Douglas Young

[National Defence, April 11th, 1997]

No, Mr. Speaker, but when I come face to face with incomprehension, I certainly realize it.

There is no doubt that some of the 65 recommendations we made in fact concern a number of the points the hon. member has raised. However, I would point out to him that the recommendations on the military justice system and the operation of the military police were prepared and submitted to the Prime Minister and the government without a single letter being changed. The recommendations are the result of work presided over by a former chief justice of the Supreme Court of Canada.

I think the hon. member should make sure his facts are right and that he understands what he is saying when he refers to the recommendations on the military justice system and the military police. Because when the time comes to judge the content, I believe the opinions of the hon. member will be measured against the ability of the former chief justice of the Supreme Court of Canada.

[National Defence, April 11th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, we tried to take into account a number of recommendations that came from a lot of people, not just Professor Legault.

I would point out to my colleague that, as regards the system of military justice and the operation of the military police, we will be establishing a tribunal to oversee the activities of the military justice system and to look into complaints about the system. This is completely outside the chain of command of the Canadian forces and outside the bureaucracy of the Department of National Defence. It will report directly to the Minister of National Defence.

However, as is generally the case, because he has no regulatory power but rather the power to verify and encourage so that the appropriate changes are made in cases where the system has treated individuals unfairly, the ombudsman is to report, as is often the case, to those persons in a position to make the necessary changes.

In the case of National Defence, the ombudsman's reports will be made public as will those of the tribunal I have just mentioned. This will, I think, ensure a transparency heretofore unknown in the organization of the Department of National Defence.

[Employment Insurance, April 11th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, we will do everything we can to act as quickly as possible.

My only regret is that the hon. member is surrounded by people who once sat on this side of the House as members of the Conservative government, including the leader at headquarters in Quebec City, and all these people let this situation go on for many years. However, we will act a lot quicker than the hon. member may think, and I want to thank him for recognizing the fact that we reacted appropriately to a problem that had to be dealt with.

[Employment Insurance, April 11th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for the question he asked a few weeks ago.

I would like to point out, however, that all employees are not necessarily covered by the act because if I am not mistaken, the Sûreté du Québec is not covered, since the Quebec government decided it would be better for employees of the Sûreté not to be covered.

However, since the hon. member raised a matter I thought was very important, we looked to the whole picture. Since it is a fundamental principle to ensure that all Canadians who have a job have access to the employment insurance program, we are now changing the regulations at the Department of National Defence to give members of the reserve access to the employment insurance program, even for a period of less than 30 days.

[Military Bases, April 11th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I think the only thing toxic is whatever the hon. member is sniffing.

What we are trying to achieve here is an arrangement whereby the American government takes some responsibility for a situation that has developed over the last 40 or 50 years.

The hon. member may have a slight capacity of recall that there was a second world war. Subsequent to that there was a cold war, during which time American military establishments were set up in various parts of the country.

We have come a long way in trying to negotiate a deal with the American authorities to assist us in the clean-up of a number of these sites.

The number he referred to, specifically the $500 million figure, was not a number put forward by the Canadian government. It was a number that may have been put forward by someone else. The $100 million U.S. that has been agreed to, contingent on approval by the American Congress is, we feel, a significant improvement over what anybody else has been able to negotiate with the Americans subsequent to their deployment to various parts of the world.

I know if the hon. gentleman took on this cause and went to Washington to meet with his friend Newt Gingrich and others, he would scare the hell out of the Americans and would get whatever he wants.

[Military Bases, April 11th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I know the hon. member is in the grip of this monumental question that was resolved last fall. The fact is an agreement has been achieved with respect to the clean-up of a number of bases, including distant early warning systems at Argentia, Goose Bay and a couple of others. However, it is a contingent agreement because it still remains to be dealt with by the American government.

What we are looking at is, hopefully, that there will be a resolution on the basis of this tentative deal, but we are still making sure that there is progress toward a final resolution which will include the decision of the Government of the United States through the U.S. Congress.

[Military Bases, April 10th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member obviously is very familiar with embarrassment.

I want to assure him that when the president of the United States came to Canada to discuss various kinds of arrangements we need to enter into with that country, he was very well received.

Even the hon. member would accept that when the Prime Minister of Canada visited Washington this week he was very well received compared to the visit of the member's leader to see Newt Gingrich. I guess it is all a question of who is operating the Kodak.

[Military Bases, April 10th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, there are negotiations ongoing with the United States as a result of several installations, including the installations to the north for the radar warning systems that were there for many years, Argentia and other areas where American facilities were stationed for long periods of time.

This is nothing new. We have been discussing the potential for American participation in a clean-up activity. When those negotiations are concluded, particularly when the American Congress approves any final settlement, we will be happy to advise the hon. member of the outcome.

[Somalia Inquiry, April 7th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, obviously I have considerable respect for the hon. member, but she has just alleged that a deputy minister committed certain acts.

In my opinion, she should pause to reflect before repeating such allegations outside the Parliament of Canada, because it is a fairly serious allegation to suggest that such an act was committed by a public official who was working at the time under the tutelage of a minister of national defence who subsequently became the Prime Minister of Canada. If the hon. member has knowledge in this regard, I am certain she will want to pursue her allegations outside the House.

[Somalia Inquiry, April 7th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, in the decision of the justice of the Federal Court, it was clear that the government was given certain options to ensure that the commissioners were not asked to report on situations they had not examined.

Obviously, it made perfectly good sense not to ask people to report on matters they had no knowledge of. However, the hon. member is no doubt aware that the terms of reference given the commissioners by the government indicate clearly that they are to report on what occurred prior to the incidents in Somalia and on anything else they feel competent to comment on or reach conclusions about.