Debates of Oct. 24th, 1996

Supply

[Clifford Lincoln, Liberal, Lachine—Lac-Saint-Louis, QC]

Madam Speaker, I could have taken time to exchange statistics with my colleague for Longueuil. I could have told him that, for example, in 1993, according to the last official statistics from the provincial and federal governments, Quebec received $41 billion from the federal government, whereas it returned only $29 billion in taxes. I could have showed him that, in recent years, up to 1993, Quebec received an additional $137 billion.

But I think all this rhetoric is in vain. He will say that we gave 19 per cent more to other provinces for research and development, but he will say nothing of the fact that, for instance, Quebec receives 50 per cent with regards to milk. He could also speak about the RCMP, which receives 17 per cent.

A federation is a system of balances. Sometimes, we get more, and sometimes less. That is why transfer payments exist. That is why the national capital exists. The entire national capital and the research centre are lumped in with Ontario. However, taking it out would mean a completely different set of figures. But I do not feel like fighting a battle over figures, even though I could have won very easily.

I only want to tell him that if Montreal's mayor himself-and he is certainly not a member of our party-believes that Montreal is being sapped and even killed by political instability, and if all

objective observers tell the same thing, one has to be deaf and blind not to believe it. Personally, I firmly believe that such is the truth.

[Jean H. Leroux, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Madam Speaker, the motion we are debating today, presented by the leader of the Bloc Quebecois, the member for Roberval, reads as follows:

That this House recognize Montreal as the economic mainspring of Quebec society and, therefore, condemn the federal government's lack of concrete initiatives in supporting the Montreal area economy, primarily: the federal government's under-investment in research and development; its inequitable allocation of federal purchases of goods and services; its lack of willingness to support Montreal as a major financial centre in North America and its termination of Montreal's role as a major transportation centre.

The Liberal Party, despite the commitments it made in its famous red book, has done nothing for Montreal and the Montreal region. Even worse, because of its job creation policies, the federal government directly contributed to the impoverishment of Montreal. Over the years, several decisions made by the federal government, more specifically, under Pierre Elliott Trudeau, have contributed to Montreal's losing of influence to Toronto, a plan well orchestrated by the federal government, with the blessings of the anglophone majority of Canada.

I will not repeat everything that has been said here by my colleagues from the Bloc Québécois with respect to impoverishment, but for us Montreal is and will always be the heart of the Quebec community.

What I will say today concerns Montreal as a major transportation hub.

Early this week, the Prime Minister of Canada addressed the Montreal Chamber of Commerce. In his speech, he said that he wanted to help Montreal get back on its feet. He even said he was willing to associate himself with other government levels so that they could together, in a spirit of partnership-just imagine, using the word "partnership" we are so familiar with-improve the situation in Quebec's major city, where poverty now prevails. In his speech, the Prime Minister also made reference to the port of Montreal.

However, he forgot to say how for decades the actions of the federal government have contributed to killing the port and rail activities, to eliminating any chance Montreal had to once again be a hub for the freight and passenger transportation in this region of America.

Here are some true examples. First, there is the latest intervention by the federal government, the bill on Canada's oceans, part of which deals with a new fee structure for the services of the Coast Guard. In practical terms, the coming into force of this bill will result in additional costs for ships sailing through the St. Lawrence and the Great Lakes, while the Churchill port, in Manitoba, will not have to pay for the coast guard's services. Once again, this double standard can only harm the port of Montreal.

It is important to point out that in Quebec many industries depend on shipping for their livelihood. Every year, they pour $1.2 billion in the economy. Some 20 million tonnes of freight transit through the port of Montreal, which represents 726,000 containers a year. This accounts for 14,000 direct and indirect jobs. This is what is at stake. But mainly, it is ice free and navigable 12 months of the year, which is not the case for Churchill.

Bill C-26 would be a double whammy for the Montreal port since it already faces very stiff competition from American eastern seaboard ports. The passage of Bill C-26 might result in the diversion of all shipping towards the United States. This would not be the first time the federal government is hampering Montreal's profitability. Many decisions have lead to the loss of rail and port infrastructure in Montreal.

Madam Speaker, I see that I have only one minute left. May I have unanimous consent to finish my speech?

[The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais)]

I must put the motion to the vote at 5.15 p.m.

[Jean H. Leroux, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Madam Speaker, I wanted to talk about the building of the St. Lawrence seaway. In the fifties, Canada and the United States decided to build the seaway. It had a negative impact on Montreal. It killed its economy.

As you know, Quebec taxpayers paid their fair share of the seaway. At the end of the day, it cost Montreal its competitive edge.

