Preston Manning

[Churchill Falls Hydro Project, September 24th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I want to follow up on the Prime Minister's comments with respect to the Churchill Falls contract.

I wonder if the Prime Minister would give the federal government's view as to whether this deal as a whole is fair or unfair to Newfoundland. Forget for a moment that the contract was a

convoluted contract negotiated between the Liberal government in Newfoundland, the Liberal government in Quebec with the Liberal federal government looking over its shoulder.

Will the Prime Minister simply comment on whether the Churchill Falls deal is fair or unfair to Newfoundland?

[Canadian Armed Forces, September 24th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, the late Senator Stan Waters was one of Canada's most distinguished soldiers. He was a member of our first commando and paratroop unit in the second world war and he rose through the ranks to become commander of the army in the 1970s.

When General Waters was asked what was the most important quality a military leader should possess, he said he must be able to inspire others to follow him into battle.

Will the Prime Minister acknowledge that General Boyle and the defence minister could not inspire soldiers to follow them across the street, let alone into battle, and that both should therefore be relieved of their responsibilities immediately?

[Canadian Armed Forces, September 24th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, if the Prime Minister does not act at the top others are forced to improvise down below.

Lieutenant-General Maurice Baril has become tired of waiting for General Boyle to appoint an inspector general. So he has created his own position of command inspector to investigate charges of poor leadership and morale. He says: "I can't wait six months. I want to find out immediately, did the leadership fail". The leadership did fail and it continues to fail.

How long do the soldiers have to wait? How low does morale have to get before the Prime Minister does the right thing, as distinct from the politically expedient thing, and fire General Boyle and the Minister of National Defence?

[Canadian Armed Forces, September 24th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, retired Major-General Lewis MacKenzie is one of this country's most distinguished soldiers. Even the government acknowledges that. No one disputes that Major-General Lewis MacKenzie cares passionately about the men and women of the Canadian Armed Forces. Today he said: "There is a morale crisis in the Canadian forces and my plea is that the political leadership accept that and do something about it".

Does the Prime Minister accept that there is a morale crisis in the Canadian Armed Forces and will he do something by replacing the chief of defence staff and the Minister of National Defence?

[The Somalia Inquiry, September 18th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister's handling of the Somalia inquiry and Somalia affair is symptomatic of the government's management of a lot of other things.

National defence is a $10 billion department. Its work is vital to the national interest. Its international peacekeeping is a source of pride for all Canadians, yet for three years under this government its affairs have been mismanaged and its reputation has been allowed to deteriorate with no end in sight.

Do not the men and women of the Canadian Armed Forces and the Canadian public deserve something better?

[The Somalia Inquiry, September 18th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, Monday the Prime Minister said the Somalia inquiry would be allowed to do its work without political interference. Yesterday, however, the Prime Minister took a shot at the inquiry by saying it was too slow, too expensive and too hard on witnesses.

Will the Prime Minister explain these contradictions? Did the Prime Minister not know who General Boyle was until he was appointed or did he conduct the job interview? Is the inquiry independent or is the government telling it through the Prime Minister that it is too slow, too expensive and too hard on witnesses?

[The Somalia Inquiry, September 18th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister's comments on the Somalia inquiry have been contradictory and confusing and they are again today.

Yesterday the Prime Minister told the House he did not meet General Boyle until he appointed him chief of the defence staff. Yet his communications director told the Globe and Mail that the Prime Minister actually conducted the job interview.

[The Somalia Inquiry, September 18th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, it is amazing what can come out through the old process of word association.

Yesterday I asked the Prime Minister about cover up at the Somalia inquiry and for some reason he started talking immediately about the Watergate affair in the United States, a Freudian slip.

You may wish to check whether the tapes of yesterday's question period were erased. Surely the Prime Minister did not mean that the tampering and political interference at the Somalia inquiry had reached Watergate proportions.

What precisely was the Prime Minister trying to say when he drew some parallel between his handling of the Somalia inquiry and the Watergate affair?

[Somalia Inquiry, September 17th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, to ensure that there is no ultimate cover-up in the Somalia inquiry, will the Prime Minister guarantee to this House that the results of the inquiry will be made fully public before the next federal election?

[Somalia Inquiry, September 17th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister did not address any of the points that I raised. If this is an open inquiry and we are supposed to let the inquiry do its work, why did he not comment on the defence minister's attempting to influence who were the commissioners? Why did he not comment upon the attempt to alter documents before the commission? Why did he not respond to anything about the uneven legal help that is given to some participants and not to others?

The Prime Minister is getting pretty close to participating in the cover-up by the military.