Debates of Oct. 6th, 1995

Franco-Ontarian Flag

[Raymond Bonin, Liberal, Nickel Belt, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise to invite my Liberal, Bloc and Reform colleagues and all the other members present today to join with me in congratulating Franco-Ontarians on the 20th anniversary of their flag.

On September 25, I had the honour of participating in a ceremony at the University of Sudbury, in my riding, to honour the Franco-Ontarian flag and to celebrate the contribution made by Franco-Ontarians to Canada and to our shared heritage.

Since September 25, 1975, the date of its birth, the Franco-Ontarian flag has become an important symbol of our accomplishments, our culture and our language. Today, Franco-Ontarians continue to grow and develop within a strong and united Canada.

Franco-Ontarians, all proud Canadians, first and foremost, owe a large debt to their predecessors, to those who created the flag and to the University of Sudbury.

National Debt

[Patrick Gagnon, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Solicitor General]

Mr. Speaker the PQ premier once again raised the spectre that an independent Quebec might not assume its fair share of the Canadian debt.

In a speech delivered in Matane yesterday evening, the separatist leader said: "But if you do not want to sit down and negotiate, stay up and the cheques will disappear later on".

Once again, the separatist leader used that threat to make people believe that he will be able to force Canada to negotiate a partnership agreement if Quebec separates.

Quebecers are reasonable and responsible people. They know that a partnership project based on threats and blackmail will not work, and this is another reason why they will vote no on October 30.

Canada-Quebec Economic Union

[Philippe Paré, Bloc, Louis-Hébert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Châteauguay was absolutely right when he said that Canada would negotiate a partnership agreement with Quebec. Indeed, even Industry Canada recognizes, in a secret document prepared for Operation Unity, that: "Should Quebec separate, and should there be a breakdown in the co-operation between federal research institutions based in Quebec and those located in the rest of Canada, the scientific and technological efforts of the two states would suffer a real prejudice".

If there is a partnership, there would be no such breakdown. Forget the gloomy speeches; it is obvious that the interests of Canada and Quebec call for a partnership treaty. This is particularly true for the space industry, as well as the science and technology sector.

The Environment

[Paul Forseth, Reform, New Westminster—Burnaby, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of the Environment forgets that she is not the only minister of the environment in the country. There are 12 others and they make up the Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment, a forum for co-operation and joint action.

The federal minister thinks that environmental policy revolves around her. In contrast, the CCME is committed to developing the environmental management framework agreement which would reduce duplication and overlap.

Is the minister in support? Not a chance. Now harmonization has been put on hold.

The environment minister has pushed the provinces around too much. She has also cancelled any provincial negotiations on financial support to Habitat Canada which the provinces said they would assume by increasing waterfowl hunting fees.

The minister does not care for a program that would save the government money; she is only scared of devolving her assumed power.

Are her feelings hurt? Co-operation is a two-way street. It is time the minister got off her pedestal and listened to what the provinces have to say. She may even learn something about political sustainable development.

Quebec Economy

[Pierrette Ringuette-Maltais, Liberal, Madawaska—Victoria, NB]

Mr. Speaker, once again, Quebecers are not going to be represented at an important economic and trade meeting with Chinese officials because the PQ premier decided not to attend that event. Just like he did when Team Canada conducted its very important and successful Asian tour, the PQ leader prefers to stick to his separatist creed, rather than co-operate with our partners from the business world, to promote economic recovery and job creation.

Quebecers are primarily concerned with economic issues and job creation. Unfortunately, that does not seem to be a priority for the PQ premier. On October 30, Quebecers will say no to the separatist project, a project which does nothing to promote economic recovery and create jobs for them.

Referendum Campaign

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

Mr. Speaker, yesterday, at a meeting with UQUAM students in management studies, the PQ finance and revenue minister said: "It seems that business people are not overly grateful when it is the Parti Quebecois which does something". Are we to understand from the minister's comments that he is trying to enlist business people in the Yes camp?

The PQ minister must stop using provincial subsidies and other benefits to force Quebec businesses to support the Yes side. Earlier this week, his colleague, the Bloc Quebecois leader, said that enlisting business people was undemocratic and unacceptable.

Land Mines

[Keith Martin, Reform, Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC]

Mr. Speaker, land mines and anti-personnel devices are a humanitarian disaster. There are over 100 million of them seeded in over 60 countries of the world. From Mozambique to Chechnya, from Cambodia to Angola they lie silently in wait for their next victim.

They cost between $30 and $70 to make and are made by such countries as the United States, Italy and even Canada. Most are designed to maim and not kill, and some are even designed to look like toys so that children will pick them up and get their arms blown off. This is a perverted logic if ever there was one.

The majority of the victims are innocent women and children.

