Debates of Sept. 17th, 1996

Job Creation

[Michel Gauthier, Bloc, Roberval, QC]

Mr. Speaker, right now, the problem is that, according to our information, the Minister of Finance and the President of the Treasury Board are more reluctant than their cabinet colleagues to introduce another infrastructures program. It so happens that the same two ministers are supposed to discuss the program's implementation.

I would like to ask the Prime Minister, since his ministers do not all agree on the relevance of this kind of measure for stimulating job creation, whether he intends to make a decision very shortly so we will know exactly where the government stands?

[Jean Chrétien, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, when I spoke to the provincial governments, the Minister of Finance was with me. And when I spoke to the Federation of Canadian Municipalities in Calgary, the President of the Treasury Board was in Calgary as well.

However, we must ensure that the program is administered in such a way that it creates jobs and is not simply a substitute for normal expenditures by provincial or municipal governments.

[Michel Gauthier, Bloc, Roberval, QC]

Mr. Speaker, does the Prime Minister realize that Canadians need jobs now and that it is therefore important for the government to act quickly when introducing a measure like this instead of waiting until it is a little closer to election time and then being tempted to use it for propaganda purposes. We need this kind of program now, and we would like to see action now. Will he keep that in mind?

[Jean Chrétien, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to inform him that we have a program that is still operating now and that municipalities are using that program to create jobs.

The question is whether "now" should continue after April 1.

Research And Development

[Suzanne Tremblay, Bloc, Rimouski—Témiscouata, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister.

To cover up the unfair treatment being accorded Quebec in the area of funding for research and development, the Prime Minister is leaving out the figures for the national capital.

Of the forty-four laboratories or federal research centres in the National Capital Region, forty-three are located in Ontario. Will the Prime Minister finally admit that most of the economic impact is going to Ontario's benefit rather than that of Quebec?

[Jon Gerrard, Liberal, Secretary of State (Science]

Mr. Speaker, there are historic reasons why the science and technology federal laboratories initially grew up in Ottawa.

However, over the last 10 years a major effort has been made to correct this. Some of the recent federal laboratories, 10 or so of them, have been placed in Quebec. There are major initiatives to put the Canadian Space Agency in Saint-Hubert.

As a result of these efforts, the federal spending on science and technology, when we include all the federal expenditures, is now very close in Quebec to the population of Quebec, which is about 25 per cent.

[Suzanne Tremblay, Bloc, Rimouski—Témiscouata, QC]

Mr. Speaker, once again, the government is incapable of reading Statistics Canada's statistics. Despite all that has been added on for Quebec, we are still in the hole. We had 15 per cent, and with all the extramural additions, we are at 18.6 per cent, far from the 25 per cent of the population we represent.

What, then, is the Prime Minister waiting for before treating Quebec fairly and giving it the share of R&D spending to which its demographics entitle it?

[Jean Chrétien, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, Quebec is now receiving 22.3 per cent of all R&D funding, and this year is getting $11.3 billion more than it has paid out in taxes to the federal government.

Department Of National Defence

[Preston Manning, Reform, Calgary Southwest, AB]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Prime Minister said that the defence minister and General Boyle had his full support.

He said this despite the revelations of the Somalia inquiry, despite General Boyle's document fixing and buck passing, and despite the defence minister condoning these activities.

Why does the Prime Minister continue to support the things that are wrong in the Canadian military: cover-up, lack of leadership, lack of accountability at the top, by refusing to fire the defence minister and General Boyle immediately?

[Jean Chrétien, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, I said very clearly yesterday that we are in a very important and difficult situation and changing the way things were done at national defence before. We have major operating cuts. We have a huge reduction of armed forces personnel. These things are very difficult to deal with.

I said yesterday that what the military needs at this time is stability in leadership. One of the problems that created this situation is that under the previous administration there were six ministers of national defence in nine years. I do not believe a problem can be solved by playing the game of changing people every time the House of Commons asks for it. Real leadership is when there are good ministers doing a good job under difficult circumstances. The Minister of National Defence has my confidence.

