David Collenette

[Turkey, March 28th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague, the Minister of Foreign Affairs, has answered the question a couple of times in the last 10 days.

There has been some indication by the Government of Turkey about the surplus CF-5s and there have been some informal discussions. However there is no deal pending.

Our position is well known on the exporting of arms. We want to make sure, if that is done, that certain safeguards are in place. I believe the question at this time is somewhat premature.

[National Defence, March 28th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, while the hon. member is technically correct in the sense that the mandate expires on March 31, should a decision be taken whereby we do not continue, those troops would stay in place for a certain period of time until replacements could be found. However, we believe that we have the flexibility to discharge our obligations to UNPROFOR.

With respect to a debate in the House, it is a matter between House leaders and is something that will be discussed between them, hopefully later today.

[National Defence, March 28th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member should know that there have been a number of developments in the former Yugoslavia in the last few months, not the least of which is President Tudjman's belief that UNPROFOR should leave Croatia.

This matter was resolved some weeks ago and there have been discussions about a new kind of force in Croatia. The role of Canada and other nations in that force is something for discussion.

We have been preparing the two battalions of the Royal 22nd Regiment to go to Croatia and Bosnia. They are set to leave next Monday. However, a final decision on the actual deployment is yet to be taken.

The government House leader may be talking with the opposition House leaders to see whether or not a debate could be arranged tomorrow to get a sense of the House on this very difficult subject.

[Bosnia, March 28th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, we have not changed our position on the use of NATO air power. It can be used in certain circumstances under the supervision of the United Nations.

As the hon. member knows, we have been one of the strongest proponents of the dual key mechanism whereby the actual use of that air power is under the auspices of the United Nations, the special representative, Mr. Akashi, in the former Yugoslavia. Nothing has changed to alter our views on the use of NATO air power.

[Bosnia, March 28th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, we are very concerned about the current situation in the former Yugoslavia. We discussed the issue of personnel rotation in Bosnia and in Croatia. A final decision has not been made with regard to the next two to three months. I believe that the Prime Minister will consult the other party leaders regarding the possibility of holding a debate, perhaps tomorrow evening. Following that, we will maka a decision on our commitment.

[National Defence, March 28th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I made a number of inquiries on the suitability of certain individuals for the inquiry. I consulted with some of my cabinet colleagues.

The name of Anne-Marie Doyle had come to my attention as someone who had served with great distinction at the OECD. It was I who put her name forward. I certainly feel that she was a good choice.

With respect to the terms of reference of the inquiry, the terms of reference were made public last week. I worked on the terms of reference personally with the Judge Advocate General, an individual appointed by the Prime Minister of Canada, directly responsible not to the chief of defence staff, not to the deputy minister, but to the minister who stands responsible in the

House. I take responsibility for the terms of reference and stand by them.

If the hon. member finds something wrong with the terms of reference, if he has accusations to make, let him have the guts to make the accusations.

[National Defence, March 28th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, this line of inquisitorial questions is absolutely anathema to the Canadian parliamentary system.

We have seen members of that party adopt the most scurrilous of congressional American tactics in dragging the names of public servants through the mud in this country and we will not tolerate that.

[National Defence, March 28th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I find the line of questioning of the hon. leader of the third party to be most disturbing.

Ms. Doyle has agreed to withdraw her name as one of the commissioners. She is a person of great talent, ability and knowledge of government. She would have served with great distinction in that commission. However there have been questions of perception as to whether or not she would be impartial because of her friendship with the former deputy minister.

She decided, although she felt she could discharge her duties as the government expected she would be able to do, that it would be better for her to withdraw at this point in time.

As to the events that led up to the selection of the commissioners, there was much discussion about the suitability of those appropriate. The degree and the longevity of the friendship with the former deputy minister and his wife were not fully explored. If that is a cause for concern on the part of hon. members of the House, I apologize for not having had the information in my possession before we made the decision to select those people.

A replacement will be chosen soon. I suggest we let the commission get on with its job.

[National Defence, March 27th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I have answered this question four times in this question period. The hon. member will have to be satisfied with that answer.

[National Defence, March 27th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I made an announcement last week setting up the commission. The terms of reference are broad. The three commissioners were chosen for their impartiality, knowledge of government and knowledge of the public accountability process. If any one of those people do not measure up to any of those characteristics, that will be addressed.