Jean H. Leroux

[Supply, March 23rd, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I completely disagree with my colleague.

A recent study by a Quebec university says that for the last 15 years, Quebec's military budget is missing $650 million every year. I think no one in this House is refuting that. It is important to say that Quebec has never really received its share. All the documents we have received prove that.

The Liberal government had one chance to promote bilingualism in Canada and it did not do it. It decided to close the only francophone and bilingual school in Canada, which was Collège militaire royal de Saint-Jean. The Liberals decided to do that. I am sure that is the worst decision the government will take in the four years it will be in government, if it ever goes to four years. Who knows?

I would have appreciated that my colleagues opposite on the defence committee ask me questions on the importance, for example, of having committees of this House that are effective, committees with decision making authority. It is not the case, at present, in Ottawa. We have committees that sit, gather evidence, do all sorts of things, but when it comes to making any real decision, any major decision, it is then up to the ministers and the system. Ministers make decision and, often, all the work done in committee is ignored. It is a shame. I wish the government would take good note of that.

[Supply, March 23rd, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, as I said earlier, the debate is on a motion, introduced by the third party, in which the Minister of National Defence is asked to extend the mandate of the commission of inquiry to cover all armed forces and not only the military unit in Somalia.

I would like to explain the situation and the position taken by the Bloc. For several months we have been asking the government to consider the importance of establishing a commission that would investigate the situation prevailing in the forces at this time. The government, however, has decided to establish a commission that will cover only part of what we see as the real problem.

This is a very serious matter, and Canadians and Quebecers have doubts about the credibility of those in charge of the Canadian Forces and whether they are doing their job, and they wonder whether all this could be improved. I worked in education for more than 21 years. In my riding, we had four cadet corps, two army and two navy, and I think the people who are involved in these projects do a good job.

Now, however, people are not so sure, but I think we should not blame the entire military. As I said before Question Period, it is likely that only some of the people who make the decisions should perhaps change the way they do that. The Bloc Quebecois supports the motion of the hon. member for Saanich-Gulf Islands, and we think it would be useful for the government or the Department of National Defence to expand the scope of the study so that all this could be cleared up.

I think Canadians are now asking questions about the quality of Canada's defence. As you know, this year Canada has projected a deficit of $33.5 billion. On the Standing Committee on National Defence, the Bloc Quebecois suggested cuts that would trim the Defence budget to $10 billion, but the government refused.

The government is going to make cuts. It will cut $1.6 billion over three years, while we requested a cut of $4.8 billion over three years. Right now, the Government of Quebec is about to bring down its own budget. In that budget, ministers will each receive an envelope, and they will have to operate their departments with the funding provided in that envelope.

I think the Canadian government could have done the same thing. When we sat on the joint committee with the senators, we were told that Canada was going to buy submarines. Fortunately, this is no longer the case. This is not a time of expansion, but rather of reduction. This is a time of streamlining and of making what we have as effective as possible.

In the spring I had the honour and the opportunity to visit our forces in Bosnia-Hercegovina. We were able to visit Canadians stationed in Gorazde and another group in Visoko. We were able on site to see that the Canadian forces were doing a good job there. Now what people want is an investigation to see what could be improved. We are told that morale in the military is low at the moment. Therefore would this not be a good time for the government to set up a commission to look into all of this?

As I was saying, I am on the Standing Committee on National Defence. Since becoming a member, I have noticed that the committees-there are 22 of them-sit a lot during the week. What is the real role of the committees? Is it not time in Canada for us to review the role of our House committees? The committees sit several hours a week and simply make recommendations. Unlike in the American system, our committees prepare documents, and often these documents, after having been produced at great cost, are simply shelved and never heard of again. It is as if the committees were used to assess popular opinion and to find out what people were thinking. However, the people on these committees, whether in government or in opposition, work very hard. We have people from Canada and Quebec appearing before us to express their points of view. Very often, however, these committees have no real power unfortunately. The power lies in the hands of the ministers and cabinet. I think it would be a good idea, as we suggested in our committee, for committees to have more power so that the government and the opposition could together develop a coherent Canadian policy.

In the past 15 years in Quebec, military investment has been insufficient. There has been a shortfall in Quebec of $650 million a year. Quebec is not receiving its fair share. They say that 23.5 per cent of Canada's defence budget comes from Quebec. But only 17.4 per cent of the total budget for defence and defence research goes to Quebec. As a direct result of this budget, Quebec will lose 15,000 military and civilian jobs. And this will create a spin-off and an indirect job loss of 25,000, in addition to the 40,000 other jobs lost each year, a 40,000 job shortfall for the past 15 years. While Ontario gets 73 per cent of the defence research budget, Quebec must be happy with a meagre 12.4 per cent. That is unacceptable, 12.45 per cent of research spending for Quebec when 73 per cent goes to Ontario.

