Jack Frazer

[National Defence, November 21st, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, the minister misses the point. No one questions that the military justice system is constitutional and generally effective, but the Somalia situation seems to be an aberration.

There is concern that evidence has been deliberately suppressed or destroyed. Some aspects have been described by Kyle Brown as a turkey shoot. Both those accused and the Canadian forces themselves have come under suspicion which can only be resolved by a prompt, open and absolutely unbiased investigation.

To ensure justice is done and seen to be done, will the minister order that the now scheduled court martials be delayed until after the civilian inquiry is completed?

[National Defence, November 21st, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of National Defence has agreed to an open, civilian led inquiry into the allegations of gross misconduct during the Canadian Airborne Regiment's deployment to Somalia.

However I am concerned that he seems determined to delay this inquiry for several months. Such a delay will inevitably involve the events becoming more remote, the trail more cold and the truth more difficult to ascertain.

Why will the minister not initiate this inquiry immediately so that all the facts can be determined and the cases evolving from it settled in the full light of public scrutiny?

[Esprit De Corps, November 1st, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, in addition to questions about the integrity of this government regarding the Minister of Canadian Heritage, I must raise the issue of integrity within the defence department.

It has now become clear that defence, along with Industry and Science Canada, is actively attempting to undermine and close down the operation of a small military magazine, Esprit de corps , which had the audacity to criticize defence department procedures and officials.

By threatening to refuse contracts to companies like Mercedes Benz and General Motors that advertise in the publication, the government is attempting to remove the base upon which the magazine operates. These are the tactics of a police state, not a developed democracy. In Canada, citizens have a right to criticize the government if they disagree with its policies or practices.

I do not agree with everything Esprit de corps says or how it is said, but I passionately defend its right to say it and I am appalled that senior government officials think otherwise.

The minister of defence has been repeatedly advised but refuses to act on problems within his department. He has no excuse for inaction here.

[Committees Of The House, October 31st, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, my Reform colleague and I being new to Parliament had not previously participated in any parliamentary committees.

We consider it a great privilege and also a lot of work to proceed with this study. It is my impression that the members of the committee were very apolitical in the approach to the studies that we conducted.

As the member for Labrador has said, we heard from witnesses from Victoria to St. John's and from NATO to Zagreb. The results of our study are that we have taken into account the defence needs of Canada. We have tried to reconcile that with the fiscal responsibility that we have to abide by. I am hoping that the outcome will find favour with most people.

Those who are looking for a revolutionary report will be disappointed. However I think when they look at the report and examine it, they will find that it is logical, it is common sense and it will support Canada in our defence needs through the beginning of the next century.

[National Defence, October 24th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, the Auditor General, as we have been informed in this Parliament, is an extremely busy individual. I doubt that he has time to isolate individual investigations of this sort.

I am informed from within the department that this situation has resulted in poor morale and even fear of retribution for people who speak out.

How can the minister justify failing to commission a professional, independent, clearly unbiased investigation into these areas of defence department management procedures? By refusing to take such action he is lending credibility to the perception that something is very wrong in his department.

[National Defence, October 24th, 1994]

Responding to questions on the Lagueux report, the Minister of National Defence claimed that the report in no way implicates any of the senior officials in the department. Yet two directors general were reprimanded as a result of it. One subsequently committed suicide. The other was promoted one category and still occupies that same position. In fact, access to information reveals that two years after the Lagueux report this individual was still regularly approving contracts for amounts in excess of her authorization.

Will the minister explain these inconsistencies in his response, especially since he claimed that the problems and the individuals concerned had been dealt with?

[Petitions, October 17th, 1994]

Madam Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, it is my duty and honour to rise in the House to present a petition signed by 105 constituents of Saanich-Gulf Islands and surrounding area which has been duly certified by the clerk of petitions.

The petitioners humbly pray and call on Parliament to ensure that the Victoria Commonwealth Games shooting facilities will be completely removed from Heal's rifle range by October 31, 1994.

[Department Of National Defence, October 3rd, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the minister for his forthright response and I want to go on record as saying I am not accusing anyone of anything, nor have I ever meant to do that.

I would like to say that a confidential memo dated April 13, 1994 and released under the access to information reveals that officials in the defence department informed the minister that the media might be asking questions about the deputy minister's office renovations.

If his own staff felt compelled to warn him about media interest, will the minister not admit that there was at least a perceived problem with this matter and move to resolve it by getting on with an independent inquiry?

[Department Of National Defence, October 3rd, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, responding last week to questions about mismanagement in the defence department, the parliamentary secretary stated there had been no wrongdoing.

Almost every page of the Lagueux report details conflict of interest, contracting irregularities and questionable business practices. People call my office to say that the $327,000 is far lower than the correct figure for the DM's renovations and following on from Lagueux, other reports have reached the same conclusions of chronic problems.

Again I ask, will the Minister of National Defence commission an independent public inquiry into his department to clear up this matter and enable him to resolve any problems it reveals?

[Petitions, September 28th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36 it is my duty and honour to rise in the House to present three petitions duly certified by the Clerk of Petitions on behalf of the constituents of Saanich-Gulf Islands and surrounding area.

The petitioners humbly pray and call upon Parliament to ensure that the present provisions of the human rights code, the Canadian Human Rights Act and the Charter of Rights and Freedoms prohibiting amendments to indicate societal approval of same sex relationships, homosexuality and the undefined phrase sexual orientation remain in force.