Debates of Oct. 2nd, 1995

Pearson Airport

[Jim Gouk, Reform, Kootenay West—Revelstoke, BC]

Mr. Speaker, this fall is an anniversary of sorts for the Liberal government. It will be two years since the controversial cancelling of the Pearson airport contract.

For two years the government has claimed the process was corrupt and yet for the same two years it has not produced one substantive piece of evidence demonstrating its alleged corruption.

For two years the government has claimed it was not a good financial deal for Canadians in spite of government documentation to the contrary, and yet for the same two years it has not come up with an alternative plan.

For two years the government has claimed that failure to pass Bill C-22 has resulted in its inability to deal with the problem in spite of the fact there is no injunction standing in its way and the Pearson Development Corporation has not requested specific performance in its court action.

Witnesses under oath at the Senate inquiry made allegations which indicate the cancellation of Pearson is nothing more than a snit by the Prime Minister against the principal partner in the deal who had the audacity to donate to the Prime Minister's main opponent in his leadership campaign.

After two years the Liberals should not be celebrating; they should hang their heads in shame.

Quebec Referendum

[Jag Bhaduria, Liberal, Markham—Whitchurch-Stouffville, ON]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday's official announcement confirming October 30 as the date of the Quebec referendum brings us a step closer to the certainty that the people of Quebec will overwhelmingly vote to stay in a united Canada.

I thank Premier Parizeau for giving the citizens of Quebec the opportunity to decisively say yes to a united Canada. Each and every eligible voter now has the opportunity to reject the false premises and unrealistic expectations of the separatist movement in Quebec. The destiny of millions of Canadians is now in their hands. I am convinced they will choose the no option.

Having spent the past four weekends in Quebec meeting with numerous committee organizations, I believe a stronger and united Canada will emerge on October 31. I urge every member of the House to work toward achieving a united Canada. Our efforts will make a difference in keeping Canada together.

Canada

[Bonnie Brown, Liberal, Oakville—Milton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, school children from around the world love contests, and last June Canadian school children got their chance to enter one.

At the request of cartoonist Ben Wicks newspapers from across Canada and the Schoolnet asked our children to depict how they felt about their country. They could submit letters, poems, drawings or paintings.

The response was overwhelming. More than 50,000 replies were received and 300 were selected for a new book called Dear Canada/Cher Canada-A Love Letter to My Country .

Today Mr. Wicks and 20 children from across Canada are in Ottawa to launch this book. The proceeds from the sale will go to needy mothers and children in Haiti and to the Boys and Girls Clubs of Canada.

Through this book the children of Canada are telling us what the rest of the world already knows, that Canada is the best country in the world.

Presence In Gallery

[The Speaker]

Colleagues, Mr. Wicks and the children are here. I would ask them to stand and be recognized by Parliament.

[Some hon. members]

Hear, hear.

National Infrastructure Program

[Ronald J. Duhamel, Liberal, St. Boniface, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the national infrastructure program put in place by our government will soon be two years old. All regions of this country have enjoyed the significant benefits of this program, which not only made it possible to modernize municipal facilities but also created an impressive number of jobs.

In Quebec, this program created over 25,000 new jobs in connection with 1,882 projects. To date, in excess of $436 million was injected into the various projects by federal, provincial and municipal governments.

The national infrastructure program also showed that the various levels of government can co-operate when they really want to. It is a good example of a successful and effective program, and we are quite proud of it.

Quebec Economy

[Mauril Bélanger, Liberal, Ottawa—Vanier, ON]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Parti Quebecois Premier made use of something said by one of the executives of the Bank of Montreal to reaffirm his confidence in the economic future of an independent Quebec. It is paradoxical, to say the least, to see the head of the Parti Quebecois using the words of a representative of the Bank of Montreal to support his separatist pretensions. In June 1994, the same man was publicly inviting Quebecers who did business with the Bank of Montreal to pull out of the institution because its chief economist had dared to say that the election of the Parti Quebecois would make the money markets extremely nervous.

This is a fine example of the separatists' double standard. If you make a statement in favour of Quebec independence one day, you are quoted publicly. Then, another day, if you say something against separation, you become the target of the PQ's big guns. So much for intellectual impartiality.

Job Creation

[Michel Guimond, Bloc, Beauport—Montmorency—Orléans, QC]

Mr. Speaker, historically Quebec has been the biggest loser by far when it comes to federal expenditures for job creation. A study commissioned by the Bélanger-Campeau Commission concluded that the current level of federal expenditures for job creation in Quebec is far below the average. Since statistics have been available, Quebec has not received its share of funding from Ottawa aimed at bolstering the economy, whereas Ontario has had the lion's share, whether federal purchases of goods and services, capital investments, research and development, defence spending, I could go on and on.

With the cuts that were announced in the last federal budget not only will development continue in Ontario, but Quebec will not even receive the amount of social transfers it was receiving in the past. That is an excellent reason for a yes vote this coming October 30.

Adams River Bridge

[Darrel Stinson, Reform, Okanagan—Shuswap, BC]

Mr. Speaker, three weeks ago the Adams River bridge was torched by an arsonist during the Gustafsen Lake confrontation, also with Shuswap Indians, forcing some 90 residents previously blockaded by the Adams Lake Indian Band to use a temporary ferry as their sole access to every service from medical health to the mail.

