David Collenette

[National Defence, February 10th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I said subsequently to yesterday's question period that the chief and I were not informed completely about that videotape. We are quite open about that. We want to know why the chief was not informed. I want to know why I was not informed.

I know this is a Chamber of thrust and parry where the government is to be criticized. What really concerns me here is that these events, however horrendous and however unacceptable, are casting aspersions upon the thousands of men and women who serve in the Canadian Armed Forces and are performing their duties in some of the toughest parts of the world. These people serve with distinction. I am worried that the kind of tone which is used by the hon. member opposite for partisan purposes undermines the morale of the armed forces.

[National Defence, February 10th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I do not think the Canadian public expects the minister of defence to take the role of a military police officer, to go to military bases and interview people, to view all kinds of evidence and to be a one man show.

We have a large organization. We have a chain of command. The chief of defence staff was tasked with the report. That report came. Obviously it is not complete because some of the military police investigations are ongoing. I do not think anybody expects the minister to be out there doing all of those things.

With respect to the actual viewing of the tape, we never really got to the bottom of it until I ordered the tape to be dispatched from Petawawa following the question from the hon. member for Charlesbourg on Wednesday.

The tape was viewed yesterday by one of our senior officers. The chief of defence staff viewed it early this morning. He concurs with the interpretation I gave in this House yesterday that the behaviour was not innocuous, that it was offensive and there was infringement. Action will be taken.

[National Defence, February 10th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, as I mentioned yesterday, in the report that was given to me a couple of weeks ago mention was made of a video taken last August of what was described as a beer welcome party where officers were present. Compared to the earlier video it certainly was innocuous.

Obviously had I had the information I received just before question period yesterday, the existence of that video and some of the untoward things on it, I would have made that public two weeks ago. Obviously things in the video were unacceptable. They were an infringement of the National Defence Act.

The report which I received two weeks ago was incomplete. I want to know why it was incomplete. I want to know why the chief of defence staff was not informed of the electric shock experiments and why the head shaving was not in the report. These all infringe the National Defence Act.

An investigation is under way to find out why we were not informed. As soon as I have that information I will make it available to my colleagues in the House.

[Canadian Armed Forces, February 9th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, if I ever saw a loaded question that was one. Everything the hon. member has ever learned about the armed forces, anything negative in the last little while has been rolled up into one question. I really cannot give a detailed answer to everything because I would be here until 3.30.

With respect to the inquiry, it will begin once the courts martial are over. With respect to the other questions he raised, I have responded to those questions in public and I can give detailed answers to the hon. member.

I will say one thing. We all have a responsibility as politicians to ensure that there is adequate, informed and reasoned debate about any institution so that we do not undermine the morale of institutions like the armed forces.

[Canadian Armed Forces, February 9th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member has obviously not been following what I announced

before in this House. The inquiry will begin not after the appeals but after the initial proceedings, the courts martial. That will be sometime in mid-March.

Once the judicial proceedings are finished, the hon. member will know the people involved in the inquiry and the terms of reference. I am sure that once he sees them, which will be soon after the judicial proceedings are completed, he will be quite satisfied.

[Canadian Armed Forces, February 9th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, we have been concerned about this problem for some time.

No definitive link has been made with respect to some of the symptoms people are experiencing and the participation in the Gulf war. A registry has been established at veterans affairs. A special clinic here in Ottawa at the National Defence Medical Centre has been established to deal with it. A protocol has been put forward for all medical personnel in the armed forces to deal with these complaints as they come forward. The Surgeon General of the armed forces has written to every member serving in the Gulf to ascertain whether or not the kind of complaints which have surfaced in some cases are prevalent.

We have no definitive link yet. Neither do similar authorities in the U.S. and Great Britain which also served in the gulf. It is something we want to get to the bottom of and we are at least putting these steps in place to address this very serious problem.

[National Defence, February 9th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I do not want to make light of the hon. member's intention, but the fact is that when we are talking about the existence of other tapes I do not know how many tapes are out there. I do not know how many copies there are. I do not know how many camera people there are. What is obviously happening is that as modern technology is catching up with everyone, including the armed forces, people are taking tapes of certain activities and I do not know exactly what is out there.

With respect to the question of why, sure we have the authority to set up an inquiry right now. There is a court decision now before the Supreme Court, the Westray Mine decision, that calls into question the fact that we could have an inquiry, a coroner's inquest or judicial proceedings all at the same time.

Once judicial proceedings were initiated, and they were initiated before we were elected, there was no choice but to adjourn the original inquiry. What we are saying is once due

process is followed with the existing courts martial, and that would be the middle of March, there will be an inquiry. It will be public. It will be headed by a civilian. All these questions on how the regiment was fit for deployment to Somalia will be answered.

[National Defence, February 9th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, we are going over some ground that was covered a couple of weeks ago.

After the juxtaposition of events of the report based on infractions in Rwanda, the second video tape with racist behaviour involving some people now before courts martial, and the third involving the hazing, we felt that was enough. Enough was enough. We believe the problem was of such systemic origins that it had to be dealt with by disbanding the regiment, and I think there has been widespread public support for this.

In a perfect world I would have waited to take any action with respect to this regiment until after an inquiry had reported. I have to underscore the fact that the government inherited this particular dossier and what we will be judged on is how we handle the matter now, not how it got to one place right at the beginning months ago.

[National Defence, February 9th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, the decision to disband the regiment was made on good grounds. We made that public two weeks ago and it was made notwithstanding the recommendations of senior officials in the armed forces.

One of the reasons that I believe disbanding the regiment was right at that time is that I did not know as minister what else may be out there.

When the hon. member spoke to me yesterday it seemed to me he was referring-I have heard lots of rumours about other video tapes-to the existence of other evidence that may come to light.

What we did two weeks ago is that we took the sequence of events, the deployment last year to Rwanda where some of the airborne got in trouble, the two video tapes, and we said that there was something radically wrong with this regiment, that there was a systemic problem, and on those grounds we ordered the disbanding of the regiment.

[National Defence, February 9th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, we have to understand the context of the question of the hon. member for Charlevoix yesterday.

He referred to the existence of a tape that was worse than the ones that were made public and which led to the dismantling of the regiment. I said yesterday and I say today that I have no evidence of that kind of tape being in existence.

However what I am saying is that in the report I got two weeks ago there was no reference to an initiation ceremony, nothing of that nature. There was reference to a welcoming party where the description I gave was applied.

What I am saying is that the description that I got two weeks ago did not add up to what I have just been told was actually in that video. It still does not go any way along the lines of the earlier video in terms of the abhorrent nature of the contents of that video to Canadians.

What I am saying is that since I have just been informed of this I would like to get to the bottom of it to clarify it.