Pierre De Savoye

[The Late Donald Munro, October 6th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, the Bloc Quebecois would like to join other parties in paying tribute to the former member for Esquimalt—Saanich, Donald Munro, who died in July at the age of 82.

First elected in 1972, Mr. Munro was a member of the House of Commons for 12 years. He began his career in 1939 as a teacher. During World War II he served as a navigator and instructor in the Canadian Air Force. After studying political science at university, he was hired by the Department of External Affairs in 1946, where he enjoyed a busy diplomatic career, as my colleagues in the House pointed out a few minutes ago.

I did not have the pleasure of knowing Mr. Munro, but what I have read tells me that he was an MP whose goal was to serve his constituents to the best of his ability.

On behalf of my Bloc Quebecois colleagues, I offer our respectful condolences to Mr. Munro's friends and family.

[Supply, October 5th, 1998]

Madam Speaker, I certainly agree with some of the things my colleague mentioned, in particular with the fact that the Liberal government is responsible for the chaos in the health sector coast to coast.

I would also like to comment on what she said regarding national standards. At first glance, national standards seem to make sense, but when you start thinking about it and look more closely, you realize that such a vast country, made up of provinces and of Quebec from coast to coast, and to another coast since there is the Arctic, cannot have a single standard. You cannot impose the same norm across the board.

There are differences in needs between the Atlantic provinces, Quebec, Ontario and the West. National standards might do more harm than good. In fact, the proposal of the premiers assembled in Saskatoon provides that a province, Quebec or any other, can withdraw from a new federal program, if judged inappropriate to its particular environment.

It would be an excellent thing, because the government would transfer to the province enough fiscal points to generate the same amount of money the federal government was willing to offer. That way, the province could set up a similar program, but better tailored to its own needs.

If we had followed this kind of approach over the last decades, we would not have experienced the troubles we have. I would like to give an example, and I will ask my colleague for her comments on the matter.

A case in point is the millennium scholarship fund; $2.5 billion of taxpayers' money will be entrusted to a private body headed by the president of Bell Canada. What for? To give scholarships to students. This seems great and it is for the rest of Canada, but not for Quebec.

For over 30 years we have had a scholarship system which has been running smoothly. Our situation is different. These millennium scholarships deal with a problem we do not have. Statistics prove it: Quebec students graduate from university with an average debt load of $11,000. In the rest of Canada, it is $25,000. Why? Quite simply because CEGEP is free; the last year in CEGEP is first year university in other provinces, a very expensive year since tuition fees are much higher than in Quebec. In some places they are more than double what they are at Laval or in Montreal.

The problem is when you want to make a system universal, it is very difficult to meet everybody's needs. How is the member who raised these issues earlier reacting to this? Does she not understand the opting out clause is fundamental to meet everybody's needs?

[Supply, October 5th, 1998]

I cannot believe it, Madam Speaker. People must know that, in the 1970s, when the federal government and the provinces entered into an agreement providing for equalization payments for health, the federal government unilaterally cut transfer payments to the provinces.

These transfers, per capita, were drastically cut year after year. More recently, billions of dollars were cut from transfer payments for health.

While the federal government kept the money paid by taxpayers in Quebec and the provinces, this money was not available to the provinces to provide health care and post-secondary education. That is a fact. And the consequences can now be seen from coast to coast.

Does the hon. member opposite not agree that the federal government abdicated its responsibility, diverted public funds and brought the provinces to their knees? It is time for a change.

[Cheesemaker Luc Mailloux, September 23rd, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, today I am pleased to honour a cheesemaker from my riding who was recently awarded the Dairy Farmers of Canada Grand Prix in Halifax. The jury also awarded him the trophy for Grand Champion, all categories.

This cheesemaker, Luc Mailloux, owns Piluma de Saint-Basile farm in Portneuf county, which produces Saint-Basile, Chevalier Mailloux, Sarah Brizou and Sainte-Angélique, which are all raw milk cheeses.

I would just like to point out that, had it not been for the Bloc Quebecois' initiative two years ago, raw milk cheeses would have been banned by the Government of Canada. Fortunately, Luc Mailloux and his wife Sarah Tristan have been able to continue to produce these excellent cheeses—

[Supply, September 22nd, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, gun control legislation, it will be recalled, is legislation that we supported.

