David Collenette

[Collège Militaire Royal De Saint-Jean, November 23rd, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, the period of examination of national defence covered by the Auditor General was mainly for the time before this government was elected.

In discussing the base closures at Portage la Prairie and Summerside the Auditor General certainly had good reasons for the claims he made. We did not repeat those mistakes when we closed bases earlier this year. We were much more meticulous about the cost savings that would accrue. Of course we have stood by those figures as they particularly apply to the question raised by the hon. member for the Collège militaire royal de Saint-Jean.

[Collège Militaire Royal De Saint-Jean, November 22nd, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, there are a number of factual errors in the hon. member's question.

First of all, any new construction that RMC was authorized by the previous government and amounts to normal replacement. That construction was scheduled to start in 1995. There will be no new construction required as a result of the consolidation process of the two colleges announced in the budget.

Second, when the hon. member talks about the Auditor General's report, and I have not had a chance to read it, he is really mixing apples and oranges. Whatever the Auditor General had to say in that area does not bear direct relationship to what is at hand with the very serious matter of St. Jean.

If the member really wanted to give hope to the people of St. Jean, the professors and other employees who work at this very noble institution, he would encourage the Government of Quebec to accept the proposal negotiated by my colleague, the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs. That would bring them hope because the college would stay open as a civilian institution.

[Collège Militaire Royal De Saint-Jean, November 22nd, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, the government made the right decision for financial reasons to close the two military colleges, Royal Roads and Collège Militaire Royal in Saint-Jean, regrettable as that may be. In fact we closed a number of facilities across the country. It has caused a lot of hardship to many communities.

What I think should not be lost sight of here is that the tactics of the opposition, the Bloc Quebecois, and the Government of Quebec are really distracting the focus of attention of those people who have to make a very important decision in their lives. By January 7 they have to decide whether or not to take the government offer, the civilian reduction plan, a program which has been offered to them.

What is happening is that hon. members opposite and their tactics are giving those people hope that somehow this decision will be reversed. The decision will not be reversed and they are doing themselves and the people of the province of Quebec a great disservice.

[Collège Militaire Royal De Saint-Jean, November 22nd, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, it is only appropriate since we are now not talking about the entente between the Government of Quebec and the Canada but rather the operations between the Canadian armed forces that I reply to the hon. member's question.

The commandant in question was sent this summer to wind down CMR. He was not involved in the original decision making and is therefore not fully apprised of all of the financial facts that were available to me as minister and to the department when the closure was announced.

What has happened here is something that should be explained. The commandant like a lot of base commanders across this country, faced with a lot of very frustrated and angry and upset people who are losing their jobs because of the base closures, whether they be in Chatham, Cornwallis, Dartmouth or North Bay, is trying to deal with his people in the best way possible.

In good faith he thought he was being helpful to the cause. We have pointed out to him that the facts in his letter do not add up. I now believe that the commandant realizes that the situation as we had described it originally and the facts upon which the original decision was based is the correct one.

[National Defence, November 21st, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, the department did not put aside any officials. There was a problem with the development of the specific combat training systems. I explained that on Friday. It is not unusual when you are dealing with high tech, highly specified equipment. The terms of the contract were renegotiated and the first tests are under way right now with the Canadian patrol frigate and I do not see where any problem remains.

I would invite the hon. member to be briefed by my officials and after that briefing I would challenge him whether he will ask these same questions in the House because I think he will be entirely satisfied.

[National Defence, November 21st, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I do not know how many times one has to repeat answers to get through to the hon. members opposite. This was essentially the same question that was asked by one of his colleagues on Friday. I gave the answer.

If the hon. member still does not accept the answer then I would invite him to attend a briefing to be given by national defence officials. We will lay out all the terms of the contract, how it was renegotiated, how the concerns were met. I am sure the hon. member then will not continue to do what his colleagues started on Friday, denigrate a very worthy company based in Montreal which happens to be in his province, Quebec.

[National Defence, November 21st, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, for the reasons I have already stated, no.

[National Defence, November 21st, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I answered this question in reply to the Leader of the Opposition last Thursday when I announced the inquiry.

It is imperative that all of us ensure that justice be done and the judicial proceedings involved with the court martials be concluded before any inquiry takes place. I have given assurances that once the judicial process is completed, the inquiry will be open and civilian, and will answer all of the questions that the hon. member has.

[Collège Militaire Royal De Saint-Jean, November 21st, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, all of the financial facts dealing with the closure of the two colleges were tabled at the standing committee some months ago. They were not challenged by members of the opposition. They were not challenged by other members of the public.

There were expenditures that were authorized by the previous government to begin construction in 1995. These had nothing whatsoever to do with the consolidation of the colleges into Kingston but had to do with the need for ongoing repairs and new facilities that would have been required in any event.

With respect to some allegations that we will have to build a dormitory, that is entirely false because there are enough dormitory beds available at CFB Kingston to accommodate the overflow until we get to a steady state of about 700 to 800 cadets, which will be within three or four years.

[National Defence, November 18th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, the one positive thing I can say is that we announced in the budget that in the future we would be moving to the acquisition of off the shelf products in military procurement as much as we could. This means that the teething problems caused by research and development in high technology equipment for the armed forces will be borne by a commercial manufacturer. Such equipment that we would buy would be commercial but would have a military application.

Hopefully in the future we can get away from some of the problems the hon. member has described. It is interesting to note that the special committee on defence policy also recommended that the government pursue this line of acquisition more vigorously.