Michel Gauthier

[The Canadian Armed Forces, September 23rd, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, these are not ordinary citizens taking part in a debate. We are talking about generals, the highest ranked officers in the Canadian army, who, as soon as they leave the military, express their feeling of helplessness over the lack of leadership in the forces.

The minister can talk about a public debate in our great society, but what is truly extraordinary is to have an army with no leader and no minister. It appears that, in some cases, soldiers are now ashamed to wear their uniform, because of the lack of leadership at the national defence department. On August 29, General Boyle said in the Globe and Mail that he would resign if his leadership was questioned.

Could the defence minister tell General Boyle on our behalf that his original statement on his leadership was far preferable to his present desperate attempt to hang on to his job as Chief of Staff, when he no longer has credibility? Could the minister convey the message to General Boyle?

[The Canadian Armed Forces, September 23rd, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, last weekend, two other generals broke the wall of silence and added their voices to those of the military who challenge General Boyle's leadership.

Generals Vernon and MacKenzie had very harsh words for the Chief of Staff. The fact is that, in spite of the efforts made by the Prime Minister and his defence minister to plug the holes, the ship is taking on water everywhere.

Given the new and very harsh criticisms that were levelled not only at General Boyle, but also at the Prime Minister, who is accused of not being loyal to the armed forces, will the Prime Minister agree that it is urgent and necessary to review his position and to personally intervene to settle the leadership problem that exists at DND and at the head of the Canadian Armed Forces?

[Auditor General, September 19th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, if the minister wants to talk substance, we will talk substance. We will talk of the very philosophy of this government. It has to be understood. When the Somalia inquiry tries to cast some light on administrative and leadership failings in the Army, the Prime Minister discredits the Commission. When the auditor general tries to cast some light on the matter of family trusts, government members discredit the auditor general.

How can the Prime Minister explain to us the new philosophy of his government, which to all appearances consists in discrediting those who are not in agreement with it?

[Auditor General, September 19th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, it is obvious that the Minister of Finance has given up his fancy footwork for the summer. He was much more nimble when it came to skating around the GST issue.

Does the Prime Minister realize that, by remaining mum, he is sanctioning the report by his MPs and making a direct attack on the very institution of the auditor general, the protector of the general public and the one whose job it is to call attention to the faults in the public administration? Does the Prime Minister realize that he is backing up his MPs by his silence?

[Auditor General, September 19th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, in an absolutely unprecedented gesture, Liberal members have attacked the auditor general for blowing the whistle on the family trust scandal.

For three years the Bloc Quebecois has been criticizing these tax havens, yet now, because the auditor general has confirmed what we have been saying, that billions of dollars are going out of the country tax free, the Liberals are questioning his competency and the way he is fulfilling his mandate. And this is someone appointed by the House of Commons.

Will the Prime Minister tell us whether he dissociates himself from the opinion of certain members of his party or whether he rejects this report?

[The Somalia Inquiry, September 18th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, is the Prime Minister not trying to discredit the commission with what he had to say about it yesterday?

Is he not trying to discredit the commission in order to justify keeping the general and the minister in their positions? Is he not indeed trying to discredit the commission in order to serve his own ends?

[The Somalia Inquiry, September 18th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, it is particularly surprising to hear from the Prime Minister's lips that the army is on hold until the results of the inquiry come out. There was one way to solve that: change the chief of defence staff, and that is what he was asked to do.

Instead of attacking the commission, could the Prime Minister admit that, if its work is taking too long and is costing too much, is precisely the fault of the Armed Forces and their commander, whose exact role in the cover up is not yet clear?

[The Somalia Inquiry, September 18th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Prime Minister had some rather harsh and somewhat critical comments to make on the Somalia inquiry. He accused it of "grilling public servants as if they were almost criminals". Those are the exact words of the Prime Minister. He also complained of the slowness of the process, and its cost.

My question is for the Prime Minister. Can he explain why he has criticized the inquiry so harshly, considering that all it is doing is seeking to cast some light on the behaviour of the Armed Forces in Somalia and the role of General Boyle in the cover up?

[Job Creation, September 17th, 1996]

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?

[Job Creation, September 17th, 1996]

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?