Réal Ménard

[Supply, February 7th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member has a quick mind, as we all know, and of course we were making those connections. We see a government that will be hard pressed to defend the choices that were made. This takes us back to the chain of command. The hon. member for Verchères pointed this out in his comments on recent appointments and the politicians involved in the way in the government managed this crisis after the deployment in Somalia. We are very much aware of those connections.

[Supply, February 7th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is a model of ingenious spontaneity. I have every respect for the hon. member, and I am sure that if he looks at the Privy Council documents, which I would urge him to read, that he will agree the Privy Council admitted when the previous extensions were granted that the estimates of the time it would take the commission to finish its work had not been accurate.

What the hon. member should consider is this. At this stage, and considering the importance of the subject-the hon. member must never forget that human lives were involved-would he not prefer to avoid any recurrence of this kind of situation in the future? And if we are to avoid a recurrence, would the hon. member agree that it is preferable to get to the bottom of all this and let the commissioners do their job?

No one in this House has any reason to doubt the dedication of the commissioners, so if they need more time to do their job, I think the hon. member should be mindful of the point I just made, show some maturity and keep an open mind, emphasizing the need for transparency and integrity.

[Supply, February 7th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for Shefford, who is renowned for his integrity and perspicacity. If only these qualities were contagious, because, as you know, in light of a number of recent decisions, we have every right to criticize, be concerned and demand an explanation. That is what opposition days are for.

To those joining us, I would like to point out that we, as the official opposition, an informed and responsible opposition, have decided to ask this government to explain its actions in what has now become the unfortunate Somalia scandal.

Let me remind everyone of what our motion states, so as to make the terms of this debate perfectly clear. It reads:

That in the opinion of this House, the government should commit itself to having full light shed on the events occurring before, during and after the deployment of Canadian troops to Somalia, by extending the mandate of the Commission of Inquiry until December 31, 1997.

I hope government members will rise and give us an explanation on this. You know full well that Privy Council legislation provides for the establishment of commissions of inquiry. Inherent to the democratic process is this mechanism whereby outsiders, often experts, are asked to look into a particular matter or contentious issues.

Is this something anyone from British Columbia to Quebec to Newfoundland can be proud of? Can this government show support for the unfortunate incidents that have taken place in Somalia?

What is it all about? First of all, it involves people who have died, were killed, murdered under mysterious circumstances. As parliamentarians, we deal with foreign policy matters. The members of this House, and government members in particular, although there is a consensus around this, all of us, regardless of our affiliation, have been recognized as believing in the international community. Not only do we believe in the international community, but we believe in sending people over, who, through their action, presence, conviction or expertise, will be able to help settle conflicts quickly or before they even start.

Will someone from the government tell us why, after it was decided to deploy our forces in Somalia-where, I admit, the situation was unclear-Canadian soldiers became involved in murder and people were killed in their own country? This is what we are talking about.

Of course, when we raise this issue, the minister adopts a holier-than-thou attitude. He tries using his well known eloquence, but it will sound hollow in the ballot box when Canadians render their verdict on the attempted coverup by this government.

What we are asking for is simple. We are not trying to discredit the military. We all know there are people who decided to join the Canadian Armed Forces because it gave a meaning to their life. These are honest, brilliant and studious people who made a career choice. We do not question that. What we question is the way decisions are made, the way the chain of command works. Why are we faced with situations such as the one we are discussing today?

Our hope was that the government would get to the bottom of this issue, and we will continue to urge it to do so. It is not true that the inquiry was given every possible opportunity. We all know that the inquiry went through all kinds of tribulations, that it had trouble obtaining some documents.

We all know the defence department did not offer the co-operation it should have provided early on to help commissioners get all the documents that would have allowed them to do their work properly.

What is the government trying to hide? There is a long tradition of commissions being set up and, generally speaking, the results have been positive. One can think of the Laurendeau-Dunton commission, which helped define Quebec's needs. As a rule, commissions of inquiry are tools to first gain expertise and knowledge, and then, ideally, to lead to very specific measures. We could, with the material from this inquiry, if it is able to get to the bottom of things, restructure, review the chain of command, restructure the decision making process within the Canadian Armed Forces.

It is sad. It is not a memorable day in a democracy when the authorities, when one is an authoritarian minister as the defence minister is, when one chooses to use one's power to intimidate. When all is said and done, what has the minister decided? He has decided to intimidate. The inquiry and its commissioners are told: "You will not get to the bottom of things; you will not be given free rein".

It is true that it may call witnesses up until the month of March; it is true that it may table a report in the month of June, but the workload, all the documents that must be dealt with, the complexity of the subject are such that time becomes a determining factor in the commissioners' ability to tackle the full scope of the matter.

