Crucial Fact

  • His favourite word was forces.

Last in Parliament May 2004, as Liberal MP for Compton—Stanstead (Québec)

Lost his last election, in 2006, with 22% of the vote.

Statements in the House

National Defence March 11th, 1999

Mr. Speaker, the numbers do not add up. The government announced $175 million in new moneys for the defence budget and restored a cut of $150 million, bringing the defence budget to $9.7 billion for this year. However, the estimates state that the defence budget is $10.3 billion.

Could the minister tell us why he did not announce the new spending of $600 million and tell us where the money came from? Was it transfers from the provinces, the finance minister's shell game, or did he again dip into the military pension fund?

Canadian Military March 4th, 1999

Mr. Speaker, the Progressive Conservative Party and I are very concerned about the lack of defence spending in the recent federal budget.

An additional $175 million for Canadian forces is next to nothing when they needed $700 million this year, and that is just to implement the quality of life study.

This is especially troubling after suggestions in the press that the Government of Canada is planning on cutting 5,000 people from Canadian troops.

When SCONDVA made its report on the quality of life in the Canadian forces, or lack thereof, we made it clear that it was our first priority. All parties agreed that the additional funds for the quality of life study should not come from force reduction.

The 1994 white paper received considerable support. Any troop cuts below 60,000 personnel would call the white paper into serious question.

Lastly, the Canadian forces need new equipment, particularly maritime helicopters.

Does the Liberal government have an interest in the Canadian military or are they just cannon fodder for the Prime Minister when he travels abroad?

National Defence March 3rd, 1999

Mr. Speaker, this does not have anything to do with the crash itself. It is the family.

Families of Canadian forces members who lose their life on duty, such as Captain Musselman, are entitled to a supplementary death benefit equal to two year's salary. The pilot terminable allowance was a three year bonus on his salary. I think we owe his family.

Will the minister ensure that this man's family receives the $50,000 remaining in his PTA? Let us do it right for a change. Please, yes or no?

National Defence March 3rd, 1999

Mr. Speaker, the late Captain Peter Musselman was a Labrador pilot who took this Liberal government at its word and signed a pilot terminable allowance entitling him to a bonus of $25,000 a year for three years.

He was killed less than a year ago in the Labrador 305 explosion in Gaspe.

Will the minister explain to this House why this man's family is not entitled to the remaining $50,000?

Sea King Helicopters March 2nd, 1999

Mr. Speaker, the minister should change his lines as they are no longer credible. Considering that we had another safety incident yesterday with the Sea Kings, that brings the total to nine in the last month that we know about.

Will the minister not admit that it was a mistake to cut funds out of the maintenance budget of our 35 year old Sea Kings that will now have to fly for another six to eight years, especially when the minister has no intention of even initiating the maritime helicopter program?

Sea King Helicopters March 2nd, 1999

Mr. Speaker, the Sea Kings are so old that they have to be reskinned and ribbed, refloored and re-engined. Families are dependent on long term maintenance as a safety measure to protect their loved ones flying Sea Kings. The minister keeps saying we will not fly unsafe aircraft but his words differ from his actions.

Will the minister ensure that the money taken for the Persian excursion is immediately restored to Sea King maintenance so that pilots and their families can sleep at night?

National Defence March 1st, 1999

Mr. Speaker, the 35 year old Sea Kings are plagued by problems, from flameouts to rotor heads, but all long term maintenance has been postponed because there is no money left in the war chest to pay for the latest Persian excursion. Long term maintenance is a required safety measure.

My question is for the Minister of National Defence. How can we do proper safety maintenance with a slashed budget and ensure a peace of mind for our Sea King pilots and their families?

Cbc Funding March 1st, 1999

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to have this opportunity to rise before the House to address the motion put forward by the hon. member from Dartmouth, Nova Scotia. Essentially it calls upon this government to restore adequate multi-year funding to the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation so it can fulfill the mandate that was entrusted to it by the Government of Canada so many years ago.

Over the years the CBC has played an essential role in helping Canadians to develop a better understanding of themselves as a people, and of the different culture enclaves that together have helped make up this great country of ours.

The CBC was established on November 2, 1936 by an act of parliament. This new agency succeeded the Canadian Radio Broadcasting Commission which was first created in 1932 to help regulate a still relatively new broadcasting industry.

Canadian interest in broadcasting has existed since the beginning of this century. In 1918 the first experimental broadcasting licence was issued to the Marconi Wireless Telegraph Company of Montreal by the department of naval service under the authority of the Radiotelegraph Act of 1913. Two years later public broadcasting was well under way in Canada.

By 1928 the number of Canadians who had access to radio broadcasting had jumped to over 400,000 and already the alarm bells were ringing about the undue influence U.S. broadcasts were having on Canadian listeners. Studies conducted back then indicated that Canadian listeners preferred U.S. broadcasting over Canadian broadcasting. These findings were largely due to inadequate coverage provided by Canadian transmitters and a superior quality of programming being offered by the U.S. industry.

The Canadian government of the day under Progressive Conservative Prime Minister R.B. Bennett recognized the danger increased U.S. programming posed to our Canadian culture and immediately set out to find ways to help bolster our broadcasting industry. The government was concerned that our culture would be engulfed by our powerful neighbours in the south and therefore it sought ways of maintaining and promoting our own distinct culture. It had the fortitude and the insight to recognize that Canadian culture is something we should be proud of and that it is something worth preserving.

In 1929 the Aird commission recommended that some form of public broadcaster be created, operated and controlled by Canadians so Canadians could be exposed to Canadian programs. Prime Minister R.B. Bennett appointed a parliamentary committee to further review the Aird commission's recommendations. In 1932 the Canadian Radio Broadcasting Act became law creating the Canadian Radio Broadcasting Commission.