Only 15 per cent of all of Canada's military facilities are in Quebec. The closure of the Saint-Hubert base, which was announced in the last budget, will cause a loss of 600 jobs. Six hundred people are going to be out of work. The total number of casualties from the staffing cuts in Bagotville is 285 employees.

We cannot help but notice that, despite commissions, despite studies, despite committees which try to strike a balance, Quebec is getting less and less, and that is unacceptable.

Last year, the Government of Canada made probably the worst decision it will make during its four year mandate, and that was to close the Saint-Jean military college. And I must say that I have often encountered senior departmental officials who tell me in private and who will continue to tell me that it should not have been done. But they did it anyway. They closed the military college. I am telling you this not to reopen the debate, but to make the point that there are 13,000 bilingual positions in the armed forces, of which 7,000 are filled by unilingual anglophones. Of the 13,000 bilingual positions, only 6,000 are filled by Quebecers or others, and because we do not have enough bilingual members of the armed forces, the 7,000 other positions are filled by anglophones.

They talk about having a bilingual policy, but it is just a ploy. If they ever were really serious about it, they never would have closed the Saint-Jean military college because that was really where they trained bilingual members of the armed forces. We will see, but I do not think that Kingston will be able to fill this need.

I would also like to discuss defence conversion, because the budget makes no mention of it. There are more than 650 defence conversion businesses in Quebec, of all sizes. Quebec has lost 10,000 jobs since 1987 due to defence conversion. Between 1990 and 1994, 7,391 industry jobs were lost. It is unacceptable that a government which claims to be responsible, as this one does, has neglected to develop a policy on defence conversion.

The Bloc Quebecois will support the motion put forward by our hon. opposition colleague because it is consistent with the official opposition's repeated requests to broaden the mandate of the inquiry on the deployment of Canadian troops in Somalia.

Both the official opposition and the third party have asked questions many times, but we never received any answers. In our opinion, this commission should have been mandated to also look into all the other disturbing events not only in the disbanded Airborne Regiment but also on the base at Petawawa and everywhere else in the armed forces.

According to rumours, which are confirmed by videos and other evidence, some members of the military go around their bases displaying white supremacist flags and wearing Ku Klux Klan armbands. This is totally unacceptable. If ordinary soldiers behave in this way, it is because they are allowed to do so. Their behaviour is accepted and may even be encouraged.

I think it is important to find out if our military bases and what they teach our young people encourage racism, because if such is the case, it is unacceptable. That is why the Bloc will support my hon. colleague's motion.

[Sale Of Canadian Cf-5 Aircraft, March 23rd, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, on Monday, in response to a question from my hon. colleague for Red Deer, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence confirmed that Canada is indeed negotiating with Turkey at the moment for the sale of the CF-5 fighter planes scrapped following the tabling of the latest white paper on defence policy.

Since the rules governing Canadian exports of weapons technology are the responsibility of the Department of Foreign Affairs, what assurance can the government give to the people of Canada and Quebec that these Canadian fighter aircraft will not be used against civilian populations as is the case at the moment with Turkish offensives against the Kurds on the Iraqi border?

[Supply, March 23rd, 1995]

Madam Speaker, if I am not mistaken, I will be able to finish my speech after Question Period.

Today, as always when I rise in the House, I think of the people in the riding of Shefford who elected me. In fact, these people put their trust in us, and when we speak in this chamber, we do so on behalf of those who elected us.

On March 21, the Minister of National Defence announced that he was establishing a commission that will investigate and report on the functioning of the chain of command, the leadership, discipline, operations and decisions of the Canadian Forces, and the actions and decisions of the Department of National Defence, as to the deployment of the Canadian Forces to Somalia.

Today, the debate in this House is on a motion introduced by the hon. member for Saanich-Gulf Islands, and I will read it to you:

That this House condemn the government for failing to commission a broad and public inquiry with a mandate to investigate the government's failure to hold senior officials at the Department of National Defence accountable for command and control shortcomings, deteriorating morale, and decisions which diminished or have failed to improve Canada's defence posture.

