young: We'll try to provide as many resources as possible, but going back to the very first line of questioning, I don't want to interfere. I want to try to be supportive. If the committee comes to me and suggests there's something we might be able to do to provide access, I understand the need to provide privacy. I think you will be very helpful in that way, because some people will want to be able to provide you with views, and not because they're afraid of recriminations or what not. My experience has been that a lot of people may not even want to share with their spouse the kinds of things they're saying because they may feel it's not appropriate or it sounds like it's griping. So there are all kinds of ways this can be accommodated.

In terms of what the hon. member has just introduced as an approach to the changes that have occurred, let me say that there is no doubt - and we will be addressing the operational role of the Canadian forces in the report I'll be making to the Prime Minister by the end of March - that we are stressing the system out considerably, as a government and as a nation, by responding every time the phone rings to whatever we're being asked to do.

The troops are gung-ho. They're operational. No matter who you talk to, air, sea or on land, they're ready to do whatever you ask them to do. But then there are families, and their own capacity - physically, mentally and psychologically - to be able to cope with this.

We will address that question of how much the government can expect and how much Canadians can expect of the Canadian forces based on the level of personnel, training, etc. But while we do that - and this is an operational consideration, a policy consideration - this is where, again, it's totally related in many ways to the things we're asking you to do, the people needs that are directly impacted on by the new roles or changing roles or more intense roles we've undertaken as an institution over the past five or six years.

If I may, I want to inject another thought here. I'm not sure Canadians totally understand yet the evolution that has taken place in terms of roles we're imposing on the Canadian forces. We still have a very fifties, sixties, even seventies notion of peacekeeping on which we have built an enormous international reputation, but there has been an evolution toward, as some people describe it, ``peacemaking'', which is a very robust kind of environment.

.1625

For example, I've just come back from Bosnia, and there is no doubt that the environment in which our troops and others are functioning over there is quite a different piece of business and was even more so a year or two ago, when that situation was even more volatile from day to day than it is now.

We need to address these questions, because they have a huge impact on the soldier - the person in the Canadian forces - as well as on their family, beyond just the work they have to do. It's how it affects their home lives, families, children, and all the rest of it.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Minister.

Just before we go to round two, if I may, I'll take my chairperson's prerogative and say something with regard to the possible reticence of members of the armed forces. When I was lucky enough to be on HMCS Athabascan last week for a day and a half, certainly the sailors on board were not in the least reluctant to tell me, when I talked to them about what this committee was doing, the things they were concerned about.

What you said about their concerns being really very similar to the concerns of all of our constituents nationwide is absolutely true. They talked to me about pay and housing, they talked to me about what happens when they get out of the service and how they adjust back to civilian life, they talked to me about education for their children, and all of those things.

I remember I found myself saying in one of the messes, ``You're going to have to elect representatives. I'm not going to be able to hear every single sailor at the base in Halifax, as much as I'd like to.'' I think they'd all be prepared to come forward to tell us the things they're concerned about.

Mr. Young: Madam Chair, I'm sorry to interrupt you, but I have a comment on that. Again, this is because of what I've been picking up.

Many people are talking to me about the Canadian forces and providing us with some input who are not former members or current members or even members of families. Many Canadians are interested.

It would be very useful to us if we got a wide variety of input. If you're talking about pensions and getting back into business, there are people who are professional at helping to change careers and so forth.

We have to address a whole range of things that I believe many Canadians would like to talk about. They may not come to mind initially, because we tend to think of the focus, which is the Canadian forces and their families, but in order to build support for whatever you may be wishing to come forward with in terms of recommendations, the broader a base of input you get, the more useful it will be.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Minister, and I might add that, as the members of the steering committee will know, we discussed indeed at the steering committee meeting the whole idea of contextualizing this report so we would have that kind of response as well.

I will now ask Mr. Leroux to begin round two.

[Translation]

Mr. Leroux (Shefford): Minister, I'm part of the senior members of this committee which travelled to Bosnia-Herzegovina a few years ago to visit the two Canadian camps there. I also visited the Bakovici Hospital and I remember the deployment over there. We were told that it was extremely dangerous to go there, to visit, that we had to be careful and so on. There was quite a deployment of troops. All that to say, Minister, that we got quite a warm welcome from the Canadian troops.