To conclude, I would like to say, since I am running out of time, that it is with initiatives such as these that the federal government has been undermining the role of Montreal as a transportation hub. We have lots of practical suggestions to offer-as my Bloc colleagues and I have done all day-to put Montreal, the heart of Quebec, back in its rightful place in Canada and in America.

[The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais)]

It being5.15 p.m., it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith every question necessary to dispose of the business of supply.

The question is on Mr. Ménard's amendment to the amendment. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the amendment to the amendment?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Some hon. members]

No.

[The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais)]

All those in favour will please say yea.

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais)]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais)]

In my opinion the nays have it.

And more than five members having risen:

[The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais)]

Pursuant to order made earlier today, the recorded division stands deferred until Tuesday, October 29, 1996, at the end of the Government Orders period.

As for private members' business, the member for Burlington is not present in the House to propose the order according to the notice published in today's Notice Paper. Therefore, the order is dropped to the bottom of the order of precedence on the Order Paper.

Is there unanimous consent to proceed to the adjournment debate?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38 deemed to have been moved.

[Jean H. Leroux, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Madam Speaker, the Department of National Defence is one of the largest federal departments, with a work force of about 25,000 civilian employees, a regular force of about 67,000 military personnel, a reserve of about 23,000 people and an annual budget of almost $10.5 billion.

In the last few years, the minister has been confronted with constant internal changes that concern me a lot and, I am sure, Canadian and Quebec taxpayers as well.

It is true that National Defence went through a program of massive work force reduction and put in place a program of restructuring its command and internal control, due to the budget cuts that were imposed. But what concerns me mostly is the fact that all these changes seem to be accompanied by a chronic leadership void at the highest levels of the military hierarchy.

I was reading this week a document from the auditor general of Canada, dated February 1994, concerning the transition within National Defence. Some allegations in it are confirming my concerns.

On page 5 of that document, one can read, and I quote: "We found persistent deficiencies in the department's accountability systems and reports to Parliament. We noted inconsistencies in data concerning unit combat readiness and we expressed concerns relating to data control in the central performance management system."

On the next page, the auditors found out that the largest component of the reserve, that is the militia, had no performance standards. We learned that the department was providing very few data to Parliament about the reserve performance and that the information given could sometimes be misleading.

Consequently, with this type of situation that has been going on for many years within the armed forces, how could there be no excesses? How can we make sure that officers in charge can control the few individuals who are damaging the morale and the image of our troops abroad and at home?

How can we prevent scandals such as the Somalia affair or the cover-up operation orchestrated by the higher echelons of the military structure?

I would like the government to explain to me what it plans on doing to restore the credibility of our troops, of our military interventions and our peacekeeping operations abroad. What measures does the new Minister of National Defence plan to take to prevent the corruption and abuse problems which not only tarnish the department's image, but undermine the morale of the troops?

The government must be responsible. It must undertake as fast as possible a cleaning operation within our armed forces. It must not do what it just did, which is wait until the scandals come from all directions before acting under pressure from public opinion and negative polls.

It is the government's duty to have authority over its generals, and all of its senior officers responsible for our security. The taxpayers are entitled to respect. Every year, we pay more than $10.5 billion to maintain a disciplined institution, and it strikes me as normal for those responsible for its administration to be answerable for their actions.

Does the government have plans for another cross-Canada survey to find out what it needs to do now to reinstate a code of conduct in our armed services personnel abroad? Does the government have plans for another survey to find out what it needs to do to get those who manage the Department of National Defence to administer the billions of dollars entrusted to them with decency?

In the interest of transparency and accountability, will the Prime Minister shoulder his own responsibilities and call for the Minister of National Defence to rectify his code of ethics and to thoroughly scrutinize the events which are a constant source of scandal, day after day?

[John Richardson, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Defence and Minister of Veterans Affairs]

Madam Speaker, it is my pleasure, and I thank the hon. member for Shefford for his question.

However, I have to put into perspective some of his concerns. When discussing the military justice system it is important to recognize that the system is there to support the stringent and often unique requirements of military discipline during peacetime, but more particularly wartime.

This does not mean that the military justice system exists in isolation. This is not the case, nor should it be.

Indeed the military justice system seeks to parallel the civil judicial system. As a result, the military justice system has and continues to evolve alongside the civil judicial system.

For example, Canadians can rest assured that the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms has applied to the military justice system from the moment the charter came into force and effect. Citizen soldier are treated no differently than other Canadian citizens under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

There should be no misconception, however, that the military justice system as it currently exists is somehow less rigorous and holds military members to some lesser standards of justice. In fact, recent judgments of the Supreme Court of Canada and the Court Martial Appeal Court of Canada have endorsed the independence of the court martial system but indeed the integrity and validity of the system as well.

We do recognize, however, that all justice systems are complex and must evolve in order to keep pace with the changing needs of the society they serve.