The Department of Fisheries and Oceans has said the salmon resource will prevent bridge demolition and reconstruction until mid-August 1996. Because the court ruled the private road belongs to the Adams Lake Indian Band, nobody knows who owns the bridge and therefore who has the responsibility to rebuild it.

I will present a petition today from Indian Point residents that the government buy out their homes at the assessed value.

On behalf of Adams Lake residents, mostly seniors seeking peaceful retirement, whose lives have been so terribly disrupted by federal and provincial government mismanagement, I urge the minister to buy out their homes now.

North American Free Trade Agreement

[Paul Devillers, Liberal, Simcoe North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the three countries that are party to the North American Free Trade Agreement have not yet been invited to comment officially on an independent Quebec's membership in NAFTA, and yet already anxiety is being felt in government headquarters in Quebec City. Today's Globe and Mail reveals that the Parti Quebecois government has prepared a list of 31 different subjects or areas for negotiation with the future partners before an independent Quebec joins NAFTA.

This list of preferential acts and regulations Quebec currently enjoys as a province of Canada would no longer be covered by the terms of the present agreement should Quebec separate. Quebec would be best assured of protecting these various sectors of activity by remaining in Canada, and this is what the people will say on October 30.

Studies Commissioned By The Quebec Government

[Raymond Bonin, Liberal, Nickel Belt, ON]

Mr. Speaker, what we now call the Le Hir studies will not go unnoticed in the current referendum debate. After delivering separatist tinted studies and after hiding studies that did not fit with PQ orthodoxy, the minister responsible for reworking information has just tabled in one fell swoop the last 26 studies he commissioned.

Furthermore, these studies are available for consultation only at government offices. Anyone wanting a copy pays 25 cents a page.

The people of Quebec have already amply paid for these separatist propaganda studies. The Parti Quebecois government's attempt to impose an information tax on them is unacceptable.

Research And Development

[Lucien Bouchard, Bloc, Leader of the Opposition]

Mr. Speaker, last Friday, the Prime Minister refused to take part in a four-way public debate on the political future of Quebec and asked the official opposition to give him one good reason to vote Yes on October 30. Here is one good reason among many others, and I am referring to Ottawa's ongoing under-investment in research and development spending in Quebec, which is otherwise a preferred way to create new jobs. I may recall that Quebec receives only 18.6 per cent of federal funding, as opposed to 50 per cent for Ontario.

My question is directed to the Prime Minister. What explanation does he have for the fact that the federal government is depriving Quebec of its fair share of research and development and has done so for nearly 20 years?

[Marcel Massé, Liberal, President of the Queen's Privy Council for Canada]

Mr. Speaker, Quebec receives more than its share of research and development funding. The figures quoted by the Leader of the Opposition assume that money spent within the national capital area only benefits Ontario, while in my riding, I have 1,700 people who work in research and development institutions on the Ottawa side.

This is the wrong way to look at spending. In fact, when we exclude the National Capital area, we see that nearly 30 per cent of research and development spending goes to Quebec, which represents only 24.9 per cent of the population.

[Lucien Bouchard, Bloc, Leader of the Opposition]

Mr. Speaker, if we exclude Ottawa, if we forget that Ottawa is in Ontario, if we overlook the fact that jobs created on the Ontario side benefit Ontario, that taxes are paid in Ontario, that contracts are awarded in Ontario and that research networks are created in Ontario, then he is right. However, Ottawa will not go away.

It so happens that Quebec receives only 13.8 per cent of Ottawa's research and development spending in its laboratories within the national capital area. Only 13 per cent is done in Quebec and the rest on the Ontario side.

Will the Prime Minister, and my question is directed to him since he is ultimately responsible-since he will not go on television, he can at least answer me here-will the Prime Minister-unless he sends his ineffable minister who just replied-will the Prime Minister at least admit that the federal government systematically discriminates against Quebec when distributing funding for research among its own laboratories?

[Jean Chrétien, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, I think the Leader of the Opposition is getting a bit upset. The answers given by the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs were quite clear.

Here in the national capital, some people live in Quebec and work on this side of the river, while some people on this side of the river work on the other side. The minister just said that in his riding, Hull-Aylmer, on that side, 1,700 residents work on research and development in laboratories on this side, in the national capital. If we exclude the national capital, in other words, if we compare Quebec with the other provinces, Quebec receives more than its share.

It has 24 per cent of the population and receives 30 per cent. That is clear, if we compare Quebec with Saskatchewan and Ontario with Quebec. Here in the national capital, we share and share alike. We have lived together for more than a century and will continue to live together for another hundred years.

[Lucien Bouchard, Bloc, Leader of the Opposition]

Mr. Speaker, all but a few-three, four or five-research centres are located on the Ontario side. Dozens of federal research centres are located in Ontario. The Prime Minister should at least acknowledge this basic truth, which is that Quebec has always been denied its fair share in research and development. Many have acknowledged this before him, so he could make a gesture today and admit it.