Something was said about the morale of our troops, but I learned later on that our new military had only been there a couple of weeks. How could we evaluate their morale? It was at its highest. So, there is a doubt in my mind. When we talk about the Canadian Forces, I don't know what to think anymore. I can't tell you if such or such a person is a crook or a competent man or woman. That is a real problem. For us, in the opposition, it's a problem that's hard to evaluate.

Minister, I remember that a while back, when the Somalia Commission was set up by your predecessor, what was being sought was the light, the whole light and nothing but the light. We were told it was the first time it was being done in Canada. It's also the first time that this kind of commission has been cut short in this fashion.

Our committee is going to travel and I wonder whether it's not just a diversionary tactic. The elections are near, the Minister has things to set up in his department and now the National Defence committee, which did not sit at all during the fall, is going to be undertaking a study. As long as the Commission sat, the committee was not sitting. So nothing much happened here. There is some work that we still could have done.

.1630

I also have Corporal Purnelle in mind, the one who was accused. Corporal Purnelle is the example of a young military person who dared say out loud what he thought. Well, now there's a trial. Minister, do you think that we'll be able to travel to the different bases and visit people? I remember going to Goose Bay. The francophones there got neither newspapers nor any other service in French. The Canadian Forces don't recognize the Official Languages Act. It is not recognized. It is practised, but it is not recognized as such.

There are problems that lead me to doubt our study will succeed. Of course, the government side is in agreement because they don't have any choice. When you're a Liberal and the Liberal government is in power, you don't have the choice. But we as the Opposition party do have a choice. I for one am skeptical. Every morning, I wonder about my Minister's good faith. I wonder about the Chief of Defence Staff's good faith. As for the others, whoever they may be, there is still some doubt and I think the Somalia Commission could have helped. Unfortunately, it won't have the time to do so.

I've met Mr. Anderson and others. I've met them several times as well as General de Chastelain. Minister, I don't know what to think about those people. I'm quite ambivalent. We'll go off on our mission and see what happens. Any committee of the House will get the red carpet treatment wherever they go. We'll be coming from a far distant place, they'll hear us coming from 100 miles away and they'll certainly be prepared.

Minister, my concern is that people will be afraid to meet us. As for those who do come before us, I think that everything will have been arranged in advance. So I'd like you to answer my expectations.

Mr. Young: It is possible that the men and women of the Canadian Forces might be really nervous when they see you coming, but that wasn't the case as far as I was concerned. I show up as Minister of National Defence and no one has been shy in telling me exactly what they think. I'll give you an example from Bosnia.

At noon, I was in a tent having a sandwich. We were about 15 people sitting around a table and a young soldier, a corporal, if I'm not mistaken, came up and said: "Yeah, sure, you're here, but what's happening with our overtime pay because we're in a hostile area?" I honestly have to admit that I didn't know that problem existed. I knew about the extra pay you get when you're exposed in a theatre of operations where there are specific problems like in Bosnia, but I hadn't been advised that confirmation hadn't been given that the people serving in Bosnia will be entitled to that pay supplement.

I didn't find him shy at all. Actually, I found he was rather aggressive. I didn't give you much detail about what he said. He explained why he and his friends had not received their supplement. We discussed things with them. Whether it was in Cold Lake, Halifax, Valcartier or Comox, I never got the impression that the people were nervous.

Of course, there may be circumstances where they show a little more reserve especially in discussions about the chain of command and so on. However, the mandate you have accepted deals with the social and economic needs of the Canadian Forces. It seems to me that matter is of great interest to everyone and they'll not only be putting out the red carpet for you but that they'll have a lot of points to mention along the way.

It would be impossible for me to orchestrate things so that people will all tell you: "Don't worry, our pay is good; our benefits are exactly what we want and there's no problem with housing, moving day and what not." No, no. I think you're going to get information you'll find useful and that I hope will also be useful for the government and that finally all this will be to the advantage of the Canadian Forces.