The primary goal of this legislation—and this is something I remember, having been a member of the Standing Committee on Justice at the time—was to reduce the number of incidents in which people going through a psychologically difficult period in their life come across a gun and turn it on themselves, with fatal or very serious results, having first in some cases fatally wounded members of their own family, their wife or children, or strangers.

This extremely tragic kind of behaviour, attributable to temporary psychological distress, would not have taken place if a gun had not been available at that particular point in time.

This is not the case with hunters or employees whose activities give them legitimate access to firearms. Statistics show that this kind of accident occurs when guns are stored, sometimes for many years, with ammunition nearby. The gun has not been used in ages. The original owner no longer uses it. In short, there was no need for the weapon to be available to anyone. Unfortunately, it was available at a particular and tragic point in time and was used to kill one or more people.

Faced with legislation that could reduce this risk, that could save human lives, one could hardly do other than support the underlying principles.

The then Minister of Justice introduced a bill in the House the very purpose of which was to reduce these risks, to save lives. Faced with these objectives and principles, the Bloc Quebecois could only agree with a bill that preserved human life, a very precious commodity.

At the time, however, the Bloc Quebecois asked the Minister of Justice to make a number of amendments. An initial group of amendments was intended to ensure that hunters and members of shooting clubs were not unduly hindered by the legislation in the exercise of their sport. The Bloc Quebecois introduced a number of amendments.

Some of them were accepted. The Bloc Quebecois' proposal, for example, that the costs of registration be low, was well received by the government, and the costs are very reasonable indeed. However, in the case of the Bloc's proposal that a hunter's failure to register be decriminalized, the government's response was less positive.

The Bloc sought to have gun handling courses taken in the past recognized, and the bill permits this.

In the end, the bill as amended got the support of the Bloc, first and foremost because of the principle of the value of human life and then because a number of amendments had smoothed the rough edges. Today, however, we are well past that situation. Regulations have been submitted to the Standing Committee on Justice and discussed. These regulations were introduced and tabled here in the House and are now part of the package permitting the legislation to be applied.

In this regard, I would like to quote to you two paragraphs of the Bloc's dissenting opinion in the justice committee report on the proposed regulations introduced by the minister in connection with the Firearms Act, and I quote:

Representatives of industry, hunters and gun clubs all complained that they had not really been given the time to prepare properly. Moreover, even though some witnesses had devoted hours to putting together briefs as best they might, in many cases as volunteers, and had submitted them to the Committee Clerk, the briefs were never distributed to the Committee members because there was no time to have them translated into both official languages. It is attitudes like this on the part of the federal government that undermine the credibility of elected representatives and institutions in the eyes of the people.

I will finish the quote:

While the Bloc Québécois supports the concept of gun control and endorses the Committee's recommendations, it strongly deplores the fact that the disgraceful haste insisted on by the government and the Committee's Liberal majority has cast doubt on the quality of these regulations and put at risk the support of all Canadians and Quebeckers, which will be indispensable in the near future for the implementation of such an important piece of legislation.

We have indeed got to that point. The problem is not the principle of the law; it is not that the law wants to save human lives. The problem is the way it is being applied at the present time.

We are faced with cost overruns, unmet timetables, things that had been anticipated and with which the Bloc Quebecois cannot agree.

But, as I read the motion put to us by the Reform Party, I see that it swings the pendulum totally in the other direction. We are in favour of the principle of the legislation. The Reform Party has never been in favour of the principle of the legislation, and that is where our paths diverge.

Consequently, we cannot be in agreement with the Reform Party motion, although we continue to strongly disagree with the way the Minister of Justice is currently proceeding with implementation of this legislation.

I offer one example: believe it or not, they are calling for volunteer auditors. I have here a letter dated July 8 and signed by Mr. Buisson, the superintendent of the national firearms registry. He says:

The business auditors designated by the director are volunteers who will be responsible for checking business inventories and all transfers to and from those inventories.

This creates a situation in which reliance is being placed on people's good will to ensure application of the very mechanics of the legislation, of the regulations, and is just one more example of how this legislation is not being properly implemented.

