This week, I changed much of the tech behind this site. If you see anything that looks like a bug, please let me know!

House of Commons Hansard #170 of the 37th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was military.

Topics

Government ExpendituresOral Question Period

2:30 p.m.

York Centre Ontario

Liberal

Art Eggleton LiberalMinister of National Defence

Mr. Speaker, I will be happy to table a detailed list of what makes up the training and miscellaneous accounts. It is approximately $1 million for training. There are some 16 pilots involved. There are various other details involved in the program as well.

However, as I said, at the end of the day we will get a product that is more efficient and more effective in helping the government do its job.

Government ExpendituresOral Question Period

2:30 p.m.

Canadian Alliance

Grant Hill Canadian Alliance Macleod, AB

Mr. Speaker, our 16 pilots are top gun military pilots and they have experience on planes that are very similar. Bombardier let me know that to certify a pilot costs $47,800. We get four certified for nothing in the purchase. That does not add up to $8.2 million.

Where are they hiding the rest of that money?

Government ExpendituresOral Question Period

2:30 p.m.

York Centre Ontario

Liberal

Art Eggleton LiberalMinister of National Defence

Mr. Speaker, there is no hiding. I am happy to table this. The $8.2 million makes up more than training. There are other costs such as ground support equipment and satellite communication systems that go in each aircraft which are equivalent to what already exists in current aircraft. They are all part of the $8.2 million. I am happy to table the figures so the hon. member can study them and find out that we are being quite efficient in how taxpayer money will spent.

The ConstitutionOral Question Period

2:30 p.m.

Bloc

Caroline St-Hilaire Bloc Longueuil, QC

Mr. Speaker, the building of Canada, dating back to the unilateral patriation of the constitution in 1982, is in total contradiction to the very vision of Quebec.

Will the Prime Minister admit that the millennium scholarships, the social union and the young offenders legislation are all initiatives that run contrary to the consensus in Quebec and clearly illustrate that Canada is building itself without any respect for the vision of Quebec?

The ConstitutionOral Question Period

2:35 p.m.

Saint-Maurice Québec

Liberal

Jean Chrétien LiberalPrime Minister

Mr. Speaker, I will answer this question because Quebecers are very pleased to receive the benefits of these programs.

At this time, I am very surprised that the Bloc Quebecois would want to reopen the constitutional issue. Quebecers are so happy that this government has decided to say no more about the constitution and to address instead the real problems affecting the people.

The ConstitutionOral Question Period

2:35 p.m.

Bloc

Caroline St-Hilaire Bloc Longueuil, QC

Mr. Speaker, in order to assuage his conscience and remedy his 1982 error as far as Quebec is concerned, the Prime Minister had a resolution, the distinct society resolution, passed here in this House.

How can the Prime Minister explain today that he has never made use of that resolution in order to have Quebec's point of view respected, particularly in connection with millennium scholarships, young offenders and the social union?

The ConstitutionOral Question Period

2:35 p.m.

Saint-Maurice Québec

Liberal

Jean Chrétien LiberalPrime Minister

Mr. Speaker, when the Liberal Party and the government introduced the distinct society resolution in the House of Commons, the Bloc Quebecois voted against it en masse. Now they have the gall to stand up in this House and fault us for not using something they themselves were against. What a disgrace.

Auditor General's ReportOral Question Period

2:35 p.m.

Canadian Alliance

John Williams Canadian Alliance St. Albert, AB

Mr. Speaker, the auditor general blew the whistle yesterday that there are so many foundations out there and more money in secret bank accounts than what the government even knows is there. It sounds like slush funds gone mad to me.

My question is for the Minister of Finance. Could he tell us how many foundations there actually are? How much is sitting in secret bank accounts waiting for the Liberals to buy votes at the next election?

Auditor General's ReportOral Question Period

2:35 p.m.

LaSalle—Émard Québec

Liberal

Paul Martin LiberalMinister of Finance

Mr. Speaker, the number of foundations is a matter of public record. There are no secret bank accounts. All the foundations provide annual public reports that are available. Every time one of the foundations makes a grant, it is a matter of public record. The fact is the whole operation of foundations is done in a very open and very transparent way.

Auditor General's ReportOral Question Period

2:35 p.m.

Canadian Alliance

John Williams Canadian Alliance St. Albert, AB

Mr. Speaker, I only wish that were true but the auditor general says it is not. There is over $7 billion sitting in bank accounts and we do not know what the government intends to do with it. That is $5,000 per Canadian family that has been socked away out of sight of the auditor general, out of sight of parliament and out of sight of everybody but the Liberal Party.

My question for the Minister of Finance is this. Will he make a commitment today to get that money back on behalf of taxpayers, pay down the debt and use it for something other than buying Liberal votes?

Auditor General's ReportOral Question Period

2:35 p.m.

LaSalle—Émard Québec

Liberal

Paul Martin LiberalMinister of Finance

Mr. Speaker, first, not only does each of these foundations provide an annual report, but if parliamentary committees desire to have representatives of these foundations appear in front of them, they can.