Fortunately, the Reform Party was not in existence in the 1920s for I am certain it would have fought tooth and nail against the need for encouraging any Canadian broadcasting, particularly when our airwaves were already saturated with U.S. programming.

I believe the decision to create a Canadian Broadcasting Corporation has paid huge dividends over the years as Canadians from coast to coast have developed a better understanding and a greater appreciation for the different challenges facing Canadians across this great nation. Over the years the CBC has been the vital link that has helped bond this country together in both good times and bad.

There is no denying the fact that the CBC has helped shape the cultural fabric of this country. Who can question the impact the great Foster Hewitt had on Canadian hockey and on Canadian nationalism? Foster Hewitt's riveting broadcast of the 1972 Canada-Russia series brought Canadians to their feet helping create a fervour for Canadian nationalism that had not been seen or felt in years.

The CBC has helped launch the careers of so many successful Canadian performers. I think all maritimers in the late 1960s and early 1970s recognized the enormous talents of a wonderful singer from Springhill, Nova Scotia as she springboarded from CBC's Don Messer show to international stardom. Obviously I am referring to the internationally renowned recording star Anne Murray, one of my personal favourites.

What would a Friday night have been without Canadians sitting around television sets watching Canada's longest running variety show with the host the great Mr. Tommy Hunter? I could go on with many others: La Soirée canadienne , Hockey Night in Canada , Wayne and Shuster .

I do not think one can deny the importance the CBC has played in helping Canadian artists achieve their goals and success in both Canadian and international markets. The CBC helped open the doors for today's performers who, if the Grammy awards are any indication, are making a lasting impression on audiences throughout the world.

There is no questioning the importance of the CBC to the promotion of Canadian culture. Unfortunately over the past number of years the CBC has been victimized by substantial government cuts.

Despite Liberal promises in 1993 to provide stable multi-year financing for the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, the CBC has instead witnessed this government cut its funding by $414 million between 1994-95 and 1997-98. These drastic cuts have resulted in a reduction in services and permanent layoffs of thousands of employees.

These cuts were considered so drastic, even possibly threatening the future of the CBC, that its president, Anthony Manera, resigned in March 1995 in protest. This comes from a government that preaches the importance of protecting and promoting Canadian culture.

In February 1997 the Canadian heritage minister attempted to deflect some of the criticism being levelled against her government over broken red book promises by announcing $10 million for CBC Radio and stable funding for five years after 1998. This stop-gap measure was widely criticized, as expressed in a February 12, 1997 article in the Globe and Mail which stated, “It's half baked and it's neither here nor there. All it does is acknowledge that they made a mistake”.

Canada's broadcasting industry is in a state of flux. Canadians can likely expect many changes in the upcoming years as the CRTC recently held public hearings to review such things as Canadian content criteria, new specialty TV services, a review of the policy on Canadian TV programming, and a review of Canada's radio policy, just to name a few. As well, for the first time in seven years the CRTC will completely review all of the CBC's licences. These reviews will undoubtedly result in changes in how Canada's broadcasters conduct their everyday business.

The CBC itself is in a state of transition. CBC president Mr. Perrin Beatty has confirmed that he was not offered a second term by this Liberal government and that he will resign come October of this year. It has been widely rumoured that relations were strained between the corporation's chairperson and the president over their vision of the future role of the CBC in this ever-evolving technological world we live in.

By offering the chairperson another five year appointment to the CBC board, it appears that her vision will likely prevail in years to come which would not appear to bode well for the existing structure of the CBC.

The CBC operates independently of government. As such, the federal government has no legislative authority to intervene directly in the corporation's management of its resources and its operations. However, if recent Liberal government actions are any indication, the CBC's independence will soon be brought into question.

The proposed changes contained within Bill C-44 that would have effectively changed how the CBC board members, including the president, are appointed from serving in good behaviour to serving at pleasure of the government were only withdrawn after public protest forced the government to withdraw these proposals. This subtle little change could have effectively compromised the integrity and independence of the CBC.

It is no secret that the Prime Minister maintains a personal dislike for the CBC.

For these reasons it is important that all Canadians remain vigilant against further dismantling of a Canadian institution that has served the Canadian interests so well over these past 67 years.

If Canada is to have an identity and a culture separate from that of our southern neighbours, it is crucial that the CBC network continue to exist and prosper so Canadians separated by distance can remain bonded through technology.

I want to congratulate the member for Dartmouth for having put forth this motion that is obviously in defence of Canadian culture as well as the CBC. I am not certain that it is the appropriate time to introduce such a motion. It might be more prudent if we were to wait and see the direction the new CBC president will propose for our public broadcaster.

It would also be beneficial if we had some indication from the CRTC as to changes in the rules and regulations broadcasters will be forced to abide by in the future. Regardless of the decisions taken here today, it is vital that we maintain an effective Canadian public broadcaster so we can continue to promote Canadian culture and continue to deliver Canadian talent. Part of making this work would be for the government to sit down and put some serious offers on the table for the negotiations in the ongoing dispute.

Kosovo February 19th, 1999

Mr. Speaker, in Wednesday's debate on Kosovo the Minister of National Defence said “As the Minister of Foreign Affairs clearly stated we are not going in under some warlike condition”. The same day the Russian Duma passed an unanimous motion that in the case of force they would have the right to help Belgrade defend itself. NATO says today it will have to use force.

Did the minister change his mind between Wednesday and today, and under whose authority? Was Wednesday's debate just another PR exercise?

National Defence February 18th, 1999

Mr. Speaker, our military needed $700 million to help solve its quality of life problem, but they only got $175 million. The soup is still frozen in the cupboard.

My question is for the minister. How long will military families have to wait before the government does something to improve substandard housing on military bases?