We know that Quebec receives federal help on social assistance, unemployment insurance and equalization, but this spending does not create jobs or stimulate the Quebec economy in any way.

Does the Prime Minister admit that Ottawa's chronic underinvestment in research and development, which creates jobs, is the reason why Quebec is so dependent on unproductive federal contributions?

[Jean Chrétien, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, Canada developed in such a way that today, for example, the aeronautical industry is concentrated in Quebec. It could have been elsewhere in Canada, but that is the way things turned out.

Some sectors are concentrated in Quebec, some in Ontario, some in other provinces, so that Canada manages to develop in an equitable way. But there is always room for improvement.

I am not saying that Canada cannot be improved; it can always be improved. But one should not separate from a country simply because of petty quarrels on approximate budget levels on one side or another. One can find all kinds of justifications. For example, Quebec naturally receives money for national ports but, because it is in the middle of the Prairies, we have not yet dug a river in Saskatchewan so that we can give that province its share of the national ports budget. That province does not receive anything for national ports but it does not complain about it.

[Michel Gauthier, Bloc, Roberval, QC]

Mr. Speaker, what an extraordinary leap of logic.

The federal government is about to sign with GM, in Ontario, a major contract worth as much as $2 billion for the acquisition of armoured vehicles. Despite the intergovernmental affairs minister's attempt to reassure Oerlikon in Quebec, a GM spokesperson clearly indicated that Oerlikon was not a contender for the armoured turrets subcontract, in spite of the fact that Oerlikon is the Canadian center of excellence for this kind of work.

Given that, in the past 15 years, Quebec has been shortchanged by at least $10 billion in the distribution of federal military expenditures, why would the Prime Minister not give Quebecers the assurance that they will get their fair share of the economic and technological benefits associated with the generous contract which was awarded to General Motors instead of Oerlikon?

[David Collenette, Liberal, Minister of National Defence and Minister of Veterans Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, to date, no contract has been signed with General Motors, and the question of content will be addressed as part of the contract negotiations.

As for Oerlikon, there have been discussions between officials of my department, other departments and General Motors to examine the possibility of including Oerlikon in GM's plans for manufacturing armoured personnel carriers.

[Michel Gauthier, Bloc, Roberval, QC]

Mr. Speaker, Canadian prime ministers have been promising for decades to remedy the situation. Yet, no corrective action has ever been taken.

How can the defence minister explain the statement he made about this contract on Radio-Canada's television program Enjeux , that the federal government cannot afford to be fair to Quebec? How does he justify making such a statement?

[David Collenette, Liberal, Minister of National Defence and Minister of Veterans Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, it is not unusual but the hon. member has taken the words I used on that television program entirely out of context. What I stated was that the mandate of the Canadian Armed Forces is to deliver its services in the fastest, most efficient way possible.

We have to do that sometimes without having regard to the expenditures of national defence being equitable in every single region. Part of that problem harks back to the second world war when a disproportionate amount of Canadian forces infrastructure and spending was in the Atlantic provinces because it was a staging area for war. This has tended to disfavour certain regions.

In spite of that, I would like to point out to the hon. member that in the 1994-95 fiscal year 20 per cent of military spending and 27 per cent of the capital expenditures were made in the province of Quebec.

Department Of National Defence

[Jim Hart, Reform, Okanagan—Similkameen—Merritt, BC]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Defence.

Media reports today maintain that documents received from the Department of National Defence through access to information have been falsified. One of these documents had entire sections deleted and the Department of National Defence did not indicate any omissions but presented it as an accurate copy of the original. Another document had not only been edited but entire sections had been rewritten in order to misrepresent statements which were damaging to the Department of National Defence in the original.

I demand that the Minister of National Defence explain the actions of his department to Canadians.

[David Collenette, Liberal, Minister of National Defence and Minister of Veterans Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, in a review of certain access to information requests made of the department, it was discovered that certain errors and omissions had occurred. Immediately when that was made known to senior officials, I was informed. An investigation has ensued. The information commissioner has also been informed and we would like to know why this state of events has occurred.

[Jim Hart, Reform, Okanagan—Similkameen—Merritt, BC]

Mr. Speaker, on Friday the Prime Minister assured the House and all Canadians that the government takes responsibility for making sure that the Somalia commission has all the facts. Today's revelations call into question the government's commitment. The Department of National Defence has turned over mountains of material to the commission.

If the Department of National Defence is capable of falsifying documents to the media, how can Canadians be sure it is not altering evidence to the commission of inquiry in a similar fashion?

[David Collenette, Liberal, Minister of National Defence and Minister of Veterans Affairs]

I certainly do not accept the premise in the hon. member's question.

It is quite obvious that some erroneous thing has happened which is being investigated. Certainly we stand by what we have said repeatedly and what the Prime Minister said Friday, that all documentation will be made available and all co-operation will be given by the Department of National Defence to the inquiry.

We would like to know why these omissions did occur. We acted responsibly by informing the information commissioner. As soon as we know why this happened we will certainly make that public.

It was the department officials themselves once they found the errors who called in the person who had originally made the request. They were quite open and honest about this particular mistake that had occurred.