Douglas Young

[Somalia Inquiry, February 4th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, if my hon. friend's business experience is going to do his party any good he has some mighty tough work to do at the top.

We are dealing now with whether or not the hon. member understands that there have been three extensions given to the commission. The commission is free to ask any witnesses it wishes to appear before it. It can determine who it wants to hear. It has until the end of March to do that and it can determine in its own good time as it always has.

Far be it for us to suggest to the commission or to the hon. gentleman who should be called. If the hon. member wants to make recommendations to the commission on who should be heard as witnesses then he is free to do so.

[Somalia Inquiry, February 4th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, one of the difficulties is in dealing with this whole area of the inquiry that the hon. gentleman is pursuing. I want to make sure that I understand because I do not know quite what type of response the hon. gentleman wants.

In the ethics bible of the Reform Party it says: "Questions should not be used to get straight information".

What I am trying to find out here is: Are you asking straight questions or do you want straight answers?

[Somalia Inquiry, February 4th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, no, this is not about trying to conceal or bury anything whatsoever.

What is important in my mind, and I hope it is in the minds of Canadians, is that we must proceed so as to ensure that the Government of Canada takes steps to prevent such situations from recurring in future.

Regarding what happened in Somalia, the two incidents that occurred within a rather short time frame, everyone is aware that these elements were very carefully examined by the commission. We never required the commission to follow a schedule set by the

government. We refrained from suggesting who should be heard as witnesses.

When the commission has finished its work, it will be able to make recommendations and reach any conclusions it feels appropriate, and the government is committed to take these into consideration.

[Somalia Inquiry, February 4th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I can assure the hon. member that, as I see it, when a commission asks for an extension the first time, it is okay for the government to say yes. At least I hope that was the case.

They ask for a second extension, and the government says yes. That is entirely above board. It is not interference, and everything is okay. They ask for a third extension, and the government says yes. But when the government adds: "However, we want you to finish your work by a certain date", in that case, it is interference.

Is it interference when we say no but not when we say yes? If that is the case, why ask for an extension in the first place, if it should be automatic, according to the hon. member?

We must have some logic here. If people ask for an extension, they should realize that the answer may be yes or no, or yes with an extension but with a deadline set by the government.

[Somalia Inquiry, February 4th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, let us see if we can give this a fresh start.

Part of the problem we are all grappling with-and I know that Eaton's always play an important role in this-they like guarantees and it is satisfaction guaranteed or money back at Eaton's. So let us see if we can get it straight now.

Again referring to Hansard , I want to know if the hon. member who just posed this question agrees or not, because she likes yes or no answers. Does the hon. member agree with her leader, yes or no, that he wanted the Prime Minister of Canada to ensure that there was no ultimate cover-up in the Somalia inquiry and that the results of the inquiry would be made fully public before the next federal election? Or does the hon. member not expect the next federal election in this century?

[Somalia Inquiry, February 4th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member yesterday took issue apparently with how I answered some of her questions. I just want to make sure that I understand, as we continue with this inquiry that she is conducting, whether the hon. member wishes to step outside the House and make any allegations she may wish to make out there with respect to any alleged wrongdoing she may be aware of.

I would point out to the hon. member that the deputy minister to whom she refers was appointed to that position by the previous government. The incidents that occurred in Somalia occurred under the previous administration. The appointment to which she refers, that of the deputy minister, is certainly not one that was made by this government. It was the responsibility eventually, of the person who became the Prime Minister of this country in the previous administration.

Maybe the hon. member might want to consider carefully any allegations she may wish to make and to make sure that whatever she says in here that she has the intestinal fortitude to say outside.

[Somalia Inquiry, February 4th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member asked a very good question. Every member of this House will at some time have to consider the following: when we appoint a commission, are we supposed to let the commission go on working in perpetuity?

The government has already agreed to three requests for an extension of the committee's mandate. In this case, the commission was supposed to finish its work by March 30, but it was given an extension for the study component until June 30.

Even if the hon. member does not understand, Canadians who are following the situation understand perfectly well why the government made this decision.

[Somalia Inquiry, February 4th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, it is very important to realize that the process which has been going on for nearly two years will in fact go on until the end of June.

I am convinced that the report that will be produced by the commissioners will be of the utmost importance to the government and to Canadians in general.

We have no intention and, in fact, no reason to protect anyone at all. We have to make a decision, on behalf of the government, that allows us to proceed with changes in the Canadian Forces and the Department of National Defence, to ensure that in future they will work far more effectively, in a far more acceptable fashion.

We are fully aware of the problem that arose in Somalia and of what has happened since Somalia. What interests the vast majority of Canadians is that we find solutions instead of continuing-

[Somalia Inquiry, February 4th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I have always been careful not to comment on the evidence submitted to the Commission. I do not believe it would be right.

I wish to assure my hon. colleague that, given my experience as a lawyer, I understand that it is not unheard of for lawyers involved in legal proceedings to be a bit difficult when questions are being asked. Some are more polite than others. I hope everyone understands that. I believe that most Canadians who saw Admiral Murray in action understood that this is a man who wanted to defend his situation as best he could. All Canadians have a right to do so under any circumstances.

[Somalia Inquiry, February 4th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, all I can do is assure my hon. colleague that I have not been threatened at any time. No one has tried to scare me, or encourage me to make a decision.

I would like to remind my friend that, when I assumed my position as Minister of National Defence-and this is quite easy to verify-I said right from the start, and repeated it numerous times, that I hoped the Somalia Inquiry would table its report on March 31, 1997. I have never changed my mind. From the time I assumed my position I have repeated, and repeated frequently, that I hoped they would make their report public March 31.

Obviously, because an extension was requested, the government agreed for the third time to extend the mandate of the Commission until the end of June. We thought, however, that this was sufficient to get the work done.