As I have already stated, recent Supreme Court rulings support the overall validity of the military justice system. Yet there is always a need for the legal system to be examined vis-à-vis a changing society.

We must seek to allay concerns that the military justice system may somehow be less than rigorous and unable to withstand public scrutiny. Toward this end I can assure this House that the prudent and measured examination of the military justice system will continue.

Of course, the work of the Somalia commission of inquiry concerning the military justice system will be an important element of any examination. It is therefore with anticipation that we look forward to receiving the recommendations of the commission upon the conclusion of its work on March 25, 1997.

[Andy Mitchell, Liberal, Parry Sound—Muskoka, ON]

Madam Speaker, further to my question to the Minister of Industry, I wish to emphasize that tourism is one of the most important industries in my riding. It is an industry that accounts for half the jobs, that is one in every two jobs in the riding. It is a significant economic generator in Parry Sound-Muskoka.

It is also a significant economic generator throughout the rest of Canada, which is why our government increased to $50 million its support to this important sector. It is why our government established the Canadian Tourism Commission to stem the tide of the international tourism deficit.

Indeed, tourism is a $26 billion industry in this country and constitutes in my riding wholehearted support for the federal government's action to increase the economic spinoffs from this important sector.

However, I believe that through the Canadian Tourism Commission there is even more that can be done. It is true that in partnership with industry members, the private sector and federal and provincial governments the tourism commission has been successful in achieving a 13 per cent increase in international tourism receipts in Canada.

These initiatives have also generated an almost 2 per cent increase in employment in the tourism sector, which is good news for Canadians everywhere.

This is good progress, but I want to make sure that everything that can be done will be done to enhance economic development in areas that are dependent on tourism for their livelihood and, in particular, in rural and remote areas of Canada.

For example, in my riding the federal government will continue to support local projects and events through investments in infrastructure and human resources development.

Since 1993, through federal programming initiatives, I have facilitated an investment of more than $1 million for tourism in our riding.

The federal government has supported things like a snowmobile trail system to develop and lengthen our tourism season. We have supported cultural facilities and tourism centres in addition to the work that we have done with chambers of commerce through the promotion of events and attractions.

Our work in the riding will continue because tourism is such an important industry and such an important job source for constituents. I believe the work of the tourism commission will extend this support.

One of the commission's most important objectives, of course, is to reduce the international tourism deficit. Part of that goal is to divert some of the travellers from the United States and encourage them instead to travel to our many and varied tourism regions here in Canada. This is particularly important to the constituents in my riding. The reliance on partnerships is key to the success of that relationship.

In addition to its success in Canada as a whole, I want to ensure that the tourism commission works well in rural and remote Canada. We need to take the small business tourism operators into account with our policies and with the work of the commission. It is important that our government facilitate the creation of partnerships among local rural players like those in my riding.

Research and development in the tourism industry, new technology, access to capital and infrastructure are the things that will benefit rural tourism operators. The tourism commission will play a key role in that development through undertakings that expand on current initiatives and achievements to date.

I ask the parliamentary secretary what can constituents expect in a rural riding like mine from the commission in this regard?

[Morris Bodnar, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Industry]

Madam Speaker, the Canadian Tourism Commission was created in February 1995. This public/private sector partnership was able to take advantage of positive external conditions, for example, expanding economies, fluctuating exchange rates and structural developments to regain market share in key areas and reduce the travel deficit.

In his February 27, 1996 response to the speech from the throne the Prime Minister spoke of the CTC as a remarkable success which will serve as a model of partnership between the various levels of government and the private sector for the 21st Century.

In establishing the CTC the Prime Minister challenged the industry to match the federal government's financial commitment of $50 million annually within the three years of its creation.

Partners in 1995-96, the first year of operation, provided approximately $40 million in co-funding programming. To date, in 1996-97, it appears that the target of exceeding $50 million in partner funding will be met.

Results to date are impressive. Canada's travel account deficit fell from $4 billion in 1994 to $3 billion in 1995, a decrease of 25 per cent.

In 1995 tourism employed 488,500 persons directly. This was a 2 per cent increase in tourism employment in 1995 over 1994. Statistics Canada estimates that in 1995 tourism spending in Canada amounted to $41.8 billion, up from $39 billion in 1994, a 7 per cent increase. In 1995, 17 million international tourists visited Canada, up 6 per cent over 1994. Tourists from the United States increased by 4 per cent to 13 million while tourists from overseas countries rose by 14 per cent to 4 million.

[The Deputy Speaker]

It being 5.30 p.m., pursuant to an order made on Friday, September 27, 1996, this House stands adjourned until Monday, October 28, 1996, at 11 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).

(The House adjourned at 5.31 p.m.)