Jean H. Leroux

[Supply, June 5th, 1996]

Madam Speaker, I listened with interest to the remarks of my Liberal colleague. He recited a list of many things the government has done, a sort of litany that tells us very little about percentages.

In August 1995, the Quebec department of industry, commerce, science and technology produced a study on federal R and D spending. The main conclusions of the study, which analysed specific federal spending in this sector using a grid with a number of criteria, are that between 1979 and 1991, six provinces out of ten were overfunded in R and D.

Ontario, of course, was at the top of the list. For the last 10 years, it has received 50 per cent of the funding. According to the study, during the same period Quebec came last, with underfunding of $2.5 billion, the amount it would have received if it had been treated equitably.

This study concluded that if federal funding had been equitable in 1991, the relationship between gross domestic spending on R and D and GDP, the indicator most often used to show the intensity of R and D effort, would have been higher in Quebec than in any other Canadian province.

The question I would like to ask my colleague is this: Can Quebec reach its full potential? In other words, by remaining in Canada, can Quebec hope to receive its fair share? We think it cannot. Recent history says it cannot. Quebec is not receiving its fair share.

As I was saying earlier, what we get from the federal government is social transfer payments. The central government has no policy for developing a specific region, as I see it, except that if you are part of the majority and you live in Ontario, you could care less. They say you should go where the getting is good, and the getting is almost always good in Ontario.

Does the member think that Quebec can hope to develop by staying within Confederation? I think not, and I would like the member to prove otherwise. If he cannot, this discourse that we have been listening to for 30 years and that is slowly but surely destroying us has got to stop.

[Supply, June 5th, 1996]

Madam Speaker, I have been listening carefully to the hon. member for Calgary West, a young man who seems quite reasonable and moderate in his remarks. Listening to him has helped me understand how true it is that we have two solitudes in this country, the French speaking community in Quebec and the English speaking community in the rest of Canada, two communities that do not understand each other.

I do not know if the hon. member is well versed in history, but if he knew the history of his country and of mine, he would know that Quebec and the other provinces which first founded this country invested a lot of money in the development of Western Canada. My colleague is from Calgary, Alberta, a province which is quite rich today, but was poor for a long period of time. Quebec, Ontario and other provinces invested a lot of money in the development of western provinces. Today, Alberta is rich.

My colleague should understand that Quebecers do not in any way resent the fact that western provinces are rich. We simply want our share. I have here figures on research and development that demonstrate conclusively that Quebec does not get its fair share.

Let me remind my colleague that Quebec taxpayers pay $30 billion in taxes in Ottawa annually. We should also receive some money from Ottawa, and we do. Unfortunately, the money we receive is for welfare, because our province is now poor. Why? Due to the policies of the central government.

Canada is built in such a way that Ontario always gets the biggest piece of the pie, that is, 50 per cent of the research and development funds. Quebec has everything it needs to be as rich as Ontario, except an English-speaking majority. I will tell my hon. colleague that a minority that does not control its economy has to rely on the majority.

I heard him say: "Why, if they do not really want to separate, are they still making claims?" This is part of our mandate. As long as the Bloc Quebecois is in Ottawa, we will protect Quebec's rights. We, the 53 Bloc members, were sent here mainly to protect Quebec's interests. And, under the British system, we formed the official opposition.

I want to say to the hon. member that the claims we make are for ourselves, are not directed against Western Canada at all. I think Western Canada must also get its fair share and this is important but when we look at the figures, we see that Quebec received only 18.6 per cent of research and development monies from 1979 to 1991.

With this, which is more a comment than a question, I am trying to explain Quebec's history to the hon. member who may not know it. Perhaps he knows his own province's history.

We, in Quebec, took part in the development of Canada. What we want now is to get back the 24 per cent we contributed and not only social assistance and unemployment insurance. Cuts are made there also. We want what is rightfully ours. We are here to fight for Quebecers.

I do not have a question for my colleague but I would appreciate his telling us what he thinks about all that.

[The Constitution, June 3rd, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, the proposed amendment says "where numbers warrant". Without interfering in the jurisdiction of the Government of Newfoundland, I say the change will result in savings to the province and there is no need for the qualification "where numbers warrant". Either you give rights to a minority, or you do not.

When the francophone Fathers of Confederation, those representing Quebec, joined the federation, they were promised that the new territories would all be bilingual. As you know, the Upper and Lower Canada, as well as the other two provinces-three provinces took part in the discussions, but only two immediately joined Confederation; Prince Edward Island followed a little later-had had discussions to the effect that future provinces would be bilingual.