In developing countries wracked by civil war, it costs between $300 and $700 to remove them. Last year we removed 85,000 but seeded two million at the same time.

I put a private members' bill forward on September 21 asking the House to ban land mines and anti-personnel devices. I hope for the sake of the most impoverished people in the world the House joins hands to do just that.

Social Program Reform

[Michel Gauthier, Bloc, Roberval, QC]

Mr. Speaker, in the past few days it has become increasingly clear that this government is trying to hide the devastating impact that a number of reforms planned by Ottawa will have, especially in the case of social programs.

The government keeps postponing the release of the details of these reforms until after the referendum. Furthermore, the last budget announced cuts totalling seven billion dollars in transfers to the provinces for the financing of social programs.

Will the Prime Minister acknowledge that cuts in payments to the provinces for social programs, irrespective of the criteria the federal government will use, will cause a major shortfall in funding for spending on health care, post-secondary education and social assistance in Quebec, a shortfall that, depending on the criteria applied, is estimated at between $1.9 and $2.5 billion over the next two years, and this is only in Quebec?

[Jean Chrétien, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, contrary to what the hon. member for Roberval says, we are not hiding a thing. We announced our schedule for transfers to the provinces at the beginning of our mandate. We gave them three years. We told them from the outset: we will continue to increase a little bit next year, and that was 1994, and then in 1995 we will go on increasing, and the cuts will come in 1996 and 1997.

However, next year the subsidies we pay will still be higher than they were at the time we formed the government. The Minister of Finance explained to the provinces that he would give them time to adjust and that he would even continue to increase payments during the first two years. However, they were told to expect adjustments.

The provinces were aware of this and initiated their own cuts. For instance, last year in December, Quebec's health minister announced cuts totalling $500 million. We still gave slightly more than the previous year, but he made cuts. Obviously, everyone has to make adjustments. Provincial governments across Canada are making adjustments. The Government of Quebec has started to do so as well, and it will have to make more adjustments after the referendum.

We told all provincial governments ahead of time what to expect. I think this is all very fair and very open and shows a government that has absolutely nothing to hide before, during or even after the referendum.

[Michel Gauthier, Bloc, Roberval, QC]

In fact, Mr. Speaker, it is the future we want to talk about. The Prime Minister seems to appreciate talking about that.

We know that in the future, the federal government is planning cuts in unemployment insurance and old age pensions. We found that out last week here in the House, but the bad news will not come until after the referendum.

Would the Prime Minister agree that by attacking the most vulnerable members of our society with cuts in his own programs that are targeted to the needy, he is hitting them twice with cuts in payments to Quebec that will total between $1.9 and $2.5 billion in two years' time, which will force the Quebec government to add to the cuts made by the federal government? Does he not realize he is hitting the neediest in our society from both sides?

[Jean Chrétien, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, first of all, the unemployment insurance program was explained in the budget, and we are preparing legislation that will be tabled very shortly.

Just this morning I received a call from a provincial premier who wanted to see me to discuss the legislation, and who begged me not to go ahead immediately because he had a number of representations to make.

I told him: "Fine. As soon as I have time, we will have a meeting, and we will table the bill as soon as possible, because we want people to have time to discuss it".

The hon. member referred to senior citizens. I made it clear here in the House that we have no intention of affecting senior citizens. I made that quite clear. But I also said that we will have to make sure we can still pay the old age pensions of the people who will retire in 2005 and 2010. Good government means planning for the future. And people who are retired now do not have to worry.

We want to be able to pay old age pensions in 2005, 2010 and 2015 because many of us will still be here, although there may not be that many on the other side, and we have to consider the future. As far as pensioners are concerned, they do not have to worry, I made that clear, and old age pensioners will not be affected, not in November and not in the finance minister's next budget.

[Michel Gauthier, Bloc, Roberval, QC]

Mr. Speaker, will the Prime Minister admit that at the rate the federal government says it will cut transfers to the provinces, in other words, money used by the provinces for social programs and education, at the rate the federal government plans to cut these expenditures, according to our most accurate estimates-although the criteria have not yet been released, but we tried a series of criteria that seemed likely-we can say that in four years time, if Quebecers say no in the referendum and decide to stay in the federal system, in four years time the federal government will no longer pay a cent in transfer payments for social programs, education and social assistance, and on top of that, under the tax points system, Quebecers would again have to send part of the province's tax revenues to Ottawa to help fund social programs in the other provinces?

[Paul Martin, Liberal, Minister of Finance and Minister responsible for the Federal Office of Regional Development-Quebec]

Mr. Speaker, under the present system, there is a decline in the amounts to be spent on transfers to the provinces.

