Debates of Feb. 6th, 1997

Culture

[Gaston Leroux, Bloc, Richmond—Wolfe, QC]

Mr. Speaker, unless I am mistaken, the minister is upset.

Yesterday, the Prime Minister remained silent on the issue of culture. Yet, his cabinet is divided on this most important issue for Canadian and Quebec cultures.

Last week, the Minister for International Trade said that NAFTA's cultural exemption was a myth, while the heritage minister claimed it was an essential tool for Canada's cultural development.

My question is this: Can the Deputy Prime Minister tell us who is the real spokesperson on this issue? Who is stating the government's position: Is it the Deputy Prime Minister when she says she is trying to get culture excluded from WTO agreements, or is it her colleague who has no intention of defending this cause at the international level?

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

Mr. Speaker, it is absolutely vital that the Government of Canada take a unanimous stand on an issue that concerns us all. I am just as concerned that, when the Prime Minister put me in charge of the heritage department, he asked me to fight hard for Canadian culture because it must be done.

I can assure you that as far as Canada's policy to work very hard for our culture is concerned, I am in complete agreement with all of my cabinet colleagues, including the Minister for International Trade.

[Gaston Leroux, Bloc, Richmond—Wolfe, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am asking the Deputy Prime Minister to confirm that she is the government's official spokesperson.

I am asking her why, yesterday, she said she would wait for the WTO decision concerning Sports Illustrated before deciding whether to appeal. I would remind her of the very clear conclusions stated in the 1994 Tassé report regarding this magazine, and I would also remind her that 80 per cent of magazines bought at newsstands in Canada come from abroad.

In making her statement yesterday, the minister contradicted the comments she made last week when she said she would definitely appeal the decision. What made the minister back down?

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

Mr. Speaker, last week I said the same thing I am saying today. The decision has not yet been made. It is impossible to confirm that we will appeal, given that the decision has not even been made.

The ruling that was made is a provisional decision. We will wait for the final decision, which should come at the end of this month. I can assure the hon. member that once a final decision is made, we will use every available means, including our right to appeal this unacceptable demand by the Americans.

Canadian Armed Forces

[Jack Frazer, Reform, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the Minister of National Defence realizes the impact this Somalia issue is having on the military. Why does he think the people in Edmonton are ashamed to wear their hats to work when they are driving because they do not want to be perceived to be in uniform? Does he not understand that all the military feels tarnished by what has happened and they are concerned by their perception that the leadership is not being held accountable for what happened?

Will the minister accept that this whole episode is troubling the people in the military forces?

[Douglas Young, Liberal, Minister of National Defence and Minister of Veterans Affairs]

Yes, Mr. Speaker, I agree with my hon. friend that the incident in Somalia and much that has gone on since is indeed troubling for members of the Canadian forces, both present and past. I know that my hon. friend is very much aware of that.

I have been to the base in Edmonton and that I do not share his view that the men and women of the Canadian forces are ashamed of their uniforms. As a matter of fact, I hold quite the contrary view, that the men and women of the Canadian forces in Edmonton, or in Bosnia where I was last week with our troops over there, are very proud not only of what they are doing today but what men like

my hon. friend and other men and women of the Canadian forces have done for the last 100 or 125 years.

[Jack Frazer, Reform, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, there is no question about the job the Canadian forces are doing. They are doing super work. But I have letters in my office from people in Edmonton who say: "I won't wear my hat to work because I don't want to be seen as a person in military uniform".

Deputy Minister Fowler visited Somalia between February 5 and 9, 1993 and Chief of the Defence Staff Admiral Anderson was in Somalia on March 6, just two days after two Somalis were shot. Yet the muzzling of the inquiry precludes either Fowler or Anderson appearing. The commission says they simply do not have enough time.

If the minister really cares about the welfare of the Canadian forces, how can he leave this aberrant episode in Canadian military history unresolved?

[Douglas Young, Liberal, Minister of National Defence and Minister of Veterans Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, I want to say to my hon. friend that under no circumstances at any time have we ever attempted to influence the choice of witnesses who should be heard before the inquiry.