There is nothing to be proud of in the lengths to which the minister is going in his refusal to be transparent, because that is what it boils down to. But you should have heard the Liberals on the campaign trail talking about transparency, ethics and integrity. It was one superlative after another when this government was telling us how determined it was to govern differently. But each time anything slightly controversial comes up, each time an explanation is called for, we find ourselves up against an aging government, worn down by time, whose instinct is to cover up and, let it be said, not just to cover up but to forget about integrity.

There is still time because, thanks to the vigilance of the member for Shefford and his colleagues, we are giving an opportunity to this government, a government that will have to face the people in a while, and you know how ready we are on this side of the House.

I see that the member for Pontiac-Gatineau-Labelle is once again nodding his head. I hope he will vote in favour of the motion. We are giving the government and all members an opportunity to rise one after the other and put an end to this coverup operation, to vote for integrity, for honesty, for transparency. And if these words still mean something to the people on the government side, they will vote in favour of our motion, allowing the commissioners to get to the bottom of things, and they will grant the extension the commissioners are requesting, because that is the right thing to do, in light of what went on in Somalia.

I hope that the government members will take advantage of this opportunity.

[Unemployment, February 7th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, despite the rhetoric and the promises of a bright future, 1997 has had a bad start for Quebecers and Canadians. The market is still in a slump. While Canada has 1.5 million unemployed, only 500 new jobs were created in January. And there are fewer jobs for young people.

Self-employed people were responsible for many new jobs created in 1996. Yet, the government is doing nothing to help them. The new unemployment insurance reform is supposed to give wider coverage to workers, but this is only deception. In fact, these new jobs that are emerging for self-employed people are protected neither by unemployment insurance nor by the vast majority of social security programs.

The Liberals were elected under the slogan "jobs, jobs, jobs". The fact is there are "no jobs, no jobs, no jobs". When Canadians and Quebecers realize that the situation is disastrous, they will pass harsh judgment, and the government will pay the price.

[Excise Tax, February 5th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I am grateful for this opportunity to speak to Bill C-70. I salute the parliamentary secretary, the hon. member for St. Paul's. I know he is a gentleman and a scholar. I had the opportunity to discuss a variety of topics with him, and I know he is a humanist with all that entails.

I must admit I cannot understand why he supports, why he goes along with a bill which, after all, deals a harsh blow to our culture by maintaining the GST on books. It is a harsh blow to culture in Quebec but also to culture in English Canada.

I may remind the parliamentary secretary, the hon. member for St. Paul's, that his riding is an important centre of intellectual life. Will he be able to show his face in his riding this weekend? I fear for his safety. Will he be able to visit the upstanding citizens in his riding with a proposal like the one he has just tabled?

I think we have to go back to the basics. We believe that for all kinds of reasons which are typical of our time, of our era, until a few years ago, literature was appreciated both as a discipline and as a source of knowledge. The printed word was a part of our lives. The hon. member for Anjou-Rivière-des-Prairies is well aware that this goes back to Gutenberg and that there are whole generations for whom the printed word was a part of learning and of the way we acquired knowledge.

Times have changed. We all know that as far as learning and the transfer of knowledge are concerned, the electronic media have become a major factor. We are sure that if we did a little survey of all the pages here in the House, we would find that each and everyone of them has a computer and is familiar with the Internet. But they do not necessarily invest as much time in a more conventional activity: reading.

We believe books should be exempted from the GST or its new form, the harmonized sales tax, because it would be a way to support book sellers and encourage the spread of knowledge by a medium that is somewhat more conventional but still has its place and which we all know is still a very important factor in establishing the identity of a community, and I am referring to literature, what people write about us, and what is written elsewhere.

It is surprising to find such a provision in Bill C-70, because, on a number of occasions, here as elsewhere, the Liberal members, the members of the government, took a totally opposite stance. It is more than just a simple paradox.

When analysts, observers, journalists and even historians write history and look at what the present legislature produced, one thing will stand out: the fact that the government opted on a number of occasions for a strategy of camouflage, half-truths and about-faces in matters of importance.

We know how much the GST is a sore point with the government. First because of the Minister of Canadian Heritage. There are a number of terms to describe the personality of the Minister of Canadian Heritage. She is indeed a woman capable at times of kindness, but she is also capable of a ruse that was at the limit of honesty in connection with her government's promises.

I see my colleague, the member for Pontiac-Gatineau-Labelle, nodding in agreement. There is a lack of insight on the government benches.

It would have been interesting had the government used Bill C-70 to really dust off its honesty and ensure that its actions are more in line with the red book and its election promises.

I am sure all the members of this House realize that words like literature, knowledge, heritage, the value of the printed word, though abstract, refer to basic values. How can government members go for this kind of a bill?