The average person will want to know the difference between these two positions. The minister announced he was establishing a commission that will examine the problem of Somalia and the Second Airborne Regiment, while the motion introduced by my colleague wants to expand the scope of the commission to include the entire department and gives us an opportunity to discuss these problems here in the House. As you know, morale in the Canadian military has reached a new low, and that is because Canadians are increasingly reluctant to trust the people at National Defence.

When we refer to the people who run National Defence, we are not talking about the average soldier. They do not make the decisions. We are referring to the people who make the decisions, to the top level officials.

[Maintenance Of Railway Operations Act, 1995, March 22nd, 1995]

The Liberals are to blame.

[Journée Internationale De La Francophonie, March 20th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, today, francophones the world over celebrate the Journée internationale de la Francophonie. On this day, we must reflect on the future of the Francophonie in light of the social and cultural changes shaping our societies.

Despite the fact that parliamentarians observe this day each year, Bloc Quebecois members deplore the omission of any mention of the Francophonie's flag in the Minister of Canadian Heritage's document entitled: "Canadian Flag, Flag Etiquette in Canada". However it does describe the flags of three important international organizations, the United Nations, NATO and the Commonwealth, of which Canada is a member.

The Francophonie, must we remind the Minister of Canadian Heritage, is celebrated in all countries of the world, starting with Canada.

We send our best wishes to francophones the world over.

[Supply, March 16th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, first of all, I will say to my colleague that our top priority in coming to Ottawa was to defend Quebecers' interests. That is what we are doing. Second, we hope to set up our own country. Unfortunately, the hon. member did not understand this.

In response to his question, I remember last year's debate on child poverty. However, it must be understood that if there are poor children, it is because there are also poor parents. Children are not living in poverty by themselves. The poorest members of our society are women, and that is what I am saying today.

They are often single parents with sole responsibility for raising their children. As you know, poor children cannot do well in school. If they do not have what they need at home, they cannot succeed and hope to find a way out. It is important to keep this in mind.

As you know, Mr. Speaker, when the Liberals were on this side of the House, they delivered some great speeches. Now that they have crossed the floor-normally, a party, once elected to govern, has a tendency to sit pat-they have not been sitting pat, they have been lying down on the job. What they should do first

is look at their social policy. As we remember, under Trudeau, they spoke of a just society, an extraordinary society. I think that today's Liberals put all that aside and are now worse than the Tories.

[Supply, March 16th, 1995]

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I will be careful in my closing remarks.

Access to affordable, quality housing is recognized as a pre-requisite to the fulfilment of other needs, such as education, health, labour force productivity and social security.

In this period of budgetary restraint, Quebec and Canadian society are giving priority to the housing needs of less fortunate Quebecers and Canadians. These are the people who interest us, the less fortunate. Social housing has a particular role to play in meeting these needs. The federal government must continue to give top priority to funding social housing. By maintaining this program as a priority today, we will avoid higher costs in other areas down the road.

The government has no right to sacrifice so many families, so many women and so many years of hard work in an attempt to maintain harmony in a society that prides itself on being just and fair.

[Supply, March 16th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I will share my speaking time with the hon. member for Laurentides.

It is always an honour and a privilege to rise in this House, and members should always remember that when they do, they represent those who elected them.

Today, I am doing exactly that, and I am thinking more specifically of the 52 per cent of the residents of Shefford who are women.

The federal budget for 1995 tabled by the Minister of Finance totally ignored the social contract between the government and the majority of taxpayers in Quebec and Canada. The budget brought down by the hon. member for Lasalle-Émard ignores the economic and social realities facing the middle class and the less well-off groups in our society.

This budget denies women the right to a fairer and more equitable society. In fact, the budget is just a smoke screen to hide the real problems.

Left out of the budget altogether are measures to ensure that women get equal pay for equal work and a better standard of living. Last year, the Liberals voted in favour of measures that would be fairer and more equitable. Today, those promises have evaporated.

In fact, in the key sectors of health care, social assistance and post-secondary education, the Liberal government actually decided to make the worst, not the best but the worst of a bad situation. The first to suffer as a result of cuts in transfer payments to the provinces will be women and children.

The federal government has offloaded its financial problems on the provinces and on, Quebec, without considering the impact these cuts will have on women.

In addition, Ottawa has decided to launch a second attack on women who are senior citizens by calculating the amount of their old age security cheque according to the income of their spouses. This reduction comes in addition to the reduction in the age tax credit announced last year.

I deplore the fact that the federal government has offloaded its problems on the provinces instead of eliminating overlap and dismantling tax shelters that deprive the government of hundreds of millions of dollars annually.