.1635

I listened very attentively to what you said. You said that you often had problems, when you were thinking about the ministers and generals and the military in figuring out "who's a crook and who's not". I think it would be legitimate to say that our soldiers, sailors and flyers perhaps share the same concern when they look at the politicians.

Mr. Leroux: Absolutely.

Mr. Brien: And we do understand them.

[English]

The Chair: Mr. Mills, did you want a second round, or Colonel Frazer? Go ahead.

Mr. Frazer (Saanich - Gulf Islands): It's Mr. Frazer.

Minister, I'd like to point out to you, having been on a few bases when there's been a minister's visit, perhaps you think you're getting the straight gen, and you may get it on some subjects, but with reference to your straight talk from people, when you've got the commanding officer and RSM or his equivalent standing next to you, you don't get very many straight answers.

Mr. Young: I don't allow them to stand around me, sir. I get off on my own. I can go to the bathroom alone.

Mr. Frazer: Did any of these people talk to you about their command structure, their discipline, about things that were sensitive within the unit? I don't think those things are forthcoming to the Minister of National Defence.

Mr. Young: In an open way.

Mr. Frazer: Incidentally, I forgot to welcome Admiral Murray and General Kinsman. It's good to see you both again.

Minister, you said you were concerned about the extension of the Somalia inquiry for two, three, and then later in your presentation you said as long as eight years.

Mr. Young: No, I didn't say that. The CBC said that.

Mr. Frazer: No, you said that right here, sir.

Mr. Young: But repeating that the CBC had said it, not me.

Mr. Frazer: In any case, it was said.

I think what has happened here is they've asked for a nine-month extension, from the end of March to the end of the year. And I don't see any reason why you couldn't say to them, all right, but this is the very last extension you get; there is none beyond that. That would be perhaps reasonable.

I think when you say ``carte blanche'', you're failing to recognize they have some common sense. And you obviously wouldn't appoint them unless you thought they had reasonable judgment. So I don't really follow your logic on that one.

To go to the Somalia thing, you say you know now what happened in the shooting; you know who pulled the trigger and you know who killed Shidane Arone. But do you know, Minister, what happened in National Defence headquarters at that time, after March 4, after March 16, until the end of March? I don't think you do. And we're not going to find out, because you shut the inquiry down.

Mr. Young: I think the question of what happened in Somalia in terms of the actual incidents is well known. I think what happened subsequent to that is widely accepted as having been intolerable. That is why, rather than waiting for.... And just to make sure we understand each other, I know the hon. member is not suggesting that I said it would take six to eight years. I said that the CBC had reported in the middle of January a very clear.... I remember seeing the chart as to how they had calculated the length of time it would likely take.

I think what's very important to understand is what's going on at the Department of National Defence headquarters now and what should go on six months or a year from now. I'm not certain that learning what went on in 1994 or 1995, as interesting as it may be, is going to be particularly helpful if we find it out in the year 2000.

What we've decided to do is to take very aggressive steps at coming forward with.... And there's been a lot of work done. I want to say that my predecessor and others have not been asleep at the switch for the last three or four years. There have been a lot of things done that we think are an improvement.

I want to say to the hon. member that I don't know what it was like 10, 15, 25 years ago in terms of personal experience, but there's no doubt in my mind that the glaring example of what went wrong with this has to do with the military justice system and the investigative capability within our institution. That's where I think it is. I've tried to get the best people I can to deal with it, and they've agreed to do it in two and a half months.

.1640

If you're going to give respect to people who took on a job in 1995, knowing that the mandate called for a report at the end of December 1995.... We've extended it three times since then, at their request - three times. We have never said no. It has been yes, yes, and yes. But with the third yes we said please get it over with by the end of June.

When we asked to have the military justice system looked into, which, as the hon. member would know, is a very complicated, convoluted, and unique kind of arrangement, with all the evolution of the Charter of Rights and peacetime environment and after the Cold War and all the rest of it, and summary trials and all that, here's a retired Chief Justice of the Supreme Court saying yes, we will report by March 15 - with General Belzile, with J.W. Bird, and with a very strong team.

