Debates of Sept. 24th, 1996

Canadian Armed Forces

[Jean Chrétien, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, I am very happy that the leader of the third party is mentioning General Baril. I heard General Baril last week on French TV supporting General Boyle and asking the people of Canada to let General Boyle do his job.

I agree that General Baril is competent, and he is on the inside. He is an outspoken person. He was not ashamed to say last week that he has confidence in General Boyle and that he should stay in his job.

[Preston Manning, Reform, Calgary Southwest, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the late Senator Stan Waters was one of Canada's most distinguished soldiers. He was a member of our first commando and paratroop unit in the second world war and he rose through the ranks to become commander of the army in the 1970s.

When General Waters was asked what was the most important quality a military leader should possess, he said he must be able to inspire others to follow him into battle.

Will the Prime Minister acknowledge that General Boyle and the defence minister could not inspire soldiers to follow them across the street, let alone into battle, and that both should therefore be relieved of their responsibilities immediately?

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

Mr. Speaker, talking about leadership, I would think that the member who asked the question should take a good look at himself first.

The wheels were put in motion by this government when it took office to look at and to have a review of national defence. Flowing directly from that review was a new white paper for the armed forces. Flowing directly from that was the restructuring of the forces to bring them into the 21st century. Flowing directly from that we brought in private enterprise practices in our purchasing methods to ensure we received the best value and that they were more efficient. That is what we did. That is why they will not resign.

Family Trusts

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

Mr. Speaker, in the tax loophole scandal, the government first went after the auditor general, and then, yesterday, the revenue minister simply said that the official opposition was on the wrong track.

I submit to you that it is the government and this minister who are on the wrong track. I am merely asking her why she is refusing to get to the bottom of this affair, which has deeply shocked the people of Quebec and of Canada.

[Jane Stewart, Liberal, Minister of National Revenue]

Mr. Speaker, all the issues of this particular case were full and front at the finance committee, a committee of all members of Parliament from across this country. Members of the hon. member's party were there. They had a chance to ask questions of experts, of departmental officials, of the auditor general. I do not understand where this question comes from.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is disconcerting that the minister does not understand, when the auditor general does.

The former auditor general understands, the independent experts understand, the editorial writers understand, the official opposition understands, the third party has written a report and understands, yet this government and its committee are trying to gag the auditor general.

Very simply, my question, a question being asked by people all over the country, is as follows: How many trusts are involved, and how many billions of dollars have gone out of Canada since the federal decision of December 23, 1991, which has been used as precedent?

[Jane Stewart, Liberal, Minister of National Revenue]

Mr. Speaker, I am afraid what the hon. member does not understand is responsible government.

We were given from the auditor general advice of a decision that was made in 1991 that may not be the kind of decision that he would like. In response to that, this government said that we need a review of this particular aspect of the Income Tax Act, the first one in 25 years, and that has been done.

We do things in a responsible fashion, unlike the opposition which insists on referring to and confusing Canadians about this issue. It is not about family trusts. It is about taxation of migrants. It is not about irresponsible officials. There is no evidence of that. It is not about erosion of the tax base. They have been unable to substantiate that. It is not about the mythology that legislation here does not apply to all Canadians, because it does.

Our government understands that and wants to make sure, as we review the recommendations of the committee, that we do it fairly. We recognize any law that is developed has to apply fairly to all Canadians.

Veteran Benefits

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

Mr. Speaker, another scandal is brewing around the defence minister.

Access to information documents obtained by CTV News reveal that the minister's campaign pal, Stephanos Karabekos, attempted to influence an RCMP investigation into veteran benefits.

The Prime Minister talks of ministerial accountability. Will the Prime Minister hold the defence minister accountable for attempts by the defence minister's paid political hack to influence the RCMP?

[Jean Chrétien, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of National Defence was asked questions for many months about that situation and he gave an explanation for the work this gentleman had to do for the minister and the department of defence with the veterans.

He replied many months ago to my satisfaction and I guess to the satisfaction of most members of the House of Commons.

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

Mr. Speaker, Canadians are not satisfied with that answer. Mr. Karabekos attempted to influence an RCMP investigation and the Minister of National Defence did nothing about it.

The minister is spending more time abusing his own budget than restoring morale in the Canadian Armed Forces. I have learned that the minister has rewarded this campaign pal with yet another contract of $16,000. Mr. Karabekos' contracts now total over $165,000.

How can the Prime Minister continue to defend the defence minister who spends more time abusing his budget than restoring morale and leadership in the Canadian forces?

[Jean Chrétien, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, I answered the question earlier. The Minister of National Defence has been questioned on this a number of times before this House, and he has answered all questions from the House of Commons.

After seven days of sittings already they have nothing to talk about, and so they are going back to questions from six or seven months ago. Very soon they will talk about the last election.

[Pierre Brien, Bloc, Témiscamingue, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister.

Yesterday, the Minister of National Defence made fun of several generals when he said that their criticism had as much weight as a plumber's. I may remind the Prime Minister that when something is wrong with the plumbing, you call a good plumber, but when something is wrong in the army, you are better off with a good general and especially a good minister.

Does the Prime Minister realize that the situation has deteriorated to the point that the land force commanding officer has just appointed an ombudsman to deal with the leadership problem?

[Jean Chrétien, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, this is very good news. This is the same General Baril who said last week on the French network of the CBC that he had complete confidence in General Boyle.