[Preston Manning, Reform, Calgary Southwest, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister's idea of national defence seems to be defending the minister and his political appointee. He should be defending the men and women of the Canadian Armed Forces who are embarrassed by flaws in the top leadership and who are losing their respect for the Minister of National Defence. Instead, the Prime Minister chooses time and time again to defend his long-time political friend and his hand-picked chief of defence staff.

Why has the Prime Minister decided to defend his political friends instead of the reputation and morale of the Canadian Armed Forces?

[Jean Chrétien, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, a very long time before the leader of the third party came to Parliament the Minister of National Defence was a member of Parliament serving in the cabinet. It is because of his experience that I asked him to take on this very difficult task. He did not ask to go there; I asked him to take it over. I said: "You will be there for a long time because I will not change my ministers every time the leader of the opposition or the leader of the third party gets up in the House".

As far as Mr. Boyle is concerned, he is not my political friend. I met him the day that I offered him the position of chief of staff, after recommendations from inside and from the Minister of National Defence.

[Preston Manning, Reform, Calgary Southwest, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister simply illustrates my point. I give him a chance to defend the reputation and morale of the Canadian Armed Forces and he immediately defends the reputation and morale of his political friends.

The Prime Minister was wrong in his choice of Minister of National Defence and wrong in his support of General Boyle. In

defending them he is really defending Liberal political interests and loyalties and failing to defend the national interests.

Are the political interests and loyalties of Liberals really worth more to the Prime Minister than the reputation and morale of the Canadian Armed Forces?

[Jean Chrétien, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, this is the first time in a long time that there has been an inquiry into national defence. When we have an inquiry in relation to a big organization such as this, of course it is going to be difficult. A commission is working on the situation and it will report.

In the meantime, we have been reducing the number of bases, personnel and so on. It has been done in a very competent way, with no strikes and no disturbances.

Of course some people do not agree. As the Minister of National Defence said yesterday, not everybody is happy. We used to have 120 generals and we cut them by one-third. There was a surplus of generals and some had to go. We have to cut more. Those who are not happy can go. Some will have to go anyway. Those who are unhappy should be very happy not to be there.

Wording Of The Referendum Question

[Pierrette Venne, Bloc, Saint-Hubert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, in response to a question from me yesterday, the Minister of Justice stated: "If and when there is another referendum, we will make sure that the question is clear, that the implications are clearly set out and that all Canadians have a say on the future of this country".

My question is for the Minister of Justice. In wishing to have the courts decide the wording of the referendum question, is the minister aware that he is placing the Government of Quebec under trusteeship, thus denying the people of Quebec the right to self-government?

[Allan Rock, Liberal, Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday I repeated the commitment we made in the throne speech, namely that, during the entire process of a referendum, it is very important that the question be clear and that an effort be made to ensure everyone is informed of the consequences. As I said yesterday, all Canadians must also have a role to play.

All this is a question of Canada's future as a country. As I stated yesterday, we will our commitment is honoured.

[Pierrette Venne, Bloc, Saint-Hubert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, on February 28, 1996, the Deputy Prime Minister stated that the federal government did not intend to hold a country-wide referendum on the question of Quebec sovereignty.

Can the Minister of Justice tell us today whether the government has changed its mind and plans to hold a country-wide referendum on the future of Quebec?

[Allan Rock, Liberal, Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

Mr. Speaker, these questions arose in the context of a decision of the Quebec Superior Court deciding that matters involving the project of sovereignty very much fall within the jurisdiction of the court and that the Constitution relates directly to these questions.

It was in that context that I said in the past and I repeated in the House yesterday that as the national government we are going to ensure that such matters are considered in the context of the law of the land. We are going to ensure that the political and the legal aspects of these matters are respected and that things are done in accordance with the values that we hold dear as Canadians.

