David Collenette

[National Defence, November 18th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, again I am surprised at the line of questioning in terms of criticizing the work of this company.

I explained to the hon. member's colleague earlier that when one develops new high technology systems inevitably problems will occur in the development, especially when dealing with integrated high tech systems.

The requirements made by the CPF program from Unisys had some problems in development. They have since been resolved or are in the process of being resolved. I fail to see why the hon. member continues to persist in trying to undermine not only the integrity of this company, but the fact that the Canadian patrol frigate is the best of its class in the world.

[National Defence, November 18th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, again I am shocked at the tone of this question that denigrates an outstanding Canadian high technology company and one that is based in the province of Quebec. I would like the hon. member to explain that to his constituents in the province of Quebec.

The fact is that Unisys is meeting its obligations. Where there may be some problems in terms of expenditures or some minor modifications that have to be made to the systems that are integrated within the Canadian patrol frigates, those are being addressed in the normal way.

[National Defence, November 18th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, one of the problems that we have with project management, which was involved in the development of the Canadian patrol frigates and has been the problem in the development of other armed forces equipment, is that often the expenditures that ultimately are incurred are much greater than originally anticipated because new technologies are being developed.

Unisys is a company based in Montreal that has done some outstanding work over the years and is in the vanguard of development of high technology integrated systems within this country. I would hope that as a member of Parliament and also one that represents a constituency in Quebec the hon. member would not want to denigrate in any way the good work that is done by that company.

With respect to the specific question on the Canadian patrol frigates, yes, there obviously were some teething problems. There were some cost overruns. These have been accommodated with negotiation between the company and the crown. As far as we are concerned the frigates now are fully operational. There may be the odd problem that surfaced because of the new technologies, but I do not think the member should be unduly worried.

[National Defence, November 18th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, the inquiry will deal with all the aspects of the deployment of our forces in Somalia and all the activities of the airborne regiment. This is what I said we would do and I stand by that decision.

[National Defence, November 18th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I do not think it is appropriate for me to go further in the interests of ensuring the cause of justice be served by giving any more details about the inquiry that I announced yesterday. It will be an inquiry held under the auspices of the National Defence Act. It will be fully public. It will be totally civilian, including the chair. Members of the previous inquiry will be invited to participate in some particular way.

As to the powers of that inquiry and the terms of reference, those will be drafted in the next couple of months. What I have to worry about and what the hon. member should worry about is the timing of such an inquiry. As legislators we cannot do anything that would serve to undermine the judicial process now under way.

[Collège Militaire Royal De Saint-Jean, November 18th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I am not prepared to discuss the reasons that led to the closing of the CMR. We have made statements in the House on other occasions, and I think our position is quite clear.

I have to say that much of what the hon. member asserts in this particular matter is absolutely false. We are not going to revisit the fact that the budget last year called for a certain reduction in expenditures in defence. It called for the closing of the two colleges. Those two colleges will close.

What is really the issue and something that he should be concerned about is that the former Government of Quebec signed a deal that would meet the Department of National Defence's needs, the Government of Canada's needs, and also assist in the transformation of CMR into a civilian institution. The Government of Quebec is refusing to honour that deal.

[Collège Militaire Royal De Saint-Jean, November 18th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, again it was not a decision that was taken at the last minute. The closing of the two military colleges was something that was planned in preparation for us to meet our red book requirement to reduce military spending at the beginning of the year 1994-95. We have been through those arguments before.

However, as far as the $23 million is concerned in terms of savings that is absolute, that is fixed. I would ask the hon. member to consult with his colleague, the member for Roberval, who came to the standing committee on defence and veterans affairs and questioned very precisely officials of the Department of National Defence and I believe got a full accounting.

There is no fudging of figures. The $23 million in savings from CMR is real.

[Collège Militaire Royal De Saint-Jean, November 18th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member does not have full possession of the facts.

There were a number of expenses that were authorized by the previous government a couple of years ago for construction to start in 1995 for improvements to the Royal Military College in Kingston. Those are proceeding.

With respect to the accommodation of students that will be required as a result of the closing of Royal Roads and CMR, there will only be minor modifications required with respect to the additional facilities at Kingston. Some of the provisions can be met by using existing military facilities and barracks at Kingston.

[National Defence, November 17th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, the statement to which the hon. member referred made by public affairs officials at national defence some time ago were at that time true. Investigations have been closed, but because there had been allegations of cover-up the military police reopened one investigation. Subsequently there were charges made about photographs being concealed and another investigation was opened up to deal with that matter.

I should raise another point. I have tried to act as expeditiously as possible given the fact that we do want to protect the course of justice. I would have made this announcement yesterday, but out of courtesy to the Prime Minister who was only informed of this matter this morning, I felt I should not act until I had his agreement.

[National Defence, November 17th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I do not share the assumptions upon which the question was based.

I did announce a few minutes ago that there will be an inquiry under the auspices of the National Defence Act. It will be public and will be headed by a civilian. It will be available for people such as Major Armstrong and all others to come forward with any information and any charges. Hopefully, they will be totally satisfied.

I want to make it plain that this government has nothing to hide. These are events that occurred before the 1993 election. The Minister of Human Resources Development when he was in opposition was fully justified in making those comments and calling for an open inquiry. We have done that.

What I am concerned with is to act in a way that would not prejudice the course of justice. I hope the hon. member will understand that.