The government's priorities are not in the right place and lack vision. You would think Ottawa was managed by a bunch of brokers looking for a good deal and speculating on the short term market with other people's money.

I do not mean to criticize the profession as such, but this is not what we need here in Ottawa. Those who govern us should be responsible people who are prepared to listen to the majority of taxpayers who are sick and tired of being squeezed.

Take, for instance, the Canada Assistance Plan, also known as CAP. Despite the provisions in the assistance plan regarding subsidized day care services, the shortage of adequate and affordable services remains a significant problem for a very large number of families with one or more children.

The lack of day care spaces is a fundamental concern for low and middle income parents.

This is a deep social concern, a concern which was expressed in the red book, this famous red book of the Liberal Party, which we might have thought would lead to some action plan.

We can read on page 38 of the red book, and I quote: "Canadians with young families need a support system that enables parents to participate fully in an economic life for the country- Recent research by the National Council of Welfare indicates that the single best predictor of whether a family has adequate economic resources is whether it has two wage earners. A growing majority of Canadian families need two wage earners to achieve a reasonable standard of living. The availability of good quality child care at an affordable cost makes the difference between a family living at the edge of poverty and a family living with a moderate standard of living".

This is straight out of the red book. A good child care system, affordable for all, is an economic advantage. It allows poor parents to re-enter the work force instead of having to continue to rely on social assistance and food banks. It also creates jobs, especially for women, since on average one job is created for every five children in day care.

Therefore, the Liberal principle of a service allowing access to financial independence remains a promise, it has been shelved, like all the nice sounding election promises which will be conveniently forgotten before the next election campaign.

According to the Liberal red book, in each year following a year of 3 per cent economic growth, a Liberal government will create 50,000 new child care spaces. We have reached this rate of economic growth this year. Since child care which is funded by governments is funded 50/50 by the federal and provincial governments, what will become of the spaces promised by the Liberals, if the government cuts transfer payments to Quebec by $350 million?

What will become of the 40 per cent of the costs of new child care spaces to be assumed by the federal government, which is evaluated at $120 million in 1995-96, $240 million in 1996-97, and $360 million in 1997-98, amounting to $720 million over three years? These figures come from the red book. It has been a long time since the red book, the Liberal bible, has been mentioned. What happened to all the nice Liberal promises?

Let us now talk about social housing. As a whole, the 1995-96 budget puts an end to any new initiative in this area. Since close to 17 per cent of Quebec families and 16 per cent of Canadian tenants spend more than 50 per cent of their income on rent, it is

easy to understand why social housing needs are so huge and why offloading will have enormous long term consequences. Women, who represent an important clientele, or 57 per cent of social housing, will be the hardest hit by these cuts.

The 1995-96 budget also means that the 40,000 people on the co-op housing waiting list of the CMHC-The Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation-will have to wait months, even years, before a unit is available. There is no longer any hope of building new ones.

CMHC will close 20 branches across Canada. In Quebec, the Longueuil office will close while in Sept-Îles, Rimouski, Val-d'Or and Trois-Rivières, only one person will remain on duty, working at home. Successive decommitments by Ottawa clearly demonstrate the limitations of administrative agreements between Quebec and Ottawa in cases of unilateral withdrawal.

Today, Quebec is caught off guard by the extent of Ottawa's financial pull out in the social housing sector, because it counted on the federal government as the major source of funds in the agreement. Unable to compensate for this unilateral withdrawal, Quebec must review its plans and cancel the construction of new low rent housing units that had been promised to municipalities.

Because of the community help readily available there and the low cost of housing, the co-op formula was an interesting option for single parent families, which are headed mainly by women.

Community help such as child care is a very influential factor and explains why a much greater number of single parents living in co-operatives are in the workforce. If we do not respond-

[The Budget, March 15th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I wish to thank my colleague for his question. All I can say is that if we look at the budget as a whole, the federal government faced a $37 billion or $38 billion deficit last year, compared with a $33 billion deficit forecast for this year. The government is saving money on the backs of the provinces. Since the provinces will have less money, they will have to cut spending for post-secondary education, health care and other services under provincial jurisdiction. That, in my opinion, is tragic.

I would also like to go back to the closure of the military college in Saint-Jean. I think that this is an appalling decision. It is appalling for Canada, because Canada has always maintained that it is a bilingual country and tried to give that impression. However, by closing the military college in Saint-Jean-as we can see, enrolment is already way down, a drop of 40 to 60 per cent this year-the government is simply telling us that, at the end of the day, bilingualism is not important.