Michel Gauthier

[Post-Secondary Education, November 24th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday, the Quebec federation of university professors sounded an alarm about social program reform, which it called an unprecedented threat to Quebec's education system. The federation estimates that the reform will result in a $721-million shortfall of cash transfers and also tax points, through the abolition of Quebec's special abatement.

In order to alleviate the legitimate concerns of Quebec's entire academic community, does the Prime Minister promise not to unilaterally review the agreement with Quebec that was negotiated under the Lesage government, which provides for a transfer of tax points to finance post-secondary education in Quebec?

[Collège Militaire Royal De Saint-Jean, November 23rd, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, since the Auditor General of Canada has demonstrated that the Department of National Defence mismanages all of its capital assets and has a poor record regarding the closure of military bases, does the minister recognize that his only argument to justify the closing of the military college in Saint-Jean, namely to make savings, is no longer valid, and does he agree that he should review his decision and take into account the constructive suggestions made by stakeholders?

[Collège Militaire Royal De Saint-Jean, November 23rd, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, in his report, the Auditor General mentions the lack of thoroughness and the weakness of the data used to justify the closure of military bases. He refers, among other examples, to the base in Portage-La Prairie, Manitoba, where the costs related to the closure were significantly underestimated by the Department of National Defence. In the end, this measure resulted in savings of $170 million, instead of the anticipated $411 million.

Is the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs aware that the very same scenario is being repeated with the closure of the military college in Saint-Jean, because he significantly underestimates the costs of transferring the operations to Kingston, and does the minister realize that he will never reach the

objective of $23 million promised by the Department of National Defence?

[Collège Militaire Royal De Saint-Jean, November 22nd, 1994]

As the Auditor General of Canada said, the government continues to spend millions of dollars more on its real property than what is needed. These expenditures, says the Auditor General, are based on ill-considered political decisions.

Does the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs realize that building the infrastructure needed to accommodate 1,200 officer cadets in Kingston, when this number will be reduced to 900 within two years, is a waste of money, especially since such facilities already exist in Saint-Jean?

[Collège Militaire Royal De Saint-Jean, November 22nd, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, it is true that the opposition wants to offer renewed hope to the people of Saint-Jean, unlike the minister who stubbornly refuses to change his mind.

[Collège Militaire Royal De Saint-Jean, November 22nd, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, once on site, the commandant of the college in Saint-Jean who was tasked with closing the college realized that the orders he had been given made no sense. This, I think, justifies his position.

In his report tabled today, the Auditor General states that infrastructure mismanagement in the Canadian Forces costs the Canadian government over $100 million a year. Furthermore, the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs claims that closing the college in Saint-Jean will save $23 million, but he is very careful not to subtract from this $23 million the amount added to the budget of the college in Kingston for the teaching activities that will be transferred there.

Why does the government not admit that it erred by cutting the military college in Saint-Jean instead of targeting poor management practices that every year cost four times the total budget for all teaching activities in Saint-Jean?

[Matthew Coon Come, November 21st, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, we noticed that the Prime Minister neither completely agreed nor completely disagreed with Mr. Coon Come. It would be interesting if he could tell us what he agrees with.

Would the Prime Minister not agree that instead of hunting separatists, his ambassador in Washington should spend more time putting the facts straight, since the Cree defamation campaign is bad not only for the image of Quebec in the U.S., but also for the image of Canada as a whole?

[Matthew Coon Come, November 21st, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, last Friday in Washington, the Grand Chief of the Grand Council of the Crees, Matthew Coon Come, continued his systematic campaign to denigrate Quebec in the United States, accusing Quebec of racism towards the Crees. In the same speech, he referred to the James Bay Agreement as an instrument for oppression and dispossession.

Does the Prime Minister dissocate himself from Mr. Coo Come's untruthful remarks? Does he intend to instruct the Canadian embassy in Washington to intervene and set the record straight concerning the Crees' situation in Northern Quebec?

[Business Of The House, November 17th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, can the Secretary of State give us an overview of the legislative agenda for the next few days?

[Point Of Order, November 16th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, on the same point of order. Perhaps I may provide some additional clarification. It is clear that the procedure was somewhat less than satisfactory. Considering the size of the report, the committee could have put everything together in a document of about 400 pages, which is common practice, or it could have published a complete report in French and complete English version. That would have been fair to everyone.

It seems to me that the reasons invoked by the government party were entirely unacceptable and the government also failed to prove that the Standing Orders had been observed in this case.

I was able to demonstrate, however, that the Standing Orders had been totally ignored, that the report did not meet the requirements of the Standing Orders and that, if the chairman of the committee had wanted to show he was acting in good faith, he could have called a meeting of his committee and put to a vote the requisite proposals for proceeding the way he did.

Consequently, I would ask you to hand down a ruling on the matter as requested earlier.