The Somalia inquiry was extended now on three occasions. Upon the last request made by the commissioners, the government determined that we would extend the period of the inquiry until the end of June allowing for hearings to be held until the end of March.

There is absolutely no reason why the commissioners cannot ask the people to whom my hon. friend has just referred to appear before the commission. There was also no reason why they were not able to hear them over the last nearly two years now that this commission has been conducting its business.

However, I have never commented on either the roster of witnesses nor their testimony, nor do I intend to. That is entirely within the purview and prerogative of the commissioners of the Somalia inquiry.

Royal Military College In Kingston

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

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

In an attempt to divert attention from the unforgivable mistake of shutting down the only French language military college in the country, the government is promising phenomenal savings. Just recently, we learned that the operating costs of the college in Kingston were higher than ever and that the training costs, per student, were in excess of $76,000, much higher than in St-Jean.

Could the Minister of National Defence explain why no one can tell us with any accuracy how much the college in Kingston is costing us every year? Figures like $30 million, $50 million and $90 million have been tossed around. What is the budget of the college in Kingston?

[Douglas Young, Liberal, Minister of National Defence and Minister of Veterans Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague will understand that I do not have at the tip of my fingers every available detail pertaining to every aspect of the Canadian Forces activities, whether at the military college in Kingston or elsewhere.

I undertake to provide this information to my hon. colleague. Just so I am clear, I would appreciate it if he could let me know exactly what details he is looking for concerning the funding of the military college in Kingston. We could also provide him with figures to enable him to make a comparison with the military college in Saint-Jean.

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

Mr. Speaker, according to our sources, the astronomical costs at Kingston prove only one thing: it was a mistake to close down the military college in Saint-Jean, where military training was provided to officer cadets at a much lower cost.

Are we to understand that, once again, the government is unable to admit it made a mistake, to the point where it would rather just keep spending and spending, while French-speaking members of the armed forces suffer?

[Douglas Young, Liberal, Minister of National Defence and Minister of Veterans Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, as far as the French-speaking military or young people looking to train and carve out a career in the Canadian Forces are concerned, we will do everything we can to make sure they get the best possible training.

Regarding the other part of the question, where the hon. member implied that we tend to spend recklessly, I must say I gave that up long ago.

Krever Commission

[Grant Hill, Reform, Macleod, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the shredding of blood committee documents by Dr. Jo Hauser is condemned by the information commissioner as an effort "in thwarting the public's right of access". These documents by the way were from 1982 to 1989 implicating a Liberal cabinet.

Did the health minister know both the identity and the motives of this shredder when he gave him the golden handshake one day before the bombshell hit the press?

[David Dingwall, Liberal, Minister of Health]

Mr. Speaker, once again the hon. member is being somewhat careless and reckless with the facts.

The evidence that has been provided to me as minister is that I have a fiduciary obligation as well as a legal obligation to comply with the provisions of the Access to Information Act.

I want to say to my colleague opposite that information was provided to me in a preliminary report on December 3, as I believe he made reference to yesterday, which is a standard procedure under the access to information provisions. Thereafter the department responds. It is concluded by the information commissioner making a final report, which I believe he did on January 21. Thereafter that report was made public immediately, forwarded to Justice Krever and thereafter forwarded to the solicitor general for the purposes of an RCMP investigation if they deem it appropriate.

[Grant Hill, Reform, Macleod, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I think most Canadians will recognize that I did not even get close to an answer to my question. The question was, did the minister know the identity and the motives of this shredder prior to when he gave him a golden handshake? I will try again: Were the identity and the motives known by this minister?

[David Dingwall, Liberal, Minister of Health]

Mr. Speaker, I am just a lawyer from rural Canada. I am not a spin doctor. In terms of the motives of various individuals, whether they be members of the public service or whether they be members of the third party, I am not aware of their motives. However, one can speculate as to what their motives are about.

Rural Development

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

Mr. Speaker, the minister of agriculture has a significant role to ensure that the throne speech commitment to rural development is fulfilled. It is a very important issue for those of us living in rural Canada.

