Jim Hart

[Somalia Inquiry, September 20th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the minister again for not answering my question. I wanted to know if General Boyle was involved in the drafting of the mandate and terms of reference.

Not only is the government hiding behind the inquiry, it is interfering with it at the same time. The Prime Minister attacked the inquiry in the most flagrant fashion. His next barrage went to the noble members serving in the Canadian Armed Forces who choose to leave. These men practice leadership and responsibility with accountability. The Prime Minister attacked them. Does the Prime Minister think it shows moral fibre to attack retired generals who were honourably serving this country?

[Somalia Inquiry, September 20th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, double standards and conflicts of interest abound in the Somalia inquiry. The defence minister is interfering with the inquiry at every turn. He has allowed General Boyle to receive preferential treatment by giving the government's own dream team of lawyers' access to confidential military police reports and, possibly the biggest conflict of interest of all, the designing of the Somalia inquiry mandate.

Will the defence minister confirm that General Boyle played a part in the drafting of the mandate and the terms of reference of the Somalia inquiry?

[Somalia Inquiry, September 19th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, again the Minister of National Defence tries to spin the argument in his own favour. He knows full well that Major Hirter will get due process. The problem is that a political appointee of the government does not seem to be able to be lowered to the due process the law system should provide. There is a clear double standard.

Canadian Armed Forces personnel were ordered not to use work or business hours or resources to prepare their testimony for the Somalia inquiry. Yet despite this order, access to information documents show that General Boyle spent more than 50 business hours preparing to testify.

Is this glaring double standard and violation of orders the kind of management the Prime Minister is proud of?

[Somalia Inquiry, September 19th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, double standards prevail at the Department of National Defence. There is one policy for General Boyle yet a different policy for the rest of the Canadian Armed Forces. Due process for subordinates and none for General Boyle.

In the tragic death of Corporal MacKinnon, his commanding officer Major Hirter said he is responsible and he has been charged. Boyle said he is responsible yet nothing has happened.

Is this glaring double standard the kind of management the Prime Minister is proud of?

[National Defence, September 18th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I am sorry. I would like to continue.

Our armed forces personnel know what it means to accept responsibility. It means that you are held accountable. Yesterday

the Prime Minister referred to the Watergate incident. In Watergate people were fired, people were charged and people resigned.

When will the Prime Minister fire the Minister of National Defence?

[National Defence, September 18th, 1996]

Our armed forces personnel-

[National Defence, September 18th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, the only contempt is shown by the hon. Minister of National Defence.

It is interesting to note that the minister uses the shield of the Somalia inquiry when it is convenient to the minister. In other words, to protect his own sorry butt.

[National Defence, September 18th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Minister of National Defence talked about fairness. Let us explore that today.

Colonel Haswell has been charged. Corporal Purnelle has been charged. However, General Boyle receives preferential treatment after admitting that he lied to military police and that he broke the spirit of the Access to Information Act. Canadians are saying quite clearly that he should be fired.

General Boyle has admitted responsibility. Why will the minister not hold him accountable?

[Department Of National Defence, September 17th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, the minister's comments are totally off track. We are not talking about the rights of an employee, we are talking about the rights of the Canadian public to know information that is being published by the information commissioner.

For openness and accountability the Department of National Defence has the worst record in government. While this minister has been in office, documents have been lost, they have been altered, they have been destroyed, they have been withheld and the white-out budget at the Department of National Defence has gone through the roof.

Does the Prime Minister agree with the defence minister that openness means covering up and that truth, duty and valour mean don't get caught?

[Department Of National Defence, September 17th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, the most devastating cut to the Department of National Defence is when this government cut leadership, accountability and responsibility from the vocabulary at the Department of National Defence headquarters.

The Liberals campaigned on a promise of more open government. Yet Canadians are shocked to learn of the policy of containment at the Department of National Defence and for the first time in Canadian history we find that this federal government has applied to the courts to suppress a document that was released by the information commission.

Why does the Prime Minister support the policy of containment designed to thwart the information commissioner and designed to thwart information getting to the Canadian public?