Debates of May 12th, 1995

National Defence

[Jean H. Leroux, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Mr. Speaker, is it not the government's duty to shed light on this whole issue?

My question is for the Minister of National Defence. Given that the president of Agusta was arrested last week in Italy on charges of corruption, fraud and unethical practices in relation to several government contracts, how can the minister continue to refuse to investigate the circumstances surrounding the Canadian government's EH-101 contract with Agusta at a time when the government is about to pay millions of dollars for breaking its contract with the company?

[Brian Tobin, Liberal, Minister of Fisheries and Oceans]

Mr. Speaker, I do not know what the member is getting so excited about.

One of the very first actions of this government upon assuming office was to cancel the EH-101 helicopter contract. We are now performing the appropriate duty of concluding this whole arrangement in a responsible and appropriate way.

If the member is worried about people acting under undue influence, and he is raising the notion that someone is being cajoled into acting under undue influence, then he ought to be worried about a government that threatens people with a tax hike if they do not separate.

Somalia Inquiry

[Jim Hart, Reform, Okanagan—Similkameen—Merritt, BC]

Mr. Speaker, on April 24, Ruth Cardinal, the director general of public affairs for the Department of National Defence, addressed the Press Club of Canada.

She discussed the deployment of Canadian forces in Somalia and said: "In the airborne story Dr. Armstrong made some allegations. One of them was that two Somalis were shot in the back by Canadian soldiers. It seemed that his story did not have credence. This autopsy report done by an independent group proved Dr. Armstrong wrong".

My question for the Minister of National Defence is: How can the government tolerate such comments which not only contradict the minister's gag order of November 24 but also prejudice the inquiry?

[David Collenette, Liberal, Minister of National Defence and Minister of Veterans Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is quite correct in saying that in the House late last year, I publicly asked all members of the armed forces and of our department who had any information concerning the matters likely to be investigated by a potential commission to bring those matters forward to the commission once it was established.

If the utterances the hon. member quoted from are indeed accurate, and I have no direct knowledge today that they are although I am not saying they are not, then that individual will be reapprised of what I said before in the House. The individual will certainly be warned that any kind of comments made by anyone along those lines, especially someone in authority within our department, could be prejudicial. Those persons should go forward to the commission.

[Jim Hart, Reform, Okanagan—Similkameen—Merritt, BC]

Mr. Speaker, national defence is not only going out of its way to discredit the testimony of Dr. Armstrong, but it is actively removing him from any involvement with the commission's inquiry even though his November 1994 allegations compelled the minister to call an inquiry. Dr. Armstrong has conveniently been posted into the former Yugoslavia theatre, just in time for the inquiry to begin.

I heard the minister's answer the first time, but my question is: Why is DND attempting to remove Dr. Armstrong from the inquiry process in seeming contempt of the government's declared resolve to get to the bottom of the events in Somalia?

[David Collenette, Liberal, Minister of National Defence and Minister of Veterans Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, I answered that question in the following way.

Dr. Armstrong is a member of the Canadian Armed Forces and has certain skills. People have to be posted from time to time. Dr. Armstrong and anyone else who has relevant information will be made available to the inquiry. I will give my hon. friend that assurance.

I do resent the member and his colleagues continually asserting that members of the Canadian Armed Forces and the Department of National Defence and the government in general do not wish to get to the bottom of all the sorry events that unfolded in Somalia. That is false. That is why we have set up and called for the creation of a commission with the most wide

sweeping investigative powers probably in Canadian history. He and all Canadians will get the answers to all their questions in due course.

[Jim Hart, Reform, Okanagan—Similkameen—Merritt, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. minister can object all he likes but this is question period and these are the questions which are on the minds of Canadians.

The director general of public affairs was hand picked by Bob Fowler. It is amazing how often that name comes up. This inquiry has been tainted from the start. What role is Ruth Cardinal playing in the Somalia inquiry?

[David Collenette, Liberal, Minister of National Defence and Minister of Veterans Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member has just made a very serious charge.

The government has appointed a commission of inquiry under part II of the Inquiries Act. The terms of reference for that inquiry have not been challenged by anyone in the House, by the media or anyone else in the country. Two of the three members of the inquiry are learned members of Canada's judiciary.