I want to say, with all due respect to the hon. member, I can't understand how three extensions, with a third extension having a final date three months later for report, can be construed as political interference when three extensions with a nine-month reporting date would not be - unless there's something symbolic in this situation about nine months.

Mr. Frazer: It's what the commissioners have asked for.

Mr. Young: The commission has asked for previous extensions. The commission took on a job with a mandate to finish by the end of 1995. I will never comment on their agenda, on their work plan, on how much they work, how long they work, who they call for witnesses, what their priorities were. That is something they had to determine.

Madam Chair, the one thing I will say, and I say it without any equivocation, is I believe the commissioners will report and that their report will be useful. I think it is likely to indicate their view of the world as it applies to inquiries. And there I think it will be very useful, as I've said in the House and elsewhere, to find out what political parties and politicians think about inquiries. Should they be, once they're instituted, a carte blanche? If they're not carte blanche they become whitewash. I can't subscribe to that kind of view.

It's a government responsibility to make sure that these exercises are useful in a contemporary context, and that's what, for better or for worse, we had to decide with respect to this. But at the end of the day, if we have managed to improve the response....

I don't want the honourable gentleman to comment on this, Madam Chair, but I will say - and certainly Secretary Cohen of the United States is getting a rude welcome into his position with our neighbour to the south - I regretted the implication in an earlier question or comment that somehow I condoned or that I accepted that these incidents would happen and they're fine. No. What I said was in an institution with 60,000, 90,000, 100,000 people there will always be incidents. Where we have fouled up is in how we respond to them, and that's what we're going to try to address with the report of Mr. Justice Dickson with respect to the military justice system.

On the rest of it, I guess I'll have to wear it. I'm sure that the hon. member and a lot of his colleagues will be looking very closely at what we're recommending. I hope they'll have suggestions before I put it in. I'll be prepared to listen to what they have to say after it gets there.

The Chair: Thank you, Minister.

Mr. Calder, five minutes.

Mr. Calder (Wellington - Grey - Dufferin - Simcoe): Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

Minister, I've enjoyed listening to this. I normally sit on the Standing Committee on Agriculture, but I'm in here today learning something.

Mr. Young: There's a little fertilizer going around here too.

Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

Mr. Calder: I have a question. It's very seldom I pick up a newspaper that I'm not intensely proud that I'm a Canadian. I know how well respected Canada is internationally. And from that respect it seems to be that we're being asked more and more every day to become involved in peacekeeping. Quite frankly, Canada is looked at as going in without any real vested interest in anything other than keeping the peace.

On the other hand, in 1994 the defence white paper reduced our armed forces down to 60,000 uniformed personnel. It seems to be a real conflict that we're becoming more involved in peacekeeping and yet we've reduced our armed forces. Quite frankly, I'd imagine it's a tremendous strain on the personnel and their families and everything by the extra load that's being put on them.

I have two questions. What is National Defence doing to harmonize these two goals? And secondly, is it actually possible for the forces to reduce postings and assignments while still participating in peacekeeping at current levels?

.1645

Mr. Young: Although this deals with the operational side, it certainly has a great deal of relevance to the overall question the committee has agreed to address.

Let me say that the treadmill one hon. member referred to earlier is obviously a major problem for us. We cannot continue rotating our people as often as we are, and not just because of the work they have to do and the stress it puts on the system. They're not necessarily going into the same kind of environment, so the training has to be different. You have to tailor the training for the mission. Quite frankly, we're not getting enough time to do that, and the people in the forces know that. They don't gripe about it; they simply point it out. And when I'm out there with them, I will say to my honourable friend, they do talk about these kinds of things very openly, saying they have to get more time between assignments, between missions, to make sure they're properly equipped, properly trained, properly rested, and so forth.

I don't think I had better start reporting to the committee before I report to the Prime Minister on recommendations, but I can guarantee you that I will be making a very strong case in my report to the Prime Minister that the government, not the Canadian forces, must set a policy that is responsible vis-à-vis the resources of the Canadian forces, both human and equipment-wise.