Together they are introducing the necessary reforms. Today, General Baril announced the creation of this new position to ensure that members of the armed forces can present their grievances to this new officer, who will have the specific task of ensuring that all authorities are advised of their content.

This new position is intended to help improve relations among the lowest ranks right on up to the highest echelons of the army.

[Pierre Brien, Bloc, Témiscamingue, QC]

Mr. Speaker, when it gets complicated like that, something must be wrong. Morale is at its lowest ebb, and this is mostly due to a lack of leadership.

Will the Prime Minister wake up and realize that the army does not need an ombudsman but a chief of staff who is respected and a minister who is credible?

[Jean Chrétien, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, this is the same member who said two minutes ago that General Baril had done something positive. In his supplementary, it is no longer a good thing.

I suggest we let the generals, who are far more experienced than the hon. member, do their job and take care of the situation in the armed forces, and that we wait for the report of the Commission of Inquiry on Somalia. It is as simple as that.

Churchill Falls Hydro Project

[Diane Ablonczy, Reform, Calgary North, AB]

Mr. Speaker, each and every day another $2 million is sucked out of the economy of Newfoundland because of the unfair Churchill Falls hydro project. This $800 million a year rip off is robbing the people of Newfoundland of their resources and relegating them to the status of second class citizens.

Will the Prime Minister stand up for the rights of Newfoundland and take action to ensure this injustice is rectified?

[Anne McLellan, Liberal, Minister of Natural Resources]

Mr. Speaker, as I pointed out to the hon. member yesterday, this is a contract between two parties, a contract knowingly entered into by the Governments of Newfoundland and Quebec.

If in fact there is a dispute in relation to some of the terms of that contract between the two parties, I suggest that they sit down and attempt to resolve it. If they are unable to do that, there is always the possibility of recourse through the courts.

[Diane Ablonczy, Reform, Calgary North, AB]

Mr. Speaker, this government did not have the same tender concern for the contract on Pearson airport.

Since Hydro Quebec and the separatist Government of Quebec have made it clear they have no intention of re-opening the Churchill Falls hydro contract, the only option left, short of shutting off the power, is for the federal government to take action.

Again I ask the Prime Minister, will he sit and watch while Newfoundland's resources are pillaged in this disastrous deal or will he take action on this issue?

[Jean Chrétien, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, I have nothing to add to what the minister said. There is a contract and there is a dispute. I believe Mr. Bouchard and Mr. Tobin previously discussed the contract and are making their cases.

There is no doubt that the rule of law exists for everybody in Canada, but sometimes, when circumstances change, people sit down and review the complex problem they face and try to find a solution.

The minister has said that there is a contract at this time and we must respect the contract which is the rule of law in Canada. This is not a new issue. It was debated a long time ago. I believe the minister gave a very good answer today and yesterday.

French Language Communities

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

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Canadian Heritage.

The French speaking residents of the village of Laurier do not have a facility to house the students of the Franco-Manitoban school division. In spite of its constitutional obligations, the provincial government has made no decision acceptable to the parents.

Will the federal government take action to ensure that section 23, dealing with minority language educational rights, will be complied with?

[Sheila Copps, Liberal, Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Canadian Heritage]

Mr. Speaker, to be sure the community of Laurier has good reasons to invoke section 23 of the charter, and I am convinced that the education minister will show her willingness to settle a situation which contravenes this section of the charter.

Job Creation For Young People

[Stéphan Tremblay, Bloc, Lac-Saint-Jean, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to comment on the Prime Minister's earlier remarks. He alluded to the age of my hon. colleague from Témiscamingue. All in all, I would rather have less experience and more common sense.

This morning, the newspapers reported that, as of August 26, the government still had no strategy for using the remaining $45 million out of the budget originally earmarked for youth programs. That makes no sense, considering that one young person out of four is desperately looking for work.

My question is for the Minister of Human Resources Development. How can the minister justify his government's inaction? Does the government lack imagination or is it hoarding money so it can spend it during the months preceding an election to charm young voters?

[Douglas Young, Liberal, Minister of Human Resources Development]

Mr. Speaker, I will leave any question about charm to the hon. young member. But regarding the funding still available to create jobs for young Canadians, the plan was originally, in the spring, to set funds aside to create jobs during the summer for those young Canadians who are in school.

We realized, however, that many unemployed people did not fall in the category of students going back to school in the fall. That is why I plan to work with my colleague, the Minister of Industry, Science and Technology, with the Minister of Canadian Heritage and with other stakeholders, including the private sector, to find appropriate ways of spending these funds. I can assure you, however, that every penny earmarked for creating jobs for young Canadians will be spent.

[Stéphan Tremblay, Bloc, Lac-Saint-Jean, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am sick and tired of the government using my generation to score political points.

When all is said and done, does the minister realize that the government's reluctance to invest in jobs for young people speaks volumes about its lack of imagination in dealing with young people and the terrible unemployment problem?

[Douglas Young, Liberal, Minister of Human Resources Development]

Mr. Speaker, we never know what to expect from one week to the next. The hon. member and his colleagues often rise in this House to tell us we should not get involved in job creation or spend money on training and in other areas. What we are doing is honouring our commitment not to meddle in areas of provincial jurisdiction.

I have no doubt-and I reiterate to my hon. colleague-that all the money set aside for creating jobs for young people will be spent in due course and I hope that young people will not be as frustrated as my friend is.