David Collenette

[Department Of National Defence, May 8th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, much of what the auditor general said yesterday in his report has been debated in the House. It has been the subject of questions and answers in question period.

Since this government has come to power we have addressed those concerns. We have re-equipped by announcing the armoured personnel carrier purchase. We have provided new bullet proof vests, new guns, new night time vision goggles. We have given a lot of new equipment to the army so it can do its job in peacekeeping missions.

[Department Of National Defence, May 8th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I answered this question fully yesterday.

Members of the armed forces must be very cognizant of the fiscal realities facing the country. They have to be very careful how they administer their budgets.

The example given yesterday was obviously extravagant and unacceptable. I appreciate that in military tradition ceremony is very important, but this must be balanced with the need to be prudent with taxpayer money.

[Somalia Inquiry, May 8th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, to turn the hon. member's comment on him, sometimes I wonder what is going on in his head because he obviously does not pay attention to the facts.

The Minister of National Defence does not get involved in disciplinary matters with the Canadian forces. That is a matter for the forces to deal with. However, I can assure the hon. member and all members that no member of the armed forces will be prevented from giving information to the Somalia commission.

[Somalia Inquiry, May 8th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member has not addressed all the facts correctly.

Any member of the armed forces has the right, the duty and the obligation to make evidence available to the commission. I have stated that in the House previously and I state it again today. The obligation to make evidence available does not obviate their responsibility under the National Defence Act to abide by Canadian forces discipline.

If someone wants to give evidence to the commission or if they want to travel to Ottawa to see the commissioners, obviously they have to seek permission of commanding officers so their posts are not abandoned in a wanton way.

This individual had every right to come here. All he had to do was ask before he arrived. That is the reason there may be a disciplinary matter involved.

[National Defence, May 7th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I agree with the hon. member that this is an example of a flagrant waste of money. It is extravagant. It is unacceptable.

I disagree with the conclusion of the hon. member. We have a new commander of the army. We have a new chief of defence staff who has laid down the rules in no uncertain terms to senior military officers that they have to behave in a way with the public's money as the public would have them behave.

[Auditor General's Report, May 7th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I will take that question in the spirit in which it was asked.

[Auditor General's Report, May 7th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, in answer to the hon. member's question I should point out that some of the documentation has been forthcoming. There is an ongoing discussion with the auditor general on this matter.

It is true that some equipment does get lost during missions. We are trying to verify whether the figure that was actually tabled today is accurate. We will know once all the facts are known.

[Somalia Inquiry, May 3rd, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I have said that we owe all those people involved in this matter the courtesy of being allowed to give their views at the commission so that it is done in a very systematic, calm and rational way. I think most Canadians feel that is the appropriate way to go about it.

Contrary to the comments of the hon. member and his leader in the last few weeks, it now seems the hon. member's leader is coming to that view of justice. This morning on "Canada AM" when he was asked why he took so long in reacting to the statements by the hon. members for Athabasca and Nanaimo-Cowichan, the hon. member's leader from Calgary Southwest said: "It took us two days before reacting because we have to give these

people a hearing. We have to ask them what they really meant. If we do not do that we would be accused of being discriminatory ourselves".

I think the hon. member should reflect on his own leader's statements and in future let the commission do its work before he makes any judgments.

[Somalia Inquiry, May 3rd, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I can only repeat some of the points I have raised in the House in answering other questions over the last couple of weeks.

The commission of inquiry is an independent commission that will hear all the evidence and will get the answers the hon. member and other Canadians want. This government wants to get to the bottom of the problems surrounding the deployment to Somalia in 1993 and the commission will do that. We have to allow the commission the opportunity to do its work in an unfettered way and not raise questions every day in the House based on the previous day's testimony. That is a recipe for disaster.

[Liberal Party, May 3rd, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, when it comes to credibility and believing promises, I certainly would put my faith in the Prime Minister.

When it comes to adding up the promises we have kept, the figures of the Prime Minister are more reflective of reality than those of the hon. member.