Michel Gauthier

[Somalia Inquiry, February 4th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of National Defence has several times mentioned a historical document, he just did so again. What the opposition wants is not a historical document, but the truth about what went on. We share his concern-the one he has expressed in any event-for seeing that light is shed on this whole affair. We want to see changes in the Canadian armed forces; that is what everyone wants. Changes are necessary.

My question is the following: If he wants to take appropriate action and take it in the right place, does he not have to have all the information? If so, why he is rejecting the extraordinarily construc-

tive suggestion we are making of requiring an interim report on June 30, which would allow him to begin taking the action he wishes to take? All the information will be included in the final report, as he sees it, allowing the commission of inquiry to deal with all the new material that came up during this inquiry, which no one had any inkling of at the outset.

[Somalia Inquiry, February 4th, 1997]

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

The inquiry into the events that took place in Somalia has taught us a lot about the behaviour of senior officers in the Canadian military. But since the minister has decided to have the commission wind up its work soon, we will unfortunately not learn the whole truth. It must be admitted that the armed forces wasted at least six months of the commission's time with the business of documents that were falsified, hidden, hunted for, and not found, and now that everything needed is available, the minister decides to put a stop to the inquiry.

Will the Minister of National Defence agree that he could very well require the commission to produce an interim report on June 30, allowing him to go ahead with the changes he wants to make, and then authorize the commission to continue its work and try to find out what really happened in this affair?

[Tribute To The Late André Caron, February 3rd, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, on January 10, André Caron, member of Parliament for Jonquière, died after a long battle with cancer. He was our friend, and we were profoundly saddened by this loss.

Mr. Caron was deeply religious and looked forward to a full recovery, in spite of his condition. He fought with all his might to the very end. His courage in facing his illness was an example to us all.

Mr. Caron was born in Jonquière in 1944. After studying educational counselling and teaching at Laval University and theology at the University of Quebec in Chicoutimi, he worked for the greater part of his life for the Jonquière school board as a guidance counsellor.

His political career started in 1990 when he became president of the Parti Québécois riding association in Jonquière. Then, in 1993, he was elected to the House of Commons as a member of the Bloc Quebecois.

Mr. Caron was ordained a deacon in 1988 before becoming responsible for all deacons in the diocese of Chicoutimi and serving on the provincial executive of the diaconate. A member of Amnesty International and the Civil Liberties Union, Mr. Caron was involved in a number of organizations throughout his life and was unstinting in his desire to help others.

André Caron was a sensitive man, a good listener, a man with great tact, a man who was very human, modest and generous. He strongly believed wealth should be shared, and he felt it was his mission to speak for the most vulnerable, the poor and those who are not always able to defend themselves. He was a citizen with a cause.

Mr. Caron is an example to all members of this House. He wanted to represent the people of his riding as well as he could, and his views show he was a man of ideas. His convictions were more important to him that his personal interests. Quebec and Canada have lost a parliamentarian of integrity.

André Caron was a staunch sovereignist. He never doubted the ability of Quebecers to build their own future. The people of Jonquière trusted him. He was respected by everyone because of his commitment to his constituents, and many people mourned his passing. Our thoughts go out today to those who loved him and supported him in his long battle against illness.

On behalf of all members of the Bloc Quebecois, I wish to offer his wife Marie Lévesque and his sons, Jean-François and Louis-Philippe, our sincere condolences. With them we mourn the loss of our friend André Caron.

[Somalia Inquiry, February 3rd, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, how does the government reconcile the statements of the Prime Minister that they absolutely want light to be shed on the Somalia affair, and the statements by the minister of defence, who said on his appointment that everyone could be heard-he was full of good intentions-with the attitude of the government today, where it is limiting the time available to the commission, despite the opinion of Mr. Justice Létourneau?

Essentially, how can they reconcile their words of a few months ago with their hurry today to put the lid on the pot as quickly as possible?

[Somalia Inquiry, February 3rd, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister need not delight in the fact that he will be losing me as his opposite. I will counsel my successor well on how to get him to put his foot in it regularly.

More seriously, we have learned that senior officers of Canada's military-and this is very serious-blackmailed the former minister of defence, who was in the race to become Prime Minister at the time.

It is extremely serious when members of the command staff can put pressure of all sorts on the minister of defence in order to cover up certain information they do not want make public.

Will the Prime Minister acknowledge that, in the light of the seriousness of the events that have occurred in the relationship between the army and the minister of defence and the army and the government, his government is making a terrible mistake in cutting off the testimony that may be heard before the Somalia inquiry as of March 31, which is approaching very quickly?

[Somalia Inquiry, February 3rd, 1997]

They are already nervous. The session is not over, I guarantee.

My question is this: By cutting off testimony in the Somalia inquiry on March 31 and by denying Mr. Justice Létourneau the time he must have to complete his inquiry, is the Prime Minister not telling the army its days in the hot water it got itself into are almost over and telling the rest of Canada, Canadians, that they will never get to the bottom of the Somalia affair?

[Somalia Inquiry, February 3rd, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to see you and my colleagues once again. I am happy to see the government members too, because we have a lot of questions for them.

This government's behaviour has been odd for the past three years. The matter of contaminated blood is one example. The Prime Minister says he wants the entire situation brought to light, but he refuses to initiate the process giving Mr. Justice Krever access to the documents that would allow him to get to the truth. In the matter of the GST, despite what the Prime Minister's cronies say about not keeping the promise, the Prime Minister keeps saying he has met his commitments. In the matter of Somalia, the Prime Minister, on the one hand, agrees to get at the truth and, on the other, denies the Somalia inquiry the time accorded it.

[Poverty, December 12th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, through you, I voice my indignation at the government's actions.

Let us jog the Prime Minister's memory. Since the beginning of the year, and I hope the Prime Minister understands what I am getting at, through you, the number of unemployed in Canada has increased faster than the number of new full time jobs: 121,000 more people unemployed, but only 106,000 new jobs. The government is unable to meet the public's needs.

Is the Prime Minister able to understand that, if the situation continues to deteriorate in this way, it is because his government is not guiding the economic recovery, is not stepping in, is creating only a paltry number of jobs, and dead end ones at that, and because, to top it all off, UI cutbacks will take effect in January? This will be a terrible blow to the poorest members of our society, and it is the government's fault.

[Poverty, December 12th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, it is somewhat unfortunate that the Prime Minister sees it as a choice between reducing the deficit and helping people find work.

We have explained to him how taxation reform alone would free up $3 billion for active job creation. We are not criticizing the Prime Minister for trying to reduce the deficit. We are, however, criticizing his lack of imagination when it comes to creating jobs and helping people find work.

The Prime Minister was outraged when former Prime Minister Kim Campbell said during an election campaign that the rate of unemployment in Canada would not drop below 10 per cent. The Prime Minister had a lot to say about that on the campaign trail. Is the Prime Minister more comfortable with an unemployment rate of 10 per cent now that he is holding the reins?

[Poverty, December 12th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday, Statistics Canada published figures showing that there were five million Canadians living under the poverty line, a 38 per cent increase since 1989. There are 1.4 million children living in poverty in Canada, 45 per cent more than in 1989.

Not only are families not getting any richer, but their average income has gone down by $2,800 since 1989, and this is before the new EI system comes into the picture and further reduces their standard of living.

Is the Prime Minister aware that it is incumbent on him as Prime Minister to do a little more for the poor than wish them "Good luck", which was all he had to say the other evening on television to those seeking work?