We cannot be the hotline that rings from all over the world, on every situation, and just say yes, we want to go. The beauty of it is that it's a conundrum in the sense that it is absolute proof of the respect the world has for Canada and the Canadian forces. They don't call because you're no good. They don't call because your leadership is no good. They don't call because you're not properly equipped. They call because they know that for years we've done as good a job or a better job than anybody else in the world.

On the other hand, we can't continue to just respond without taking into account what the hon. member has put forward, and that will certainly be a focus of the report I will be making, in terms of policy, roles, responsibilities, and resources. But it also is absolutely critical, because even if we do diminish the demands on the Canadian forces in these kinds of situations, it still is absolutely essential that when they do go they are supported and they are resourced in ways we've addressed in the request we've made to you that you should consider as part of your study.

The Chair: Thank you very much, Minister.

Mr. Bertrand.

Mr. Bertrand (Pontiac - Gatineau - Labelle): Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

First of all, Mr. Minister, I'd like to welcome you and your guests to our committee.

My question this afternoon is on the reserves. As you know, this committee has reviewed the structures and the roles of the reserves, which you mentioned in your opening remarks. This committee has made quite a few suggestions on different ways to help the reserve forces to become more effective. The government and the regular forces tend to expect more from the reserves now, but we found during our hearings that the reservists do not receive the same pay and benefits as the regular forces receive. If memory serves me correctly, we recommended that reservists receive the same compensation when they do the same work. Could you tell me what's being done to address this inequality?

Mr. Young: One of the things I said in my opening statement is that you have to come to us with a package that includes the reserves, and you have to address the question of equity. I think there's an absolute need on the people side to make sure that it is fair and that it encourages, because we're trying, as you know, to build the reserve militia into 30,000. That's what the flexibility that's built into the system will allow for. So I think the exercise on which you're embarking as a committee has to take into account the reserves from that perspective.

But let me add to it, because I don't think the Government of Canada has done a very good job here on a number of fronts. After going to present private sector companies with awards on allowing reservists to do things and to come back to work and to be well treated by companies, police forces, municipalities, and provincial governments, when I looked into it, the Government of Canada is not doing its job.

.1650

I've asked my deputy minister to instruct or to contact her colleagues to ensure that at that level all departments become proactive in advising people that they can participate. I have written to all of my colleagues ministerially and said that we're going to prepare an information program to make sure that the Government of Canada becomes a leader in encouraging our own public servants to become, if they wish, reservists. I think we have a long way to go, and I think we should be demonstrating more leadership there.

I also think it's very important that as we move through the system we are very careful about this review that's going on, that it be a legitimate review. I referred today to the criteria. It will be politicized. I mean, nobody wants to lose an armoury. Nobody wants to lose a unit. But it'll have to work in the total force concept. The training will have to be there, the capacity to resource. Whatever the arrangements are they will have to be there. We will be doing that.

Admiral Murray and others - and I will be meeting with them soon - will be made even more aware of my interest in the reserves. Again, in my travels across the country I'm getting a lot of information from people who feel - and I'm not sure if it's an attitude or it's historical or anything else - there has to be an absolutely bona fide, total commitment on the part of the government, the Department of National Defence and the regular forces to ensure that the reserves are treated fairly and equitably and that the policy of including them and supporting them the way we do the regular forces be respected. We're going to be very forceful in that area.

The Chair: You have 45 seconds, Mr. Bertrand.

Mr. Bertrand: Coming back to what you said about supporting them, when it comes to deployment do reservists receive the same support as regular forces? Do their families receive the same support as regular forces?

Mr. Young: It's very difficult - and there are relatively few people - because of where they come from and how they're organized. Part of the work that goes on, as has been said by some of our colleagues today, is civilian community support. A lot of it is support from families in the Canadian forces and members of the Canadian forces, spouses who get involved in all types of activities that are supportive of people whose families are left behind on deployment.

It's no doubt a major challenge for reservists. They don't have, in many instances, that kind of networking in the community. They tend to have a very different kind of lifestyle and probably live in areas where there's not as much proximity to support as would occur in the regular forces.