In conclusion, the Bloc Quebecois maintains that, for the sake of human lives, the legislation implemented must deliver the services we expect from it. The value of human lives, however, is such that implementation of this legislation must be done in such a way as to respect all those involved, and this is not the case.

[Bc Mine In Black Lake, June 11th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Human Resources Development.

In order to help finance a pre-retirement program for the former BC mine workers of Black Lake, Minister Louise Harel is prepared to do her part and the mine is prepared to do the same. The only contribution lacking is one from the federal government.

Does the minister commit to also doing his part, to joining with the Government of Quebec and the mine management in drawing up an agreement for these former workers?

[Interparliamentary Delegation, June 11th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 34, I have the honour to table, in both official languages, two reports of the Canadian section of the International Assembly of French Speaking Parliamentarians, as well as the financial report relating thereto.

The first report relates to the forum on the information highway and the parliamentary francophonie, held on April 20, 1998 at Quebec City. The second relates to the AIPLF commission on education, communication and cultural affairs, which met April 21 and 22, also at Quebec City.

[Budget Implementation Act, 1998, May 25th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, we are considering Bill C-36. Bill C-36 has a big problem, which is called the millennium scholarships.

The scholarships are for the students. In principle, everybody will agree that we must help our students complete their education while maintaining their debt level as low as possible. Therefore again, at first sight, the scholarships are a good idea. I will explain in a moment that ideas that are good for some people are sometimes bad for others.

I would also like to talk of the term “millennium”. Why the millennium scholarships? Because we will soon be in the year 2000 and our Prime Minister thought it would be a nice way to go down in history as the driving force behind these scholarships to be awarded starting in the year 2000.

You will agree with me that if Canadian students need scholarships, they need them now and not in the year 2000 and after, although they will still need them then. It is remarkable how the finance minister has deducted from this year's budget the $2.5 billion which he intends to spend on this scholarship fund in the year 2000. But between now and the year 2000, not one Canadian student will see as much as a penny.

I have said earlier that the scholarships are a good idea for some but a bad one for others. They are a good idea for Canadian students outside Quebec but a bad one for Quebec students. Why? A bursary program has been in existence in Quebec for more than 30 years, since Jean Lesage was premier. We care for our students and we help them financially through bursaries and loans. It is a system that works well for Quebec.

Elsewhere in Canada, such a program will not come into existence until the year 2000. The provinces are admittedly a few years behind Quebec. In fact, they are more than 30 years behind Quebec. Now, the federal government decides to directly infringe upon a provincial area of jurisdiction and offer these bursaries.

Although, on the one hand, I am happy for the students in Canada, on the other hand, I should point out that Quebec's money is being used to provide a service we already have. In other words, we are paying twice for the same thing.

Quebec, with its 30-year-old bursary system, is pursuing some very precise objectives. For 30 years, higher education at college or university level has been far less expensive in Quebec than in the other provinces. Why? Because we in Quebec decided—and this is a societal choice based on Quebeckers' values—to make higher education more accessible to everyone. Moreover, the number of college and university graduates in Quebec is much higher than anywhere else in Canada. In this regard, Quebec is a much richer country than Canada.

Let us come back to the scholarship fund. Quebec has its own scholarship system where money is given according to the needs of the students. Those in need may apply for and receive a scholarship.

What the Prime Minister proposes in Bill C-36 is to give scholarships on the basis of merit instead of need. The better the grades, the more chances of receiving a millennium scholarship.

Good grades are important for sure, but today, we need not only excellent but also decent students. Successful students all need financial support. It is not only the top students, the elite, that need financial support. Companies do not need only the students with the best marks. Of course, that is important and it is a very good thing, but companies also need adequate students.

In Quebec, students have access to scholarships according to their needs but this will not be the case in Canada. Canada may decide to award scholarships on the basis of merit rather than need. However, I cannot accept the fact that someone using Quebec money will try to impose on Quebec a system that is contrary to its convictions and its values, contrary to what Quebec has been doing for more than 30 years.

Do you know how much money Quebec will be forced to put into that foundation? In Quebec, everybody is against this millennium scholarship system. So how much more will be stolen away—pardon the expression—by this millennium fund? Just a bit over $600 million. That is a lot of money.