Department Of National Defence

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

Mr. Speaker, the most devastating cut to the Department of National Defence is when this government cut leadership, accountability and responsibility from the vocabulary at the Department of National Defence headquarters.

The Liberals campaigned on a promise of more open government. Yet Canadians are shocked to learn of the policy of containment at the Department of National Defence and for the first time in Canadian history we find that this federal government has applied to the courts to suppress a document that was released by the information commission.

Why does the Prime Minister support the policy of containment designed to thwart the information commissioner and designed to thwart information getting to the Canadian public?

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

Mr. Speaker, it seems that the hon. member was so caught up with his own rhetoric yesterday that he failed to listen to the question that was posed by the member from the Bloc Quebecois who asked this very question, so I would like to repeat the answer.

We are going to court not to disagree in any way with the application of the Access to Information Act, but to safeguard the rights of a public employee. We believe that is paramount.

I do not believe I should say any more except that the courts are to adjudicate matters where there is a dispute.

The hon. member attacks this government as not being open. What could be more open than a public inquiry under the Inquiries Act, under the glare of television lights where people give evidence? That is openness. That is what this government believes in.

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

Mr. Speaker, the minister's comments are totally off track. We are not talking about the rights of an employee, we are talking about the rights of the Canadian public to know information that is being published by the information commissioner.

For openness and accountability the Department of National Defence has the worst record in government. While this minister has been in office, documents have been lost, they have been altered, they have been destroyed, they have been withheld and the white-out budget at the Department of National Defence has gone through the roof.

Does the Prime Minister agree with the defence minister that openness means covering up and that truth, duty and valour mean don't get caught?

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

Mr. Speaker, once again the hon. member-as did his leader-reflected on statements and evidence that has been given at the inquiry. That is rather unfortunate.

A process is in place and that process has to be fair to individuals. It has to be fair to all the evidence that comes out before the commission. It has to be fair to the commissioners and it has to be fair to the Canadian public.

The hon. member has demonstrated that he does not have the degree of fairness in his political arsenal, his rhetorical arsenal. When it comes to the rights of individuals, again he is not being fair to a public employee whose rights have to be safeguarded. This government will safeguard that employee's rights by seeking adjudication by the courts.

Referendums

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

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Justice is playing the "rule of law" card, but what this really means is the rule of the majority of "Canadians", wanting to impose their will on the people of Quebec.

Does the minister realize that he is in the process of recreating the Meech Lake scenario, which allowed Newfoundland and Manitoba to decide Quebec's future?

[Allan Rock, Liberal, Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is quite wrong in suggesting that the rule of law somehow results in the oppression of anyone.

It is crucially important to the population of Quebec as well as to the rest of Canada that everything we do in this country is consistent with legal principles.

The rule of law and democracy go hand in hand, and the rule of law is not an obstacle to change. It permits change to take place in an orderly way. If that is seen in its proper context as part of democracy then one sees that the premise of the hon. member's question is quite wrong.

It is troubling when an attorney general of a province, who is supposed to be the chief law enforcement officer of the province, leaves a courtroom and says that he will have nothing more to do with the case and that the result of the case is irrelevant to him or his plans. That is troubling. It is inconsistent with the values of the people of Quebec, the values of the people of this country.

Legal principles and respect for the rule of law goes hand in hand with democracy, and that is at the heart of the matter referred to by the hon. member.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is a fine democracy when a province the size of Prince Edward Island, smaller than some Quebec ridings, can decide Quebec's future. This kind of imposed democracy and majority have been only too familiar for a long time now.

Behind the great aplomb and fine words of the Minister of Justice lies another reality, that of double standards. How can the minister tell us that all Canadians should be consulted when one province wants to leave the federation, such as Quebec for example, when they were never consulted when one province wanted to join the federation, such as Newfoundland? Can you explain that to me?