Again, these are questions you will have to address and are very important. I'll tell you what; reservists or regulars, we can talk about the treadmill and everything else, but I have never seen, in any organization I've been associated with, the kind of ``I want to get it done'' attitude we find in the Canadian forces.

I talked about Zaire. I had young people say to me, Minister, I hope you have lots of life insurance, because if you're here today to announce that we're going to Zaire, we'll trample you on the way to the front to sign up. I mean, this is what they sign up to do. It's not a mistake that they're in the Canadian forces. Most of them are absolutely committed to the kinds of missions they hope they'll be called upon to do. It's not always as easy for their families and their relatives.

The Chair: Thank you, Minister.

Mr. Brien, five minutes.

[Translation]

Mr. Brien: Minister, you say you're concerned with the military and social conditions. I'll tell you about the case in Moose Jaw. The Commissioner of Official Languages examined Moose Jaw and Bagotville and found that the Department of National Defence did not recognize the Official Languages Act.

In the Bagotville case, he does note that the services are offered nonetheless, but that in the case of Moose Jaw, francophones have problems getting service in French in the areas of education, health, culture and recreational activities. There's a legal battle going on presently on that whole matter and the Commissioner of Official Languages and the Department of National Defence are waiting for the court to interpret the Official Languages Act and decide what should be implemented.

I'll quote you a few excerpts from what was tabled in court by the Commissioner of Official Languages. He talks about:

Unequal treatment, systemic discrimination on the part of DND... against members of French-speaking families and military communities for at least 26 years...

Further on, he mentions:

Recurrent complaints against DND and the Canadian Forces, respondents, over a 26 year period showing repeated problems within DND and CF...

A bit further on, he says that the Department of National Defence and the Canadian Forces:

... have not undertaken appropriate follow-up for most complaints concerning services to family members of the military...

And it goes on.

.1655

On the other hand, the Commissioner of Official Languages investigator tabled an affidavit with the court. It says:

Nonetheless, the cases I investigated clearly show that career coordinators of the Canadian Forces show a clear penchant for ipso facto excluding any problem of a linguistic nature...

The most important part is coming up.

... and for deterring unit authorities from submitting that kind of case;

There are two elements to my question. You have a lot of experience and you told us about it earlier. What credibility will the members of this committee have when they go to Moose Jaw to meet these people who know that the problems have been known to exist for 26 years and that nothing has been done? Will those people trust us? Actually, it's a problem that was recently raised in the House and nothing was done in that forum either.

Secondly, can we actually expect that they'll make themselves heard when the Commissioner of Official Languages investigator had problems obtaining substantive testimony? People were afraid because of the threat that still hovers over them and that's made to hover by those who control individuals' careers within the Armed Forces.

You know very well yourselves that there are problems in this respect because you put a moratorium on all promotions at the beginning of January. So there is a problem there and this brings us back to the basic question: are people really going to talk and what kind of trust can they have in view of the problems that nothing is done about even though they are known? We're even going to have to do battle in court with the Commissioner of Official Languages just to get recognition for those services that should be given to them.

Mr. Young: The Moose Jaw situation was brought to my attention as soon as I took up my position in the department. I had a meeting with the Commissioner of Official Languages and some of his people not so long ago to discuss the specific case at Moose Jaw but also the whole problem of bilingualism within the Canadian Forces, especially in the area of services offered to francophones.

You will, however, understand that, as far as you're concerned, your credibility might be a bit of a problem in Moose Jaw. We all know about the Bloc Québécois' deep commitment to bilingualism in Quebec, but it will still be... Isn't that the case?

Mr. Brien: You have a lot of arguments, Minister.

Mr. Young: No, no.

Mr. Brien: One shouldn't exaggerate.

Mr. Young: As a French-speaking Canadian from the north of New Brunswick, I'm always puzzled by the Bloc's commitment to bilingualism and the English fact in Quebec.

Mr. Brien: It's a good thing we're there to see to francophones' interests in Moose Jaw.

