House of Commons photoWon his last election, in 2000, with 67% of the vote.
National Defence September 17th, 1996
Mr. Speaker, once again we have to be fair. We have to be fair to everyone that appears before that inquiry and avoid jumping to conclusions.
Making premature judgments, jumping to conclusions is a denial of a basic right that Canadians have and that is to be heard in an impartial setting. We have established the inquiry to provide that setting. I am sure that everyone in the country appreciates the process, if not the hon. member across the way.
Somalia Inquiry September 17th, 1996
Mr. Speaker, one of the hallmarks of Canadian society is our fairness. It is our fairness to allow everybody to be heard, to have everyone's rights respected.
What that means in the case of the Somalia inquiry is to receive all the documentation, hear from all the witnesses and then to have the impartial commissioners make a judgment. When they report, which is due in March of next year, the government will respond to that report. In the meantime, it would be fundamentally wrong and a denial of due process to comment on any of the proceedings.
I would ask the hon. member to follow his own admonition.
Department Of National Defence September 17th, 1996
Mr. Speaker, once again the hon. member-as did his leader-reflected on statements and evidence that has been given at the inquiry. That is rather unfortunate.
A process is in place and that process has to be fair to individuals. It has to be fair to all the evidence that comes out before the commission. It has to be fair to the commissioners and it has to be fair to the Canadian public.
The hon. member has demonstrated that he does not have the degree of fairness in his political arsenal, his rhetorical arsenal. When it comes to the rights of individuals, again he is not being fair to a public employee whose rights have to be safeguarded. This government will safeguard that employee's rights by seeking adjudication by the courts.
Department Of National Defence September 17th, 1996
Mr. Speaker, it seems that the hon. member was so caught up with his own rhetoric yesterday that he failed to listen to the question that was posed by the member from the Bloc Quebecois who asked this very question, so I would like to repeat the answer.
We are going to court not to disagree in any way with the application of the Access to Information Act, but to safeguard the rights of a public employee. We believe that is paramount.
I do not believe I should say any more except that the courts are to adjudicate matters where there is a dispute.
The hon. member attacks this government as not being open. What could be more open than a public inquiry under the Inquiries Act, under the glare of television lights where people give evidence? That is openness. That is what this government believes in.
National Defence September 16th, 1996
Mr. Speaker, the hon. member asked me to do something. Where has he been for the last three years?
We have had a parliamentary debate on defence policy. We have instituted a white paper. We have a procurement policy of new equipment. We have re-equipped the army in a way that gives it the equipment to deal with the peacekeeping challenges of the future. We have delayered, restructured, reduced personnel by 25 per cent. We have closed 50 to 60 installations and bases with hardly a ripple across the country because we have done it fairly. I say that we have done a hell of a lot in the last three years.
National Defence September 16th, 1996
Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister dealt with those matters concerning the chief of defence staff.
It is very important to underline again at the end of question period that we should allow the inquiry to do its work, to deliberate and decide what constitutes those things which are of concern to it and to the Canadian people.
As I have said before, there are some people who cannot accept change and when they cannot accept change, they do the honourable thing and leave.
National Defence September 16th, 1996
Mr. Speaker, the government has instituted a lot of change in the Department of National Defence and the armed forces over the last few years.
Some people cannot accept change. We see that every day in the House of Commons by the performance of the hon. member and her colleagues. Those people who cannot accept change in the armed forces also include people at the general officer level. When they cannot accept change, they do the right thing by moving on.
We will continue the change. We will continue the revitalization of the officer corps, of getting better value for the taxpayers' money, of doing more with less. We will continue doing that.
If some members of the armed forces are uncomfortable with the direction we are taking the armed forces, then they are doing the honourable thing by leaving.
Department Of National Defence September 16th, 1996
Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister and I have answered those questions.
For those who say, as does the hon. member and colleagues in the Reform Party, that the military is in a mess, I would like them to tell that to the men and women who are serving in Bosnia, in Haiti and in the Middle East. I would like them to say that to the people who man our ships, our air crews and those who conduct search and rescue work. I would like them to say that to the 500 men and women of the air force and army who helped in the Saguenay flood. Is that a mess? That is an armed forces that works and works well in a difficult climate.
Department Of National Defence September 16th, 1996
Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is referring to an ongoing court case.
I have to be very wary about what I say. This case cannot be construed in any way as an attempt by the Department of National Defence or the government to deny the public its right to information.
The court challenge, which is now before the Federal Court, is what we believe to be about the inalienable rights of employees of the government to fair treatment, a right enjoyed and expected by all Canadians.
To ensure that an individual employee of ours, the Government of Canada, is not unfairly and irredeemably harmed, we are having this matter fully adjudicated by the courts. I think we should let the courts deal with it.
Department Of National Defence September 16th, 1996
Mr. Speaker, I am not going to lower myself to answer the ribald comments of the hon. member.
I want to take a minute to try to put this in context. Canada is not alone in dealing with problems with respect to the military following the end of the cold war. The Dutch have had to deal with the tragedy in Srebrenica. My friends in the United States have had to deal with problems within the navy. In Britain there are problems with the decommissioning of historic institutions, of structures. In Germany, it is the incorporation of a foreign army within the German army.
All of this has a common thread that Canada shares. In this changing world there is a need to redefine missions, to readjust one's priorities, readjust one's spending and also to adapt to the changing norms and values of contemporary society.
The Canadian forces are doing that, our allies are doing that.