Six hundred million dollars is almost twice what the province of Quebec has been forced to hand over to the municipalities because the federal government has cut transfer payments. Those $600 million would solve a lot of health problems.

Six hundred million dollars is the amount that the people of Quebec will be forced to pay to fund these millennium scholarships which we do not need because we already have our own system. We end up paying twice.

Once again, here we are with a totally unacceptable duplication of effort. This is a total intrusion by the federal government into our affairs, forcing us into taking on something far less attractive than what we already have in place.

Such an attitude can only reinforce two feelings in me: first pride in being a Quebecker and in sharing these values that have been in place for 30 years or more, of encouraging our students through a scholarship system when Canada does not even have one of its own yet, not until the year 2000. I am proud to be a Quebecker because we are more advanced in a number of areas, this being one of them.

At the same time, I am proud to be a sovereignist, because sovereignty will be the only way to stop a federal government, a federal system that wants to use our money, my money, the money of all Quebeckers, for something we have no need of. Six hundred million dollars is a fortune.

The interest on that amount would pay for about $3,000 in scholarship money to some 250 Quebec students. But there is more to it than that. In Quebec, our bursary system is working fine, and so is our loan system. What we do need is money to put back into our cegeps, into our universities, so that they can provide students with the best quality education possible.

What is the point of having scholarship money in your pocket if your educational institution cannot afford to give you a top-flight education?

In recent years, the federal government has slashed transfer payments for post-secondary education and, as a result, our universities and colleges have to make do with smaller budgets. After slashing our institutions' ability to deliver very high quality education, it now wants to give money directly to students to enrol in educational institutions that are not as good as they should be.

Quebec's request, which is supported by the Bloc Quebecois, is quite simple: the federal government should give Quebec its $600 million and let it invest in high quality education. We can continue to look after our students as we have been doing so successfully for more than 30 years.

[Supply, May 14th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague for Chambly is too kind, but he is right about the Canadian military being highly skilled and the Quebec soldiers having great courage. The problem is not the military or the military hierarchy, but the political decisions that are made against the best interests of the general population and the armed forces.

Some soldiers have shown me drinking water that was so dirty I would not have bathed in it. I would not even have given a dog a bath in that water. It was unbelievable. That is what was coming through the water supply system.

I can only hope that this debate will help the government realize the importance of making decisions that will give our military the means to do their job, so that we have soldiers who are proud of what they do, who are well paid and well thought of, who have decent housing and who are properly dressed and well equipped, and so on.

[Supply, May 14th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I have been listening to the speeches for some time now and I must say that, when I was teaching at a college in Quebec, if a student of mine had behaved like one of the hon. members just behaved in this debate, I would have gladly thrown him out of the classroom.

This type of situation explains why Canadians judge us so poorly. But I would like the public to know that most members behave rationally in this House.

I am pleased today to speak briefly on the motion put forward by the Progressive Conservative Party. The motion reads as follows:

That this House condemn the government for its failure to provide strong political leadership to Her Majesty's Canadian Forces.

First of all, I would like to point out to my Conservative colleagues that the members of the Canadian forces are paid by the Canadian taxpayers and not by Her Majesty, for whom I have the greatest respect. I think we could simply call them the “Canadian forces”.

Having said that, let us get to the matter at hand. Providing political leadership probably starts with managing Canadian tax dollars effectively. Now, in his latest report and previous comments, the auditor general, as you know, repeatedly indicated several flaws in terms of military spending.

Recently, he stated that two thirds of the $3.3 billion defence budget, that is $2.2 billion—so it is $2.2 billion out of $3.3 billion—were spent on goods and equipment that did not really meet the needs of our troops. Now, $2.2 billion is a lot of money. It is an incredible amount of money. In fact, it would eliminate the deficit in the province of Quebec.

That money was spent of military goods that did not meet our needs. Let me give you some examples.

The Griffon utility tactical transport helicopters: a study done in August 1992, after the department had decided on the Griffon, showed that its load capacity was less than that required to transport a gun or engineer equipment. The long and short of it is that this is a helicopter that is not capable of lifting what is put into it, what it has to carry. Its load capacity for evacuating wounded and for logistical support was also lower than required. The government bought a helicopter that was quite simply not up to the job.

