Michel Gauthier

[Somalia Inquiry, April 22nd, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, the minister has responsibilities. He must exercise these responsibilities in this House when questions are put to him on behalf of Canadians who want to know what is happening. He cannot hide behind a committee, when he already knows the answers.

On April 15, the Prime Minister said that the events under investigation took place under another government. Clearly, the Prime Minister had not been informed by the Minister of National Defence that an investigation had been conducted within the army and that despicable events were known to have gone on until September.

Why did the Minister of National Defence not inform his Prime Minister that an investigation by the military police had already revealed orders had been given, under his command, to destroy and falsify documents, up to last September? Why did he hide this from his Prime Minister?

[Somalia Inquiry, April 22nd, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, we learned a lot in the papers over the weekend about the Canadian army's actions in the Somalia scandal. We learn in fact a lot more from the papers than we do from the minister in this House.

On April 16, he said, and I quote: "This question casts aspersions on the Armed Forces and on the men and women who serve each day with distinction both at home and abroad. Everyone's reputation is being tarnished by incidents that occurred three years ago".

How could the Minister of National Defence talk in the House about events that happened three years ago, when he knew as he was making this statement here, following an investigation by military police, that documents were being illegally destroyed and falsified up to last September?

[Research And Development, April 18th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I feel obliged to tell the minister that everyone in Quebec is opposed to her decision and would offer as proof the unanimous resolution by the National Assembly condemning her decision. That makes it twice this week that the federal government has managed to turn Quebec unanimously against it.

How can the minister persist with her decision to cut off her $7.5 million involvement in the Varennes basic research project, in which she is involved with other partners, while last June she added $15 million to the TRIUMF project in B.C.? This is also a basic

research project, and one in which the federal government is the sole investor. Why cut back in Quebec, where there is already anR&D deficit, while stepping up investment elsewhere?

[Research And Development, April 18th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, how can the minister justify her decision to end investments in the Tokamak project without any consultation with her partners, including the Government of Quebec, despite the fact that they funded 50 per cent of the project?

[Research And Development, April 18th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, historically, Quebec has always been penalized when it came to federal research and development spending. The proof of this is that, from 1979 to 1991, Quebec received only 18.6 per cent of federal funding in this area, while Ontario received 50 per cent. These funds create many jobs and are highly stimulating to the economy.

This is an area in which Quebec would like to have its fair share. It is certainly more positive on the economic level for our tax dollars to come back to us for research and development instead of unemployment insurance.

My question is for the Minister of Natural Resources. How, under these circumstances, can she justify her department's choice of priorities in cutting off funding for the Tokamak project in Varennes, when this adds to the inequity from which Quebec has suffered far too long already in R&D?

[Department Of National Defence, April 17th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, it is all the members of this House and all Canadians who may soon be outraged by the minister's unacceptable attitude.

My question is a very simple one. The Information Commissioner of Canada can give the minister all the answers he wants. But would it not be normal for the minister of defence, who is supposedly responsible for the Canadian Forces, to know what goes on in his department and why some people routinely destroy and hide documents? He should know this, if he were truly responsible.

[Department Of National Defence, April 17th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, as we can see, the minister of defence is easily offended when we ask him questions on what goes on in his department.

Earlier, in response to my colleague from Charlesbourg, he took offence at being asked about events that call into question our armed forces' credibility and, above all, his own credibility and leadership. He has just done the same thing.

When the minister of defence mentions families that, in his opinion, are outraged by the opposition's attitude, he should perhaps consider the members of Corporal Daniel Gunther's family, who were told by the Information Commissioner of Canada that documents were missing from the corporal's file and that he could not explain why these documents were still missing. This is strangely reminiscent of the Somalia affair and it would be in the minister's interest to give this some serious consideration.

[Distinct Society, April 17th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I apologize to the Minister of Transport. It is the Minister of Human Resources Development who never listens and never understands anything in this House.

Let me get back to the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, who, while he does not answer, at least listens. I would ask the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs if he would acknowledge, after switching from the reality of the Quebec people to the idea of a distinct society, to that of the homeland of the French language and culture and finally to that of linguistic community, whether the Liberal Party of Canada's search for new terminology continues to be with the intent of diminishing the status and the role of the people of Quebec within Canada?

[Distinct Society, April 17th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, you will understand that, through my dealings with the minister, I will certainly pass politics 101, but I am not so sure about him.

Shifting from the reality of a Quebec people to the concept of a distinct society-Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Transport would learn something too if he listened. Would you ask him to be silent?

[Distinct Society, April 17th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, if the minister wants to play, I am going to talk scrabble. There is a six letter word in scrabble, spelled "verity". This is what we in the opposition are after.

The Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs said himself that there is a reality beyond words. Would he tell us whether, in reality, he thinks, as the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, that Quebecers constitute a people?