David Collenette

[National Defence, March 27th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I answered the question.

[National Defence, March 27th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I already answered that question.

[National Defence, March 27th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I gave the three criteria the commissioners had to have before they were appointed. One of them was impartiality.

If it is found that is not there or if there is any other call into question of the integrity of these individuals it will be addressed.

[National Defence, March 27th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, the inquiry was called under part I of the Inquiries Act. Therefore it is a government inquiry and a number of government departments were involved.

As to the specifics of what the hon. member is saying in his supplementary question, I think I addressed them in my answer to the first question.

[National Defence, March 27th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, the three commissioners were appointed because of their knowledge of the government process and public accountability, and their breadth of experience and impartiality.

If any one of these principles is compromised in any way then the matter will be addressed.

[National Defence, March 23rd, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to remind the House that retired military personnel have the same rights and privileges as all Canadians.

One set of guidelines we follow is federal legislation. All Canadians have an opportunity to compete for these jobs. We are monitoring the situation to see that there are no instances in which people are being favoured because of their former involvement in the armed forces. It is of great concern to us.

The hon. member should know that everyone should be treated fairly, and they will be.

[Turkey, March 23rd, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, a number of years ago there was a memorandum of understanding between the Turkish government and the Canadian government about the disposition of surplus aircraft, the CF-104s, that Turkey indeed received.

Obviously Turkey has defence requirements and it shops around quite frequently. It understands that we have surplus CF-5 fighter planes and has made inquiries of Canada. However no deal has been arranged. No agreement has been concluded.

In any sale of surplus military equipment we have made quite clear that the purchasing countries have to give us certain undertakings on the use of the equipment so that it does not infringe in any way upon the rights of others or the equipment is not used in ways that Canada would not approve of.

[Turkey, March 23rd, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Foreign Affairs I should like to inform the House that Canada views the ongoing developments in Turkey with some degree of concern.

We believe that all our NATO allies, as with all countries, should respect normal international rights, procedures and respect of others. The minister is actively pursuing the matter. I believe these views have been made known to our NATO allies. It is subject to further discussion.

[Supply, March 23rd, 1995]

Madam Speaker, I am glad the hon. member raised it. He has Petawawa in his constituency and he is a very knowledgeable individual.

I am sorry that time did not permit me to talk about the good that was achieved in our deployment to Somalia. I will leave it to him and to other members to talk about it. He is absolutely right. While there were incidents that occurred that have brought some cloud over the Canadian Armed Forces, let us not forget that our participation there was very beneficial to the United Nations' mission. There were a lot of accomplishments. Those accomplishments will be recognized by those people who served. We are in the process of preparing a medal for the people who participated in Somalia.

Let us not judge the whole of the mission by the troubling incidents that occurred. They will be investigated.

[Supply, March 23rd, 1995]

Madam Speaker, I would like to comment on one point. The hon. member for Saanich-Gulf Islands berates me for saying that this is not a place to debate our re-engagement in Bosnia and Croatia.

I want to emphasize that although we are prepared and all is in motion to send people to those two countries, the final decision by cabinet has not been taken. He said it was not the place to debate that. However, he spent most of his speech not addressing his own motion. He talked about everything but defence policy. What is good for the goose is good for the gander. If he can talk about anything to do with defence policy then any other member can and that includes whether or not we should re-engage in Bosnia and Croatia.

Another point is that the hon. member did not look at the text of the remarks I made the other day on establishing the inquiry. November 28, 1994 was the date chosen because that was the last date a member of the chain of command caused anything to happen with respect to the Somalia deployment. That was putting in train the court martial process for Captain Sox which was completed this week. It is why November 28, 1994 was chosen, because it dealt with the last action of a member of the chain of command.

The inquiry will answer a lot of the concerns that Canadians have had with respect to the operations of the armed forces. Hon. members would be wise to let the commissioners do their jobs. They have the right to subpoena witnesses and to hear all kinds of evidence. At national defence we will make everything available to them: military police reports and all other kinds of investigations. Members of the forces and civil servants may be called on to testify. We will co-operate in every way.

For the good of the forces and the good of the country, why can we not let the inquiry do its job? We will not have much longer to wait. I ask the hon. member, please, to consider that.