Another example is the Leopard thermal weapon sight. The results of tactical analyses on how to modernize the Leopard do not justify the decision to improve only the night vision system. If the government had been willing to spend the money, what the army needed was for the entire vehicle to be modernized, including the gun and the armour. According to the study, that was the minimum that would have been acceptable. More money badly spent.

Then there was the Lynx replacement project, project Coyote. The tactical concept used for the Coyote armoured reconnaissance vehicle was based on a number of studies, including a simulation study used for the Leopard. This study showed that, without powerful backup, armoured vehicles similar to the Coyote cannot withstand the enemy fire they would have to face in mid-intensity conflict.

What does this mean. It means that the government is buying armoured vehicles that are not up to the conditions in which they may find themselves. More money badly spent.

Need I point out that still more money has been thrown away on second-hand British submarines? I predict that, a year from now, the auditor general will come back to this topic and it will not be to congratulate the federal government but to tell it that, once again, it has wasted taxpayers' money.

But enough about money. Money is important, but it is not everything. Now we are going to talk about integrity, and about the Létourneau commission and what went on in Somalia.

The government showed poor political leadership in categorically refusing to shed light on the events that took place in Somalia. Justice Létourneau had a mandate. To properly complete his job, he would have needed a little more time. We are not dealing with any old thing here, but issues that are important for maintaining democracy.

Justice Létourneau requested that his mandate be extended to December 30, 1997, or a six-month extension. That is all he needed, but the Liberal government simply denied this extension.

This caused a scandal, of course. I must admit that it is not clear whether this is only a Liberal scandal or also a Conservative scandal, as this whole thing started under Prime Minister Campbell, who ran in the 1993 campaign.

At any rate, the current Liberal government swept this issue under the carpet by not extending Justice Létourneau's mandate. Let us face it, for all intents and purposes, the unilateral decision made by the minister represents nothing less than direct political interference in a judicial process, which is contrary to every democratic principle, including the separation of powers between the judicial and legislative branches.

The list goes on. Fortunately, we have a committee, the defence committee, that is currently touring military bases. I would like to briefly comment this tour, first because it is an important tour and second because I had the pleasure of sitting on this committee when hearings were held at Canadian Forces Base Valcartier in February.

As I recall, many senior officers testified at these hearings, as did many soldiers and members of their families. I can remember part of what was said. First of all, the lower ranks are underpaid. They cannot provide their families with a decent living on their pay. This is not inconsequential.

There are regions in Canada where the cost of living is so high—take Vancouver for instance—that we have seen Canadian forces members based in Vancouver go on welfare because they could not make ends meet with their pay. Is that political leadership? Let us be serious. The government goofed a long time ago. It is wasting our money on equipment that does not work, and it underpays the most important resource in our armed forces, namely our troops.

We now come to moves. Military personnel gets transferred from one base to another. When they move, they must sell their house if they have one and, more importantly, their spouse must quit his or her job and try to find another one. It is not easy for an English speaking spouse to find work near the Valcartier base because, as you know, things are done in French in Quebec. But the reverse is also true. It is not easy for a French speaking spouse to find work in an English province. All this causes serious disruption to family life.

But there is worse. Take the case of a young francophone whose parents are transferred to a base with an English environment. What school is that young francophone going to attend? How is he or she going to get an education in French? Some situations are truly deplorable.

I want to move on to the protection afforded to our military, in the case of an occupational injury. If the injury occurs in a theatre of operations, they are entitled to generous compensation, based on the nature of the injury suffered. However, if the occupational injury occurs here, during training in Canada, our military do not get any compensation. Worse still, they are released, because they are no longer able to fulfil their duties.

No injured worker in Quebec would received such shameful treatment, as Major General Forand pointed out during the hearings. Something must be done about this.

There is also the issue of building maintenance. Military buildings are deteriorating because there is no money to maintain them. We will lose a fortune because we cannot afford to do inexpensive repairs that would keep these buildings in good shape.

In conclusion, the federal government is mismanaging our money and the Canadian Armed Forces. I can guarantee you that things would be different in a sovereign Quebec.