I will give the member one example. The Canadian Foundation for Innovation was set up five years ago in 1997. Representatives of that foundation have appeared 11 times before diverse parliamentary committees of the House and are prepared to do so in the future.

If the hon. member is saying that investing in the future of Canada, investing in research and development, investing in the future of our children and investing in our universities is not worthwhile, that certainly says where they stand on Canada's future.

Young OffendersOral Question Period

2:35 p.m.

Bloc

Michel Bellehumeur Bloc Berthier—Montcalm, QC

Mr. Speaker, in 1982, the Prime Minister and his colleagues set the tone for the future by giving themselves the right to change fundamental things without Quebec's consent. The same thing happened again 20 years later regarding young offenders, when the federal government imposed its repressive approach on Quebec, ignoring the Quebec consensus.

Will the Prime Minister admit that the approach that prevailed in 1982 with the unilateral patriation of the constitution is the same one that forced Quebec to abandon a rehabilitation approach that had proven successful with young offenders?

Young OffendersOral Question Period

2:35 p.m.

Outremont Québec

Liberal

Martin Cauchon LiberalMinister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada

Mr. Speaker, it is unfortunate to see that, once again, the Bloc Quebecois is continuing its misinformation campaign in Quebec.

Bill C-7 on young offenders meets the aspirations of Quebec and reflects the techniques and approach developed in Quebec.

As for the constitution, it includes the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which has been widely used across the country and in a flexible manner. The charter has proven very useful to Quebec regarding many issues, including language and signs.

Young OffendersOral Question Period

2:40 p.m.

Bloc

Michel Bellehumeur Bloc Berthier—Montcalm, QC

Mr. Speaker, if the minister had come to Quebec before the bill was passed, he would have seen that the Canadian approach with young offenders does not reflect the reality in our province. Worse still, it denies this reality by not allowing Quebec to do things differently.

While Quebec recognizes—and accepts— the different Canadian approach with young offenders, Canada just cannot live with such diversity and imposes its centralizing views on Quebecers.

Is this the legacy of 1982?

Young OffendersOral Question Period

2:40 p.m.

Outremont Québec

Liberal

Martin Cauchon LiberalMinister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada

Mr. Speaker, the problem with the Bloc Quebecois, ever since it first came here, is that it refuses to work here—

Young OffendersOral Question Period

2:40 p.m.

Some hon. members

You sold out!

Young OffendersOral Question Period

2:40 p.m.

Liberal

Martin Cauchon Liberal Outremont, QC

Mr. Speaker, people are saying I sold out. The Bloc Quebecois refuses to work here in a constructive and positive fashion. Look at the impact of the charter—

Young OffendersOral Question Period

2:40 p.m.

Some hon. members

Oh, oh.

Young OffendersOral Question Period

2:40 p.m.

The Speaker

Order, please. It is impossible to hear the hon. minister, and we have to be able to hear him. The hon. Minister of Justice.

Young OffendersOral Question Period

2:40 p.m.

Liberal

Martin Cauchon Liberal Outremont, QC

Mr. Speaker, they talk about democracy on the other side, but they are saying I sold out. I find it unfortunate that, in a democratic country, I am described as having sold out when I try to exercise my freedom of expression and my right to speak. These are fellow Quebecers. This is a disgrace.

Young OffendersOral Question Period

2:40 p.m.

Some hon. members

Oh, oh.

Young OffendersOral Question Period

2:40 p.m.

The Speaker

Order, please. It is impossible to hear what is being said today. The hon. member for Calgary West.

National DefenceOral Question Period

April 17th, 2002 / 2:40 p.m.

Canadian Alliance

Rob Anders Canadian Alliance Calgary West, AB

Mr. Speaker, since the government was first elected our military has lost twice as many troops as it has brought in. National defence has lost 31,500 troops and only gained 14,700. That is a scary number. That is a lot of engineers, a lot of pilots and a lot of doctors. The problem will only get worse.

My question is for the Minister of National Defence. Why has the government lost twice as many troops as it has brought in?

National DefenceOral Question Period

2:40 p.m.

York Centre Ontario

Liberal

Art Eggleton LiberalMinister of National Defence

Mr. Speaker, I had a hard time hearing all the question. We have had a very solid recruitment program in the last year. We have reached about 50% higher numbers than the year before, successfully recruiting some 10,000 people.

We are working on certain occupation groups, such as engineers, to attract more of them into the system; more flexible terms of reference and various other means of attracting people that we need, as well as retention. Our retention is working quite well because our attrition rate has substantially lowered some 20% in the last year.

We are on our way to resolving the problem.

National DefenceOral Question Period

2:40 p.m.

Canadian Alliance

Rob Anders Canadian Alliance Calgary West, AB

Mr. Speaker, actually the truth speaks something else. The auditor general has reported that these problems go all the way back to 1990. What has happened? More Liberal cuts and Liberal mismanagement.

The truth is in the numbers, and the auditor general reported that even the recruiting centres were short of recruiters, which is probably why they missed their goal of 4,800 new soldiers by almost 25%. These shortages are a direct result of the government cuts in the mid-nineties and it will take 30 years to recover.

Why has the minister not given the department the resources it needs to do the job?