We almost won it.
Lost his last election, in 1997, with 36% of the vote.
Department Of Human Resources Development Act April 18th, 1996
We almost won it.
Department Of Human Resources Development Act April 18th, 1996
Mr. Speaker, what do we want? That is a good question. As I said before, we want the government to behave in an equitable manner. The hon. member says this is done everywhere in the country. That does not mean it is a good thing.
That is not the problem. We know there are structures, we know there is some co-operation between Canadian employment centres and those responsible for employment in Quebec, where there is a tradition of co-operation at the local level. However, what is happening at the present time is that they are dismantling the network, and this will do considerable damage to job creation. It is as if the federal government were withdrawing while continuing to exercise control over programs. It wants control but it does not want to invest in the area, and that is unacceptable.
The federal government has a certain responsibility in that regard and, frankly, you will agree with me that it should give all its support to the level of government best able to decide and closest to the people of the regions.
What I am asking, and I would like the opinion of the hon. member on this, is for the federal government to stop, once and for all, interfering needlessly in our affairs and give back to the regions what they are entitled to.
Department Of Human Resources Development Act April 18th, 1996
Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to the speech of my colleague opposite. I want to comment on it and perhaps ask her a question in closing.
As you know, I am the member for Shefford. The main town in my riding is Granby. Granby is an industrial town of approximately 45,000 inhabitants. There are about 90,000 people in the region.
Cuts were announced under both human resources development ministers. This reminds of the dismantling of railways in Canada.
Mr. Speaker, you are a federalist-I have no doubt about that, Mr. Speaker-and I believe that all across Canada, employment centres are considered as a symbol of Canada. They are actually closing them down, doing away with them, so much so that Granby now receives only $36,000 from the federal government in lieu of taxes. Might as well say there is no federal presence in our region.
When our great country was created, the federal government's goal was to distribute wealth fairly across the territory. But now, my region is cut off by this government. Some 50 or 55 people were working in the employment centre, and now the government is considering going down to 12 or maybe 18 employees-no decision has been made yet.
This is sad for my region. It is a heavy blow since the employment centre, as it was organized, was making a significant contribution to the region's development. It is a whole network they are breaking up. This network is important for the regions. It is important for Quebec, for its development. Usually, all kinds of people are represented on boards of trade, people from every political affiliation, mostly federalists.
The Granby Board of Trade circulated a petition that was signed by over 6,000 people to condemn the government's attitude and to ask it to give more consideration to regions. As I said earlier, employment centres are a symbol of the Government of Canada, but this symbol is about to disappear because of the policies of the department and the minister.
My question is this: When the government makes decisions like the one to reform the system, why does it ignore the other governments? I would like to hear the member's comments on that matter.
The Constitution April 18th, 1996
Mr. Speaker, despite the commitment and the promises made by the Prime Minister of Canada to renew the Canadian Constitution to better take into account the traditional and legitimate claims of Quebec, the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs is proposing various constitutional pas-de-deux to repair the damage made in 1982 by the present Prime Minister.
The Prime Minister's promises, which all in all do not amount to a great deal, are already too much for some premiers. Trial balloons, reversals, spectacular parades, such is the agenda proposed by the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs to please English Canada. Does the minister believe that Quebecers are so blind that they cannot see through his real game?
The people of Quebec are not fooled by the minister's trickeries and will not let him pull wool over their eyes.
Agriculture April 17th, 1996
Mr. Speaker, on March 21, I put a question in the House to the Prime Minister regarding events which had taken place in Gagetown, New Brunswick, and which included distasteful hazing rituals. These events showed once again that Canadian forces commanders have lost control over military ethics: the series of events that occurred in Somalia, in Petawawa, and at the Citadel in Quebec City clearly demonstrate that high ranking officers always manage to get away with things and wash their hands of anything that could prevent them from being promoted. Being promoted is what matters, often to the detriment of the truth, even.
Today, in light of all these events, we are wondering who leads the forces. Why, when there are unfortunate events such as those of late, is no one responsible at the top of the chain of command? If this is the case, is there not cause for concern about the success of armed forces' undertakings at home and abroad?
As you know, before the sad and unfortunate events in Somalia-I remind you that people died-Canada enjoyed a spotless reputation in the area of peacekeeping. In a peace mission, our soldiers represent us. They are our ambassadors and should behave in a dignified and professional manner. Their behaviour must be exemplary. They are not allowed to let us down.
Another event that surfaced was the Quebec Citadel manoeuvres, which were authorized by military leaders and which could have turned into a blood bath. As elected representatives, what should we think of such improvised manoeuvres?
At this point, Canadians are increasingly losing confidence in the integrity of the chain of command of the armed forces. I would remind you that $10.7 billion will be spent in fiscal 1996-97. That is an awful lot of money.
I invite the minister to assume his responsibilities. He must do everything in his power to restore the credibility of the Canadian armed forces. He must do everything possible to shed light on the unacceptable behaviour of certain members of the forces and cure the ills plaguing the army. He must have the courage to go right to the top of the chain of command. If he fails to fully restore the forces' reputation, he will have no choice but to leave.
Nothing, as I speak, indicates to me that the minister is going to succeed.
Gulf War Syndrome March 29th, 1996
Mr. Speaker, are we to understand that the position of the government is that potential victims of this syndrome should be left to fend for themselves, so that the government can avoid compensating them, should the department be found to have some responsibility?
Gulf War Syndrome March 29th, 1996
Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Deputy Prime Minister. At a press conference yesterday, a former member of the armed forces was very critical of the government for dragging its feet on the gulf war syndrome issue. She said that over 200 former soldiers are affected. While the American administration has acknowledged the existence of this syndrome, the Canadian government simply stated that it has been impossible to find a clear relation between certain symptoms affecting some members of the forces and their involvement in the Gulf War.
How can the government remain so passive and refuse to have this issue really looked into, thus depriving those allegedly affected by the syndrome of all public support?
Petitions March 27th, 1996
Madam Speaker, today I am presenting a petition originally signed by 6,300 people in the riding of Shefford, which I represent in this House. This petition represents over 10 per cent of the adult population and the names were collected in five days. It asks that Granby's Canada employment centre, with all the existing services, be maintained.
The Granby CEC is an economic development tool essential to the Granby area. I would like to thank all those who helped collect the signatures, especially the Granby Chamber of Commerce, which organized and piloted the petition.
The petitioners call on Parliament and the Minister of Human Resources Development to re-evaluate their decision, in order to maintain the existing services at the Granby CEC.
Canadian Armed Forces March 21st, 1996
Mr. Speaker, since the beginning of this Parliament, we always hear the same answer: an investigation is underway.
If his government is still in charge, this time will the Prime Minister refuse to let his minister punish only enlisted men and will he demand that the real culprits, namely the high-ranking officers, be punished rather than being promoted?
Canadian Armed Forces March 21st, 1996
Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister.
It is reported that Canadian soldiers have once again engaged in hazing at the Gagetown base, in New Brunswick, and that the military police is conducting an investigation into these events, which could further tarnish the Canadian armed forces' reputation.
Since the Minister of National Defence had given formal orders banning such activities, are we to understand that the minister's authority over our Canadian forces is seriously lacking?