I want the hon. member to come forward with absolute proof. Bring the proof to the House of Commons as to why those honourable people on the inquiry are in some way unable to discharge their functions. This inquiry will get to the bottom of all the allegations regarding our deployment in Somalia. I would ask the hon. member that unless he has proof, please do not come to the House and cast aspersions against hon. members especially of Canada's judiciary.

National Defence

[Philippe Paré, Bloc, Louis-Hébert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of National Defence.

This morning in Belgium, NATO Secretary General Willy Claes was again questioned by Belgian authorities about bribes totalling US $1,720,000 paid by Agusta, an Italian company, in order to obtain a contract for the purchase of 46 EH-101 helicopters by Belgium.

In the light of these new developments, could the Minister of National Defence indicate whether Canada intends to ask that NATO Secretary General Willy Claes be relieved of his duties, at least for the duration of the investigation?

[David Collenette, Liberal, Minister of National Defence and Minister of Veterans Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, this is somewhat reminiscent of the earlier questions from the Reform Party.

As I understand it, certain accusations have been made and levelled against members of the party of Mr. Claes when he was a politician in Belgium. To my knowledge, none of those accusations have been proven. It is rather unfortunate that people in public positions have to wear guilt where no guilt has actually been proven.

In the case of Mr. Claes, he is discharging his duties well. He recently visited Canada and met with my colleague the Minister of Foreign Affairs and myself. Unless we have any other reason to believe that Mr. Claes would not be an appropriate person to head NATO, Mr. Claes will continue with the full confidence of all the member countries within NATO.

[Philippe Paré, Bloc, Louis-Hébert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, considering that Canada contributes $200 million every year towards the financing of NATO, how can the Minister of National Defence be so optimistic about Mr. Claes's integrity when he is being investigated by the police on a bribery charge?

[David Collenette, Liberal, Minister of National Defence and Minister of Veterans Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, unlike hon. members in the opposition, we do not convict people simply on wild insinuations and accusations. If the hon. member or anyone else has proof of wrongdoing involving anyone, including a public servant in an international forum like NATO, then those people, including the hon. member, should make that proof public.

The Environment

[Ed Harper, Reform, Simcoe Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, for weeks the Deputy Prime Minister has been whining to the national media that the environment is not high enough on the public agenda and she has the gall to blame it on the Reform Party.

The auditor general's report clearly shows that environment is not high on the list because the Deputy Prime Minister has not done anything.

Over 1,000 federal PCB sites have needed cleaning up since 1993, at a cost of nearly $2 billion. These sites may pose a real danger to Canadians. What is the government's timetable for cleaning up PCB sites?

[Sheila Copps, Liberal, Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of the Environment]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the Reform Party. It has finally asked a question on the environment. It is the first question in a year and a half.

In particular I want to thank the auditor general for focusing on areas which are of very serious public concern. I believe, Mr. Speaker, if you speak to the auditor general he will tell you that one of the reasons he undertook this very thorough environmental analysis was at my request in anticipation of the new role of his department as commissioner for sustainable development.

I will tell the hon. member that last month I gave the order to cancel the federal PCB site program because over the last six years under the green plan millions of dollars were spent to look for places to burn PCBs and they did not find a single site. I did not think it was a good use of taxpayers money. I ordered an end to the program.

I have further ordered that we work with the Department of Public Works to have all federal PCBs burned where there is a legally sanctioned facility in the province of Alberta.

[Ed Harper, Reform, Simcoe Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am still waiting for the answer.

The Reform Party has always said that cleaning up Canada's environment is a top priority and we are on record with that plan. It is this level of government that lacks leadership in the area.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh.

[Ed Harper, Reform, Simcoe Centre, ON]

You may learn something if you listen. Pay attention.

The auditor general stated clearly in his report that the government has failed to create a national plan or to set money aside to clean up contaminated sites that pose a risk to human health and the environment. Why does the government not have such a plan? Where does it plan to get the money to meet its obligations?

[Sheila Copps, Liberal, Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of the Environment]

Mr. Speaker, the member obviously did not listen to the answer to his first question.