Would the minister tell the House specifically what actions he is taking to ensure rural economic development is pursued?

[Ralph Goodale, Liberal, Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Parry Sound-Muskoka has been consistent and very aggressive in pursuing and promoting the interests of rural Canada as have a great many members of the caucus on the government side.

The throne speech last year indicated the general nature of the government's commitment. Since then we have been working on a variety of initiatives including improving access to capital, improving access to information technology and improving the quality of information available to rural Canadians about the programs and services of the Government of Canada.

In particular I mention the Canadian adaptation and rural development fund which among other things will pump in excess of $100 million over the next four years into the hands of local adaptation councils across Canada. This will help with rural growth and diversification and will bring decision making and priority setting into the hands of people locally in their own communities.

Department Of National Defence

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

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

The Department of National Defence is the subject of an unprecedented application to the Federal Court by the commissioner of official languages, who is accusing it of systemic discrimination against members of francophone soldiers' families. This is especially the case in Moose Jaw, Saskatchewan, where several francophone families have been the victims of this disgraceful and generalized discrimination.

How can the defence minister tolerate the systemic discrimination practised by his department for over 26 years against members of francophone soldiers' families on Canadian army bases?

[Douglas Young, Liberal, Minister of National Defence and Minister of Veterans Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, I have already had an opportunity to meet with the official languages commissioner for the very purpose of discussing the problem in Moose Jaw that the hon. member is refering to. There were also other situations that I thought were unacceptable in other regions of the country.

Following these meetings, I asked my department to report to me as quickly as possible on what can be done to correct circumstances which, I am in agreement with my hon. colleague, were unacceptable.

We will try to move ahead as quickly as possible, and I hope to be able to get back to her in the near future about concrete action taken in this regard.

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

Mr. Speaker, to a degree I find the minister's reply reassuring or encouraging. But according to our information, and the minister is well placed to tell us if it is incorrect, the department is getting ready to try and have the court disallow the official language commissioner's application.

Why has the minister decided to take the same approach as his predecessors who, for 26 years, have refused to allow francophones on military bases access to services in French, although it

knows the disastrous consequences this will have for these families?

[Douglas Young, Liberal, Minister of National Defence and Minister of Veterans Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague is well aware that I should not discuss a situation that could come before the courts or be litigious. I am, however, very aware of the need of men and women in the Canadian Forces to have services available to them in the language of their choice.

In the cases referred to by the hon. member, it is clear to us that the situation was unacceptable, and we are going to look into it.

As for the commissioner's application, we should let the court make up its own mind.

Canadian Armed Forces

[Chuck Strahl, Reform, Fraser Valley East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, we saw on the CBC town hall that the Prime Minister believes that one of the best job strategies is to rely on blind luck. If that fails, the second best job strategy is apparently to try to steal jobs from somebody else if you cannot get your own.

In a crass political move, apparently the Minister of Foreign Affairs has decided to steal the 900 jobs that are currently in place at NORAD in North Bay and move them to Winnipeg. That will cost about $15 million. Even the Liberal MP from Nipissing has publicly voiced his opposition to this job stealing by the minister.

Will the minister reverse his decision and keep the NORAD jobs in North Bay?

[Douglas Young, Liberal, Minister of National Defence and Minister of Veterans Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, I know that the hon. member probably is very familiar with what is described as the hole at North Bay. But in fact, if he was aware of what is going on in the restructuring of the command control and other aspects of the air force activity in the Canadian forces he would know, because I said yesterday in response to a question outside the House of Commons, by people who are familiar with this subject, that absolutely no decision has been made with respect to the location of these centres and no decision is imminent.

[Chuck Strahl, Reform, Fraser Valley East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, according to the newspaper reports, the premier of Ontario is not buying that and neither is the member from Nipissing. Both have publicly voiced their opposition and both say that apparently this decision has already been made.

Will the minister reassure these people that the decision has not been made and in fact that air command will stay in North Bay and will not be moved to Winnipeg?