Mr. Young: That's why I'm raising the question. I'm making no secret of what I think of you or what you think of me. What happens in Moose Jaw or elsewhere will be based on my commitment to bilingualism in New Brunswick throughout my political career. I have met with the Commissioner of Official Languages to tell him of my interest in this matter and we will try to improve the situation.

There is no doubt - and I'm going to be very serious on that - that in an institution like the Canadian Forces or the Public Service, it is extremely difficult to change the way things are done. This could be any committee; I could be here as minister of another department and you could bring us facts showing that the situation is difficult. The situation is not always respectful of the Official Languages Act, but progress is being made.

Regarding the situation in Moose Jaw, as I said, I met the Commissioner and will continue to try to improve the situation. If you are asking me bluntly if I am satisfied with the situation, the answer is no. No, I am not, and I hope that once you have completed your work you will have recommendations to make that will help improve a situation that is ongoing. In your case, you mentioned 26 years. In my case, I can tell you without hesitation that it has been going on for a lot longer.

[English]

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Minister. I'm told you have to leave at 5 p.m.

Mr. Young: I don't mind one more round here. I always try to be equitable.

The Chair: All right. Mr. Mills.

Mr. Mills: Thank you.

I have a couple of comments. I hear with interest what Justice Dickson is going to accomplish in a short period of time. As you know, Justice Létourneau today said if he knew before being appointed what he knows how about how the government would treat the commission he never would have accepted the position. That's a pretty strong indictment.

.1700

Second, you say all the things that we know happened from mid-March to the end of March 1993 are terrible. I guess I could accept that if Mr. Fowler and Ms Campbell had not received high government appointments. I could believe the honesty of that - that it doesn't matter and we'll go on, that's history. But when they receive these kinds of government appointments, that's in fact saying, ``You done good, guys''.

The Chair: Question, Mr. Mills.

Mr. Mills: I would like to make a motion.

The Chair: Mr. Mills, you are out of order.

Mr. Mills: I move that Kim Campbell, Robert Fowler, John Anderson -

The Chair: Order.

Mr. Mills: - John de Chastelain and Barry Armstrong -

The Chair: Mr. Mills, you can make a motion -

Mr. Mills: - be required to appear before a joint committee -

The Chair: Order.

Mr. Mills: - of foreign affairs -

The Chair: Mr. Mills, if you have a question for the minister -

Mr. Young: I made a hell of a mistake by being polite. I won't let it happen again.

The Chair: I know, Mr. Minister. I apologize.

Mr. Mills, I am perfectly happy to let you make your motion. You told me you had a question for the minister. I think you should apologize to this committee.

Mr. Mills: I was concerned about the time, Madam Chairman.

The Chair: You will be allowed, and have, the time to make your motion, obviously. But I really think it was unfair of you to misrepresent this, to mislead us that you had a question.

Mr. Mills: I have lots of questions.

The Chair: The minister gave you the time. We are now over that time. Clearly there is no time.

I thank the minister and Admiral Murray and General Kinsman for their participation. The committee will do its very best to follow its mandate.

I would ask the members of the committee to stay. We have several motions to deal with, which will be dealt with, as they always are, expeditiously, I trust.

Thank you very much, Mr. Minister.

Mr. Young: Thank you all very much.

The Chair: Now, I understand I have two motions.

Mr. Bertrand, you have a housekeeping motion.

Mr. Bertrand: I move that the committee authorize the expenditures for the working luncheon hosted by the chair for visiting members of the defence committee of the German Bundestag, which took place on Monday, February 10.

An hon. member: I second the motion.

[Translation]

Mr. Brien: Could you repeat that in French, please?

.1705

Mr. Bertrand: That the committee authorize the expenditures for the luncheon we had last Monday when the German parliamentarians visited us.

[English]

Mr. Brien: Okay.

Motion agreed to

The Chair: Mr. Mills, you have a motion.

Mr. Mills: I move that Kim Campbell, Robert Fowler, John Anderson, John de Chastelain and Barry Armstrong be required to appear before a joint committee of foreign affairs and national defence at the earliest possible date.

