David Collenette

[Cfb Chatham, October 2nd, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is quick to criticize the government, especially on defence reductions.

First, I have to remind the hon. member that it was his party in the last election that called for a 25 per cent reduction in defence spending.

Second, the hon. member has the Canadian forces base Valcartier near his constituency. He conveniently forgets to tell you, Mr. Speaker, that actually defence expenditures at Valcartier have

been increased in the last couple of years when other regions have suffered.

Third, he conveniently forgets to say that the majority of the refurbishment work is going to be done in an area of very high unemployment, the east end of Montreal, because the defence workshops there are the most able to perform that work. He does not tell us all of that.

[Cfb Chatham, October 2nd, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, the armoured personnel carrier contract, the refurbishment of the old carriers and the direction of part of that work to Chatham-and the hon. member conveniently forgot to mention that most of the work on the refurbishment would be done at the defence workshops in the east end of Montreal-do not constitute any reparation or compensation for base closures. We have categorically ruled that out.

If we can assist a community, whether it is Chatham, Saint-Jean, Quebec, Calgary or anywhere else where base closures have been announced, by directing or encouraging suppliers to do business with a base or make purchases or manufacture in certain regions, then we would do so.

What we have said because of all of the closures-the one at Chatham being the most devastating in terms of its regional impact-is that any contractor who wishes to carry out a small part of the work of refurbishment would have to stipulate that the work be done in Chatham, New Brunswick. I think that is fair and equitable.

[Department Of National Defence, October 2nd, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I would not preclude any measure that might be taken with respect to this matter. Initially we are investigating it ourselves. Should it warrant investigation by an outside agency such as the RCMP, that will done.

[Department Of National Defence, October 2nd, 1995]

I certainly do not accept the premise in the hon. member's question.

It is quite obvious that some erroneous thing has happened which is being investigated. Certainly we stand by what we have said repeatedly and what the Prime Minister said Friday, that all documentation will be made available and all co-operation will be given by the Department of National Defence to the inquiry.

We would like to know why these omissions did occur. We acted responsibly by informing the information commissioner. As soon as we know why this happened we will certainly make that public.

It was the department officials themselves once they found the errors who called in the person who had originally made the request. They were quite open and honest about this particular mistake that had occurred.

[Department Of National Defence, October 2nd, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, in a review of certain access to information requests made of the department, it was discovered that certain errors and omissions had occurred. Immediately when that was made known to senior officials, I was informed. An investigation has ensued. The information commissioner has also been informed and we would like to know why this state of events has occurred.

[Research And Development, October 2nd, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, it is not unusual but the hon. member has taken the words I used on that television program entirely out of context. What I stated was that the mandate of the Canadian Armed Forces is to deliver its services in the fastest, most efficient way possible.

We have to do that sometimes without having regard to the expenditures of national defence being equitable in every single region. Part of that problem harks back to the second world war when a disproportionate amount of Canadian forces infrastructure and spending was in the Atlantic provinces because it was a staging area for war. This has tended to disfavour certain regions.

In spite of that, I would like to point out to the hon. member that in the 1994-95 fiscal year 20 per cent of military spending and 27 per cent of the capital expenditures were made in the province of Quebec.

[Research And Development, October 2nd, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, to date, no contract has been signed with General Motors, and the question of content will be addressed as part of the contract negotiations.

As for Oerlikon, there have been discussions between officials of my department, other departments and General Motors to examine the possibility of including Oerlikon in GM's plans for manufacturing armoured personnel carriers.

[Somalia Inquiry, September 27th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, it is not the role of the Minister of National Defence to intervene in an inquiry constituted under the Inquiries Act.

[Somalia Inquiry, September 27th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member should know by now that the commission is the master of its own procedure.

The commission has extensive terms of reference. I do not believe there has been any argument made by anyone as to the degree to which the commission can investigate the deployment to Somalia. It is for the commission to decide who has standing and who has not.

If an individual feels aggrieved by the procedural decisions of the commission, they have the right to recourse through legal means.

[Peacekeeping, September 26th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I am very proud to say that my colleague the Minister of Foreign Affairs will be outlining this afternoon the Canadian government's response to some very tragic situations seen in recent years with respect to international peacekeeping. That is moving toward an international rapid reaction force, a standby force which we call the vanguard principle of up to 5,000 troops. This multinational force will be ready to intercede in places like Rwanda to ensure that the kind of horror we saw there last year does not occur again.