David Collenette

[Somalia Inquiry, September 19th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member has uttered an absolute untruth. I am sure she has done this inadvertently. I defy her to show any time where I reflected upon evidence before that inquiry.

[Somalia Inquiry, September 19th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member says the government cannot have it both ways. I would submit that her party cannot have it both ways. Her party advocated the establishment of the commission. That commission, as I have reminded hon. members, will allow for an impartial setting to hear all of the evidence and have everyone dealt with fairly.

However, for the last three days in the House, if we look at Hansard , what have we seen? We have seen accusations coming from the other side, imputation of motive and reflection upon evidence. One cannot one day advocate having an inquiry with an impartial setting and then the next day come in the House of Commons and do the opposite. It is the opposition that wants it both ways.

[Department Of National Defence, September 18th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I think it is leadership to deal with a department that over the years of the cold war unfortunately had developed administrative practices that needed to be streamlined, that had an officer corps that became too large for its needs.

We all agree on these things. I have heard the hon. member say them at committee.

We have shown leadership in setting up the inquiry to deal with the very unfortunate events that happened in Somalia. We will continue to show leadership. In fact the chief of the defence staff today outlined his vision of leadership for the 21st century for the forces.

I have met with many of the senior leaders of the forces in the last number of weeks. Despite the problems that are really wrenching at the very heart of the armed forces, they see light at the end of the tunnel. They see that improvements have been made so that they can meet the challenges of the years ahead.

[Department Of National Defence, September 18th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I have great respect for the hon. member. He had a distinguished career in the armed forces. However, even he has to acknowledge-he has been a member of the defence committee, he participated in the deliberations that led up to the white paper, he knows despite what he said today-that we have revitalized the leadership of the forces; that we have re-engineered the department, that we are saving money; that we are bringing business methods into play to save the taxpayers' money.

The leadership we are bringing forward now is a new generation that reflects the norms and values of Canadian society today. I am sorry the hon. member is uncomfortable with that.

[Government Contracts, September 18th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I am sorry. I did not quite catch the name of the company to which the member is referring. Is he still referring to the armoured personnel contract or is he referring to the search and rescue helicopter contract?

One thing the hon. member and his colleagues in opposition conveniently forget is that much of the industry of Canada's military infrastructure is located in Quebec. The proportion of work that goes to the industries in Quebec is actually higher than the percentage of population of Quebec versus the nation as a whole.

While it may be true that in certain contracts work is not of a proportion that is acceptable to the hon. member, when we look at all of it, at the work that goes to Bombardier, to Marconi, to Oerlikon, Quebec does very well.

[Government Contracts, September 18th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, as members know, about a year ago we announced one of the purchases which was outlined in the white paper for armoured personnel carriers. This was a solely directed contract to General Motors Diesel Division in London, Ontario. Negotiations are taking place right now between the government and General Motors under the auspices of my colleague the minister for government services.

There has been some concern about the nature of the work and how much of it will be done in Canada. A question has arisen with respect to the capability of a company in Quebec. Because of the concerns that the government and General Motors had, those matters were referred to an independent third party who has made a report.

The negotiations are between General Motors and the government. This is a commercial, contractual relationship which I am sure will stand great scrutiny.

[National Defence, September 18th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member must get his jokes from the same barber his leader uses.

We have here a group of people in opposition who congratulated the government when it established the inquiry. They do not want to do the decent thing and wait for the inquiry to do its work, to report and then make judgments.

[Translation]

[National Defence, September 18th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, not only has the hon. member and his colleagues shown contempt for the inquiry by continually reflecting on evidence at the commission, but today he goes further. He is reflecting on the military justice system. He is bringing forward the names of individuals who are now subject to certain processes within the department and within the armed forces. He is using their names and bringing them to the floor of the House of Commons.

This is something that must not be done. I am surprised at that. The hon. member, as a former employee of the armed forces, should know better than to do that in a public way. It shows contempt of the entire judicial process.

[The Somalia Inquiry, September 18th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, once again members of the opposition are prejudging testimony and coming to conclusions about the evidence that has been presented to the inquiry. That is not the way the inquiry process works and that is not the way Canadian justice works.

I hope the hon. member will do everyone a favour and wait for the report to be issued by the commissioners so that everyone's testimony and all the facts can be judged in a clear cool light.

[The Somalia Inquiry, September 18th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, the terms of reference for this inquiry are well known. They are well established. The commission is to issue a report when it concludes its deliberations.

Those are the terms of reference given to the commission and those are the terms of reference with which the commission is comfortable. I ask the hon. members to await the conclusions of the commissioners.