He asked a question about PCBs. I told him that I cancelled the program because we had spent $20 million travelling around the country and we had not destroyed a single PCB. I did not think it was a very good use of taxpayers money, given that there is a licensed facility in Alberta. I am working with the Department of Public Works. We will meet our agenda. We will meet the 1996 deadline. We will probably have all PCBs destroyed by the end of this year.

I also reiterated the position that we will take responsibility and we will clean up all federal contaminated sites. We will not endorse the concept of orphan sites because we believe in the unanimous resolution of ministers of the environment from every province, which was stated two years ago and restated last year, that the concept of orphan sites leaves polluting companies off the hook.

The commissioner for sustainable development would be the first one to underscore that if company x makes a mess of the environment company x should pay the liability for the clean up. That is not a liability to be borne by the taxpayers and that is why the federal and provincial governments have banned the concept of orphan sites.

National Defence

[Maurice Godin, Bloc, Châteauguay, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of National Defence. Last week the Minister of Transport announced that he had asked the auditor general to review the $380 million contract awarded to Hughes Aircraft Canada for automation of the air traffic control system. Work on this contract is already two years behind schedule, and the total cost may be two and a half times the initial cost.

What explanation does the Minister of National Defence have for the fact that his department approved a similar contract for $70 million with Hughes Aircraft Canada, when more than 16 months ago, he was informed by federal auditors of the delays and cost overruns that occurred in the case of the contract with Transport Canada?

[David Collenette, Liberal, Minister of National Defence and Minister of Veterans Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, national defence has been working alongside people in Transport Canada and I along with my colleague, the Minister of Transport, on these matters.

Should any changes be required to the defence air traffic control side of these contracts those changes will be made.

[Maurice Godin, Bloc, Châteauguay, QC]

Mr. Speaker, considering the poor performance of the Minister of National Defence in controlling costs and considering that this contract shows cost overruns of 150 per cent, why did he not follow the example of his colleague at the Department of Transport and ask the auditor general to investigate this contract?

[David Collenette, Liberal, Minister of National Defence and Minister of Veterans Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, as I have said, the lead on the air traffic control system comes from my colleague, the Minister of Transport. He has taken certain steps with which I concur. Certainly the Department of National

Defence will be co-operating with him and with any investigation done by the auditor general on these contracts.

Auditor General's Report

[Ken Epp, Reform, Elk Island, AB]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Deputy Prime Minister.

Yesterday's auditor general report stated that even the best codes of conduct or conflict of interest guidelines could not protect Canadians from a government that was not fundamentally honest. The report made clear that we could not expect ethical behaviour from public servants if we do not have it from their leadership, the cabinet.

After appointing an ethics counsellor that is completely beholden to the office so that he will forever be able to hide all ethics scandals, how could the Prime Minister expect his public servants to behave ethically even when they know they cannot get caught?

[Art Eggleton, Liberal, President of the Treasury Board and Minister responsible for Infrastructure]

Mr. Speaker, in addition to all of what I enunciated yesterday in terms of the high level of ethical standards that the government espouses and that the public service carries out, my colleague, the House leader, put before the House a proposition for a special joint committee of the Senate and the House of Commons on a code of conduct.

I understand the difficulty is that the members opposite in the Reform Party are filibustering the attempt to set it up. If they would get behind this effort we could even go an extra step. We already have the ethics counsellor, the code of employment and conflict of interest. We have already changed the Lobbyists Registration Act. We have already changed the certification of lobbyists with respect to contracts. We have done a great deal. I think the auditor general recognized that in his report.

There is always room for more improvement and we will carry out more improvement. A lot has been done. Let them come on side in terms of getting through the proposition the House leader has put before us on a code of conduct.

[Ken Epp, Reform, Elk Island, AB]

Mr. Speaker, there is a great difference between filibustering and promoting a logical solution to a problem. We want the ethics counsellor to be independent. That was my question; that is what I was talking about. That is why my question is again directed to the Deputy Prime Minister.

We noticed that in the last few days no one has questioned the authenticity of the report of the auditor general. No one questions his findings as being inaccurate. No one questions that he is not thorough. We all find him trustworthy and believable. Why? It is because he is independent. That is the reason.

I ask again, again and again until finally I hope the logic gets through: When will we have the assurance that the ethics counsellor will enjoy the same independence as the auditor general has? That is what we are asking and we want an answer to that.