Art Eggleton

[National Defence, November 4th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, once again the research of the hon. member opposite is not very good. It is not the Judge Advocate General who investigates these matters, it is the military police.

The military police have had the matter under investigation. They have not closed the file but they have suspended it because of insufficient evidence on which to lay charges. If further evidence is brought forward, then charges will be laid.

Meanwhile, we are extending the position of the Judge Advocate General—a separate issue altogether—because of the major changes being made.

We want to have a look at who is the best person to occupy that position and an additional three months is a wise move to make.

[National Defence, November 4th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, the position of the Judge Advocate General has been extended for three months.

The military justice system is going through changes and we are looking at what we want to do in the future. We need an extra three months to do that, so an extension has been made for a three-month period.

[Questions On The Order Paper, November 4th, 1997]

The various complaints of Captain (Ret'd) Mackinnon are now before the courts. This matter is being reviewed by the Department of National Defence and the Canadian forces, and Captain (Ret'd) MacKinnon will be advised shortly through his lawyers of the position of the Canadian forces in respect of his most recent request.

[National Defence, November 3rd, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, the investigation has been suspended but it is not closed. If additional information is brought out, the investigation will be reopened on the basis of that new information.

The investigation has been thorough. I do not subscribe to the preamble of the question in which he said it was botched. The matter has been investigated. In fact other police forces were also involved. If there is new information it will be reopened.

[National Defence, November 3rd, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, one of the problems hon. members opposite have is their research. They do not even know what month they are in.

We certainly want to make that decision as quickly as possible. We want to make sure we get the best value for the taxpayers' money. We want to make sure that we provide equipment that is going to be the best operational equipment for the people in the Canadian forces who conduct 1,000 search and rescue missions a year.

[National Defence, November 3rd, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, we really do care. That is why we want to make sure that we get the proper helicopters that are going to meet the operational needs for those fine dedicated men and women who go out and conduct rescues under some very trying circumstances. We are very close to doing that.

[National Defence, November 3rd, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I do not agree with the preamble about bungling.

Let me talk about the fact that we are going to have very substantial civilian oversight with the ombudsman and with many of the other functions that will be performed with respect to the military. Also we will have a great increase in terms of public reporting from the chief of defence staff, the judge advocate general, the provost marshal, the military police complaints commission, the ombudsman and the independent grievance board, all of which will make annual reports which will be available to Parliament for scrutiny.

[National Defence, November 3rd, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, we will have all of those functions in the changes that are being made in the Canadian forces. We will have a chief of review services and an ombudsman. Just about anything that the Somalia inquiry suggested would come under the role of the inspector general comes under the role of those two people, or one of the other mechanisms, such as the grievance board and the national investigative services of the military police as well. There are all of these with civilian oversight as well to ensure that Canadians are getting the proper information about a job being done.

[National Defence, October 31st, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, they are really scraping the bottom of the barrel here. They are going back several years. If the hon. member wants to provide the information I will be happy to have it looked into and we will get him an answer.

[National Defence, October 31st, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, 1995 is long before I became minister of defence. I do not know about back then but nowadays we do provide maximum amount of information to the public. There are obviously a lot of incidents that occur in a military the size of ours that are of no public interest.

However, where there is any damage to person or property information is in fact provided.