Preston Manning

[Somalia Inquiry, April 16th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, in 1978 a Liberal Speaker of this House who is now an associate to the chief justice of the Federal Court of Appeal made a ruling on what ministerial responsibility is. I would like to read it to the minister: "It is the responsibility that when serious dereliction of duty by an official of a minister takes place, the minister is expected either to assume responsibility for that in the House or alternatively to advise the House of the appropriate disciplinary measures which have been taken".

Can the minister understand that? Does he assume responsibility for the Somalia cover-up, yes or no? If no, will he advise the House what disciplinary measures have been taken against those whom he does hold responsible?

[Somalia Inquiry, April 16th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, with the inadequate answers which we have received today on the Somalia inquiry the government has raised the bigger issue of ministerial accountability.

We have a serious dereliction of duty with respect to the Canadian Armed Forces in the case of the cover-up of the Somalia affair. Instead of the senior minister accepting responsibility for that dereliction of duty, he tries to pass it on either to an inquiry or to senior officials who then pass it on to the lower ranks.

Will the minister explain to the House exactly what his concept of ministerial responsibility is? Does he accept responsibility in the case of the Somalia cover-up?

[Somalia Inquiry, April 16th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, the minister talks a lot about justice and fairness and yet by siding with General Boyle he could very well be aiding and abetting a cover-up that prevents justice and fairness from being done. His hand-picked chief of defence is not an innocent bystander. He headed up public affairs at DND. He had a hand in the operations of SILT and he is the head of the military justice system. General Boyle cannot be impartial in a case in which he is both a witness and a suspect.

If the minister is committed to justice and impartiality, even the appearance of justice and impartiality, will he ask General Boyle, his hand-picked chief of defence staff, to step aside until the Somalia inquiry finishes its work?

[Somalia Inquiry, April 16th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, the minister moved very quickly from the discussion of General Boyle on to other subjects and yet General Boyle is at the heart of this controversy.

The public affairs branch of DND hatched an elaborate scheme to rename, hide and even destroy Somalia documents. General Boyle was the head of public affairs. The Somalia Inquiry Liaison Team, SILT, is accused of deliberate foot dragging and misleading commissioners. General Boyle was involved in SILT. The military wants to court martial Colonel Geoff Haswell who says that top soldiers knew of the cover-up. General Boyle is part of that military justice system. The defence minister's hand-picked chief of defence is up to his eyeballs in the Somalia affair.

Given all of this, will the defence minister ask his appointee, General Boyle, to step aside until the inquiry determines his role in the Somalia affair?

[Somalia Inquiry, April 16th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, it is now reported that the Somalia inquiry has new memos that cast doubts on the military police investigation and the information commissioner's report on an attempted cover-up.

According to the commissioner, these investigations have not had all the relevant documents necessary to reach sound conclusions. The defence minister was very quick to trumpet the information commissioner's report when it appeared to clear General Boyle of any direct involvement in the Somalia cover-up but now the information commissioner has expressed concern that all the facts were not on the table.

Can the defence minister categorically state that General Boyle played no role whatsoever in DND's efforts to cover up Somalia documents?

[National Defence, March 28th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, this minister oversees a $10 billion department. He is responsible for the national and international security of Canadians.

Over the past two years, it has been painfully clear that DND is out of control, senior officers are openly flouting the law and the minister is either unwilling or incapable of doing anything about it.

Since we get no answers from the minister, I ask the Prime Minister whether he will take the responsibility for the chaos at DND and demand the resignation of his incompetent Minister of National Defence.

[National Defence, March 28th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, the minister's position always seems to be that whenever things go wrong in the department, someone other than those in authority is responsible. Canadians do not buy that.

The minister bungled the handling of the airborne videos, video I, video II and video III. He stood back and watched while DND lawyers intimidated witnesses to discredit the Somalia inquiry. He rubber stamped the questionable promotions and appointments such as those of Anne-Marie Doyle and Colonel Peter Kenward. Now we have the DND cover-up.

If the minister is not willing to accept responsibility for the actions of the defence department, if he cannot hold senior people in the department accountable for the actions of the department, will the Minister of National Defence resign?

[National Defence, March 28th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, in his report on the defence department's handling of the Somalia affair, Canada's information commissioner, John Grace, found evidence of a widespread cover-up at DND. Documents were either destroyed, altered or disguised and unlawful orders were given to the rank and file.

Instead of getting to the bottom of this outrage, the defence minister thought it was more important to try and defend General Boyle by stressing that the general was misled by his subordinate.

My question is for the defence minister. Is it the position of the minister that as long as he or his senior officers are misled from below they are not accountable for what happens at the defence department?

[Government Budgets, March 27th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister compares his government's financial performance to that of the OECD countries. He ought to compare it to the provinces in Canada. Eight provincial governments are on a faster track for deficit elimination and tax relief than the federal government.

On this countdown we are hearing, from a $40 billion deficit, to $30 billion, to $20 billion, to $10 billion, the other side that is never spoken of is the federal debt's going from $450 billion to $500 billion, from $550 billion to $600 billion.

I will ask one more time. What is wrong with the decision making and financial planning apparatus of the federal government that it cannot produce a budget balancing plan when eight other governments in Canada can?

[Government Budgets, March 27th, 1996]

The federal government has a plan, Mr. Speaker, but it happens to be the slowest plan in the country for reducing the federal deficit.

Why should the national government, the one that is supposed to provide leadership, be the last to commit itself to balancing its budget? It ought to be the first.

If the Prime Minister simply cannot put together a balanced budget plan, would he be willing to hold a Canadian economic summit, like the one in Quebec, and allow business, labour and provincial leaders to put together a balanced budget plan for him?