Michel Gauthier

[Transfer Payments, February 15th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Finance may wish to refer to certain statements by the ministers, including the minister from Quebec who said that this approach would become a disaster for Quebec in 1996.

Would the Minister of Finance agree that his decision to postpone until next year the drastic cuts he intends to make in transfer payments to the provinces for social programs financing was made in order to avoid weakening the federal position on the eve of the referendum? Will he be frank and forthright and admit that major cuts are to be postponed until next year, for purely political reasons?

[Transfer Payments, February 15th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, would the Minister of Finance agree that no matter how he intends to shift the burden of financial problems on to the provinces, nothing will change as far as the Canadian taxpayer is concerned, since if the federal government manages to lighten its debt load by transferring part of it or part of the deficit to the provinces, as far as the average citizen is concerned, the financial problem remains the same? Would he agree that is basically what his approach boils down to?

[Transfer Payments, February 15th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday, the Prime Minister said in this House that his government was preparing to offload financial responsibilities on the provinces without giving them sufficient resources, let alone tax points, to deal with this new development.

Would the Minister of Finance confirm that in his next two budgets, thus reflecting what was said by the Prime Minister, he is planning a wholesale shift of certain federal commitments to the provinces, without transferring the requisite financial and fiscal resources?

[National Defence, February 14th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, does the Prime Minister consider it normal that his minister of defence still intends to decorate Lieutenant-Colonel Kenward, the former commanding officer of the Second Airborne Regiment, and in fact to do so even before the start of the inquiry which is supposed to get to the bottom of the events in Petawawa? Does he consider that normal?

[National Defence, February 14th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, whereas I am accused of not listening to the answers, the minister does not listen to the questions; that is not what I asked.

Can the minister of defence-and I hope he will understand my second question better-confirm that the government will soon award the Order of Military Merit to Lieutenant-Colonel Kenward, the very person who was supposed to have cleaned up the Second Airborne Regiment of Petawawa and who was commander-in-chief at the time of the incidents recorded on the third video-cassette? Does he still intend to award the Order of Military Merit to this lieutenant-colonel?

[National Defence, February 14th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, obviously to give the impression that he is always in control of his department, the minister of defence has called for the suspension of Major-General Brian Vernon, thereby throwing him to the wolves, using him as a scapegoat to calm public opinion. But Major-General Vernon should not bear the sole burden of responsibility for the incidents in Petawawa.

Does the minister of defence intend to suspend or relieve of their duties all officers in charge of the Airborne Regiment who took part in incidents violating army regulations or officers who failed to intervene to put a stop to such activities?

[National Defence, February 13th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, can the minister of defence tell us if, in addition to removing Major-General Vernon, the minister intends to take disciplinary measures against other Petawawa officers, including those who attended or took part in the events recorded on the videotapes?

[National Defence, February 13th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, can the minister of defence tell us if the decision to relieve Major-General Vernon of his duties is based solely on the fact that he played down the contents of the third videotape or if, following his recent investigation, the minister has learned other, more serious facts of which he had not been informed?

[National Defence, February 13th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, following the recent revelations concerning the existence of a third videotape involving the airborne regiment in Petawawa, the minister of defence gave one press conference after another and said that the situation was totally bizarre. Obviously overtaken by the events, the minister has lost control of his department.

Now that the minister has decided to dismantle the 2nd Airborne Regiment, are we to understand that the removal of Major-General Vernon, who was designated as scapegoat, constitutes phase II of the minister's strategy to bury the Petawawa powder keg without getting to the bottom of this matter?

[National Defence, February 10th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, you will notice the minister admits that the opposition is better informed about what goes on in the military than the minister himself. This is disturbing.

What are we supposed to infer from the minister's explanations for his lack of information on the events in Petawawa? Does this mean that General de Chastelain failed to put all the information he had received in his report or does it mean General de Chastelain himself was not aware of all the facts about the situation in Petawawa?