If we were admitted into your private life, Mr. Speaker, I know we would find out that you have an impressive collection of books and that you have always been a man who believes in knowledge.

Why not adopt measures that will act as incentives toward acquiring knowledge instead of restrictive measures? Could someone explain that to us before the end of the day? Government members are awfully quiet today. It would be interesting to hear what one of them has to say. Perhaps the Minister of Transport will do the honours.

Perhaps the Minister of Transport will stand up and, on behalf of British Columbia as a whole, tell us why this government has chosen to slap down whole segments of the cultural industry? In the name of what rationale will educational institutions alone be exempt, I would like to know. I said educational institutions, but the bill actually talks about literacy.

The Minister of Transport is a man in his early fifties. He probably studied the great classics of our time in school. Would he have read them if, in those days, the constraints that make our taxation system unfair today had existed? We should take advantage of the presence of the transport minister, who is said to be among the moderates in cabinet and a man of sound judgement.

It would be interesting, and I will close on that, if the Minister of Transport stood up and, based on his experience as a man in his fifties, told us why it has been decided to use a bill like this one to deliberately limit exemptions applying to books to those bought by educational institutions and other organizations involved in literacy programs.

Is this not something of an insult to the intelligence of consumers? Does the Minister of Transport not realize that I for one-and the hon. whip can bear witness to the fact that my workload is on the heavy side, but I am not complaining-read at least one book every week? This makes me a seasoned consumer. I buy many books. Granted, not all of them are new.

Does the minister not recognize that this is a discriminatory factor, that it is a bias, that it goes against the principles governing the transmission of knowledge to not allow consumers to buy new and used books without having to pay the sales tax?

Does the minister not recognize that the Bloc Quebecois' proposal is extremely reasonable? Sure, you will tell me: "Yes, but we did not have enough time to discuss it". You are right because, once again, government members opted for a process which I find barbaric, if I can use that term. Indeed, we learned from our finance critic that 113 amendments had been tabled and that the Standing Committee on Finance only had three days to look at them.

This is a very harmful practice in a system where members are asked to do a good job and to make a thorough analysis of the wording of a bill.

My rather hope that cabinet and the government will review the bill and agree with the very reasonable arguments put forward by the official opposition. I believe a great cultural complicity is possible between the opposition and the government, if only some common sense were displayed in this House.

[Air Canada Labour Dispute, February 5th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I find that answer a bit disconcerting because there are no negotiations going on at the table.

The minister must have been told of Air Canada's management using strikebreakers from the U.S. through AV Atlantic, of Miami, and Reknown Aviation, of Santa Maria.

Does the minister not think he has the duty, as a minister, to condemn such a practice?

[Air Canada Labour Dispute, February 5th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Labour.

Air Canada's 900 regional pilots, whose collective agreement expired in May of 1995, have been out on a legal strike since December. The federal mediation and conciliation service made two unsuccessful attempts at bringing the two parties together. This strike has been going on for too long. It is seriously affecting the economy of the regions.

Since labour relations at Air Canada come under the provisions of the Canada Labour Code, will the minister undertake to do everything in his power to bring the parties together and set the stage for serious negotiations, conducted in good faith, on the basis of the December 4 proposal?

[Patent Act, December 11th, 1996]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-363, an act to amend the Patent Act (investigations regarding the making of medicines available at no charge to the seriously ill).

He said-Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to introduce a bill that amends the Patent Act and will give additional powers to the Patented Medicine Prices Review Board, in order to monitor, on an annual basis, the availability of urgently needed medicine to the seriously ill.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed.)

[United Nations Universal Declaration Of Human Rights, December 10th, 1996]

Madam Speaker, I know that the member for Mount Royal is a very gifted diplomat. Even though I have, in the past, found her more closely aligned with the Anglo-Saxon reality, I believe that, were she to give it all her charm, conviction and talent, she could persuade the motherland to change reality.

[United Nations Universal Declaration Of Human Rights, December 10th, 1996]

Madam Speaker, this is an extremely interesting question at this late hour. I am sorry not to have more time to answer it.

The fact remains that the first time I went to the UN-I am not sure if the hon. member for Mount Royal was part of the delegation but I do not think so-I was very surprised and very disappointed to see that all official documents in French still referred to "droits de l'homme". This is an extremely outdated phrase that should no longer be part of international terminology, since, as we know, women account for 52 per cent of the population. Countries with governments led by women are usually more successful than countries led by men.

Indeed, we should speak of "droits de la personne". I subscribe completely to the comments made by the hon. member for Mount Royal. I hope Canada and its partners will press for the updating of titles and names of international organizations. I think that the current names are extremely discriminatory.

If the Canadian government, through the foreign affairs minister or the Minister for International Cooperation, ever decided to make representations in favour of these changes, I am sure it would have the unanimous support of the official opposition.