That being said, one of the reasons we decided to proceed with these reforms, and this was explained by the Prime Minister and the Minister of Health, and I said it myself here in this House, was to reverse this trend while maintaining a certain level of money in these transfers. In other words, we intend to freeze these amounts to stop this decline, for reasons we discussed with the provinces, in other words, the federal government firmly intends to remain involved in improving social programs in Canada.

[Gilles Duceppe, Bloc, Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the documents attached to the last federal budget mention that transfers to the provinces will be cut by $2.5 billion in 1996-97 and $4.5 billion in 1997-98. In 1997-98, if the federal government distributes the Canada social transfer on the basis of population, as suggested on page 40 of the federal budget speech, Quebec alone will absorb over 40 per cent of the $4.5 billion in cuts.

Does the Prime Minister not agree that, on the eve of the referendum, he has a duty to stop hiding his intentions from Quebecers by disclosing publicly how the federal government intends to distribute among the provinces the $4.5 billion in cuts planned for 1997-98, so that Quebecers will know the real impact of federal policies?

[Paul Martin, Liberal, Minister of Finance and Minister responsible for the Federal Office of Regional Development-Quebec]

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Human Resources Development and I intend to sit down with provincial officials to determine how the country and the provinces can restructure their finances.

That said, the hon. member has just quoted figures that have been used by other separatists. As I said before in this House, they are basing their arguments on something that is quite preposterous.

[Gilles Duceppe, Bloc, Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, this is a revelation. I did not know that the Minister of Finance was a separatist, as these are his figures.

Does the Prime Minister confirm that, whatever the distribution criteria adopted, in 1997-98 alone, Quebec will be deprived of between $1.2 billion and $1.9 billion for the funding of its social programs? The PQ government was not the only one to predict these cuts. His friends in the Liberal Party in Quebec, including his colleague, the current Minister of Labour, said the same thing when they were in power.

[Paul Martin, Liberal, Minister of Finance and Minister responsible for the Federal Office of Regional Development-Quebec]

Mr. Speaker, as I said before, the hon. member's analysis is quite preposterous. It is quite clear that no decision has been made on distribution. Second, I think that the hon. member should also consider equalization, which is a very important factor.

The hon. member seems unwilling to talk about it, but let me tell you that, in 1996-97 for example, equalization payments to Quebec will amount to $4 billion or 42 per cent of federal equalization payments to the provinces.

Department Of National Defence

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

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Defence. The government's record on Somalia is not terribly open, but openly terrible.

This week we have seen evidence that national defence headquarters altered documents. The punishment, it gets to investigate itself. We have evidence that Lieutenant-Colonel Kenward destroyed evidence and obstructed justice. The punishment, he got promoted. We have evidence that Colonel Labbé uttered unlawful commands. His punishment, he has been put in charge of the army staff college to teach leadership.

The minister must have had files on these events. Why did he wait so long before he acted?

[Fred Mifflin, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Defence and Minister of Veterans Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member had a distinguished career in the Canadian forces before he entered politics. I am quite surprised and disappointed that he would ask that sort of a question. He talks about openness. The government has no axe to grind. We want the commission into the deployment of the Canadian forces in Somalia to get to the bottom of whatever happened. He talks about being terribly open. If he wants to know what I mean by terribly open I

can tell him. It means opaque, transparent, unfettered and above board.

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

Mr. Speaker, the government has gone kicking and screaming into the Somalia commission. We in the Reform Party are the ones who demanded a commission of inquiry.

The Somalia commission, which the minister called only after pressure from this party, is headed by top-notch people and will come to its conclusions in due course. There is a complete abdication of leadership within the Department of National Defence. The Prime Minister's expression of confidence in the minister and the chief of defence staff cannot change that fact.

Officers are named in police reports. They are implicated in criminal activities, falsifying documents and offering incentives to subordinates to commit murder. Does the minister consider these to be examples of good leadership?

[Fred Mifflin, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Defence and Minister of Veterans Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, I am surprised, disappointed and somewhat disillusioned not only by the tenor of the question but by some of the implications of the question.

The members of the third party talk about calling for this inquiry. I happen to have personal knowledge and I will inform the House of it. Other members will remember when we were in opposition-I want the hon. member to check the records-I asked for this inquiry in April 1993.

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

Mr. Speaker, it took two years for the government to act. Originally it wanted an internal investigation. It was only under our pressure that the government opened up the investigation.

The Prime Minister said that these troubles occurred under the previous government. Yet after two years nothing has been done to fix the problems. If the minister knew previously of the evidence that has been revealed this week, he has complicity in covering it up. If he did not know, he is guilty of contempt in the highest order. The minister's management of national defence over the-

[The Speaker]

In our questions we are making giant leaps. I would ask the hon. member to please put his question.

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

My question: The minister's management of national defence over the past two years has only compounded-

[An hon. member]

Order.