The Chair: My immediate reaction is that this motion is out of order. I think you'd have to do a motion to ask for a joint committee. However, I am prepared to let the motion go to a vote if you have a seconder.

Mr. Frazer: I second it.

[Translation]

Mr. Brien: The motion must be debated.

The Chairman: Fine, Mr. Brien. Just a moment, please.

[English]

Can we get to the mover first, Mr. Brien. Just try to contain your excitement.

Mr. Mills.

Mr. Mills: I base this motion on what the minister said, that obviously he wants to clear up that cloud, if there is one. This is an opportunity where possibly the committees could, together, because they both have mutual interest in this, help to clear this up for the Canadian public. That's the motive for it. It would then sidestep the problem we have with the Somalia inquiry.

The Chair: Thank you. Mr. Brien.

[Translation]

Mr. Brien: Thank you for being so patient, Madam Chair, and for giving me the floor with all the indulgence you are famous for. I would greatly appreciate your letting me speak, as I do when you make your frequent comments.

This motion is appropriate, because as members of the Standing Committee on Defence, we must be extremely concerned with what is happening at National Defence, with everything involving the Commission of Inquiry on Somalia and with the lack of public confidence in the Armed Forces. Add the political aspect of the issue to that. It would be interesting for us to do some of the work that the Commission of Inquiry on Somalia will not be able to do, i.e. hear important key witnesses. As judge Létourneau explained, there are reasons, that we all know, that are such that he will not be able to complete the third part of his inquiry.

Having said that, it would be quite appropriate to give these people who are involved and whose names have been mentioned frequently a chance. Some are political figures who held important positions at that time - Ms Campbell, for example - and they must be given the opportunity to appear before the committee.

I hope that the Liberal members especially, who should be concerned with shedding light on this situation before the election, will support the motion tabled by the Reform Party so that we can allow these people to speak once and for all, to give their points of view, with the understanding that we will not conduct as extensive an inquiry as the commissioners would have. We could at least give those people a chance to express themselves publicly. It will be up to us to ask them the questions that appear important to us. That will force some of you to study the issue more closely and to change your minds. It will enable us to shed more light on the whole situation, for public opinion in general, on the eve of a vote or an election, and a time frame that, obviously, people with political interests are trying to circumvent.

I would like us to be able to meet these witnesses over the next few weeks. My colleague and I will both be supporting this motion.

[English]

The Chair: Thank you very much.

I call the question.

[Translation]

Mr. Leroux: Madam Chair, I would also like to comment if possible.

[English]

The Chair: Oh, sure.

[Translation]

Mr. Leroux: That would perhaps help balance the opposing forces. The current Minister of National Defence seems to be a strong man, but...

[English]

The Chair: One moment. I'm not sure if I got the right translation here. Did you say a certain amount of ``malice''?

Mr. Leroux: No, ``balance''.

The Chair: Oh, oh. Thank you.

.1710

[Translation]

Mr. Leroux: I think that the Minister, who to my mind is a strong man in the Liberal Party and who is experienced, has become weaker in the face of the Forces' military power by deciding to put an end to the Commission. Perhaps by meeting the people here that the Commission will not have the time to hear, we will be able to balance the opposing forces and shed light on the allegations that seem troubling, to say the least.

Therefore, I too will support the Reform Party motion. It is important for us to do the work that we must do.

[English]

The Chair: Mr. Frazer, briefly.

Mr. Frazer: Madam Chair, I want to assure you that I haven't made, and do not intend to make, accusations against anybody in the Somali inquiry thing, but I do think the Canadian public, and the Canadian military particularly, needs to have the accusations dealt with - either refuted or found to have some validity. If we don't do that, we won't have addressed the perception that there are two levels of justice - that when you're at the low end, you get the stick, and when you're at the high end, you get the carrot. So I think it's vital that we try to deal with these matters and see these people.

The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr. Frazer.

I now call the question.

Mr. Frazer: Polled vote, please, Madam Chair.

The Chair: Fine with me.

Motion negatived: nays 5; yeas 4

The Chair: We are adjourned.

Return to Committee Home Page