John Richardson

[Department Of National Defence, March 29th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, the member wants a clear a thorough answer. I am trying to give one.

She asked if there was anything she could do. This is important to establish the veracity of the Department of National Defence. Mr. Grace said she was doing the right thing and would keep him informed.

Later, Mr. McAuliffe, a reporter, asked for an investigation under the regulations of the act. The commissioner complied and made his report. His report is truly congruent with the conclusions of the internal investigation of the Department of National Defence.

[Department Of National Defence, March 29th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, as I stated before, actions have been taken to make sure that the rules concerning access to information are strictly enforced.

I would like to go over the sequence of events that led up to this. On September 21, 1995 three members of the Canadian Armed Forces reported to their official that they had breached the code of conduct and had altered documents.

On September 22 the deputy minister and the chief of defence staff sent a letter to the chief of review services tasking him begin an internal inquiry into what happened in the situation.

The deputy minister, then to be sure that they were doing it right, contacted the commissioner, John Grace, to tell him what she had discovered and the measures she had taken to deal with the investigation.

[Department Of National Defence, March 29th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I acknowledge the question from the hon. member.

The Department of National Defence has acknowledged that some very serious problems have arisen in the access to information requests and how they have been managed.

However, two inquiries and an outside inquiry have allowed us to take action. Strict measures have been taken to correct these problems. Written directions are being reissued to all members of the Department of National Defence to remind them of their obligations under the Access to Information Act. This is in accordance with a recommendation recently made by the commissioner in his report.

Other measures have been implemented which allow us to respond to requests in a manner Canadians have come to expect. DND and Canadian forces officials are conscious of the need to respond quickly, completely and fully to requests.

I can assure the House that we will continue our efforts, working with the information commissioner when appropriate, to ensure continued progress in our commitment to fully meet our obligations.

[Canadian Armed Forces, March 21st, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, the job reductions that took place at Goose Bay had a positive intention.

It had everything to do with reducing costs because we wanted to make sure that our MOUs were signed by our allies. The project at Goose Bay generates $100 million worth of income for Goose Bay and Newfoundland; over 10 years it is $1 billion.

We did not let them go because the last day to apply for the public service reduction plan is April 1, which allows them to apply for this plan.

[National Defence, March 21st, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, the minister gave instructions to the chain of command. The chain of command followed that throughout the forces, but something you cannot do is put judgment into the head of a person.

I cannot prejudge an investigation that is presently under way.

[National Defence, March 21st, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I just answered the first part of that question. It is under investigation and to some surprise the results may not be what the hon. member is seeking.

[Canadian Armed Forces, March 21st, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, the government treats these allegations very seriously. The matter is being dealt with with fairness and the laws of natural justice.

[Canadian Armed Forces, March 21st, 1996]

Mr.

Speaker, the minister is aware of the allegations that have been made and he has been assured that the Canadian forces are investigating this matter. It is presently under investigation.

[Borrowing Authority Act, 1996-97, March 21st, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is one of the more moderate members of the Reform Party. However he stated some things that I do not think carry a lot of water.

He is using the New Jersey model to cut taxes. Let us take a look at that New Jersey model since he brought it up. New Jersey is now the most polarized state in the United States. The poor have never been more poor and the rich have never been more rich. The middle class has shrunk. That is the state that cut taxes. It is a model that was used by one of our provinces in its approach to an election.

The other model he used was New Zealand. New Zealand has not recovered from the crash of its program. it is still not on its feet yet. It is not a vibrant society.

Why are the major financial lenders in the world giving kudos to Canada? It is because we are attacking the problems in a thorough manner. The government has set targets and it will reach those targets, as stated by the Minister of Finance.

The hon. member talked about a fractious caucus. There is no more fractious caucus than the one to which he belongs. That caucus brings its members back to account to them and some come out in tears. It does not paint a very good picture of a party's solidarity.

He also talked about freedom of speech. That does not speak well for the party either. Talk about practising the new politics. The party that came into power saying it was going to do it a new way but it just found a new way of doing the old things better.

This is not as easy as one thinks from the outside. It takes a lot of co-ordination and practice among all of the parties. To bring laws into place a lot of consultation has to take place and there is no knee-jerk reaction to it.

I wanted to pick up on those points made by the hon. member. I have one question for him. Has the Reform Party chosen to use the New Jersey model for a tax cut model the same as the province of Ontario did and end up as a result with a polarized community of the very rich and very poor?

[Supply, March 19th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I am wondering whether the hon. member for La Prairie is sure of his facts because of the nature of the governments in the EU. Some of them are federal, some of them are unitary and some of them have taxation at the municipal level. Is he sure of his facts that they are all rolled up into one total? It seems to me from my studies that it was not the case.