Officials representing Lower Canada voted in favour of joining by a majority of just a few votes. No referendum was held at the time but, had one been held, Lower Canada would never have become part of Canada. We can only speculate about what might have been; the past is the past. I simply want to say that the francophone Fathers of Confederation literally got taken. Why? Because when new territories opened, they were supposed to be bilingual-given the mentality of the time, people believed what they were told. However, each and every one of the new provinces adopted special laws and abolished anything that was French. They gave francophones a hard time. In some regions of Canada, French speaking minorities have literally been fighting for their rights for 125 or 130 years. They survive and they fight.

If the Government of Newfoundland wants to show its good faith, it will protect its minorities. There is no need for a qualification such as "where numbers warrant" Either you protect minorities or you do not.

[The Constitution, June 3rd, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, as we know, on September 5, 1995, the Newfoundland government held a referendum on denominational schools in that province. These denominational schools are guaranteed under term 17 of the agreement signed by the Government of Canada and the Government of Newfoundland setting the terms and conditions for Newfoundland's entry into Confederation in 1949.

I would first like to talk about the referendum. The referendum is a modern tool for activating democracy. It allows the people to settle important issues. The province of Newfoundland decided to hold a referendum and it won. Some of the members here in this House are challenging the figures and percentages involved.

All the people of Newfoundland were invited to participate and to vote. Everyone knew about the referendum. People were free to vote or to abstain. Whatever their reasons for voting or for not voting, the referendum was held and it was won by the government, which is something we should not forget.

The international standard for winning a referendum is 50 per cent plus one. Referenda are a modern tool used throughout the world. I think that people and governments-including the central government, to which I will come back later-should respect the decision made by the people of Newfoundland.

When I was young and starting my studies at the Granby CEGEP, I learned one principle of the political system: vox populi vox dei, which means the voice of the people is the voice of God. I think that when governments and their leaders go to the people and the people decide, their decision must be respected. So the people have spoken.

There are still two levels of government in Canada. We still have the federal government, which, because it feels superior, likes to tell the provinces what to do.

They have this big brother attitude of always trying to interfere, always having something to say about the decisions we make and, in this House, to demonstrate that, here, due process is followed, while in other Parliaments, well-

Given that Newfoundland has met all the standards, I think all this Parliament has left to do is to assent by saying: "Yes, we agree".

Federalists, at the federal level in particular, have this attitude of always wanting to pass judgment on what is going on elsewhere and claim to be more politically correct than the others. But it is not true. The various legislatures are acting, indeed taking some very important actions.

Must I remind you that education comes under provincial jurisdiction and that the federal government has no right interfering with this jurisdiction?

If, at this point in its history, Newfoundland has decided to amend its school legislation, I think that we should support this decision. We in the Bloc Quebecois have a concern however and this concern is about minorities. As you know, there are minorities in Newfoundland, and I would like to read you this brief excerpt from the letter written to Mr. Tobin by our leader, the Leader of the Official Opposition and member for Roberval:

However, we are concerned about the inadequate school rights of Newfoundland's French speaking minority. Therefore, we strongly hope that

your government will take the opportunity provided by the restructuring of the school legislation to give francophones in your province, through legislative and administrative means, full responsibility for the management of their schools.

I think it is important at this stage to remind our friends in Newfoundland that they must have as much respect for their minorities in their province as we do for ours in Quebec. Must I remind this House of the fact that, in Quebec, the school system is organized on linguistic bases? There are therefore two school systems in Quebec. The minority has its own schools, which it controls and manages, including elementary schools, high schools, colleges, and two universities, one in Montreal and another outside of Montreal. It also controls English hospitals in the Montreal area.

Quebec has always be a model for the rest of Canada in terms of respect for its minorities.

To my English friends who are listening to us tonight and to members of the House I say that someday there will be a referendum in Quebec and we expect to win that referendum. There is a tradition of democracy in this country; it has always been a democracy.

The Parliament of Quebec which is more than 205 years old, the oldest in Canada, has always shown the tradition of democracy. When the time comes, when we have our referendum and we win it, when we decide to finally become a partner, a good neighbour and a friend with the rest of Canada, I am sure we will be able to grow together side by side in harmony as Canadians and Quebecers because of the tradition of democracy in the country. When that day comes I am sure it will be the end of all the sterile discussion that has lasted for 30 years. Quebecers and Canadians have had enough. We will have our referendum, and when the time comes I am sure democracy in this land will prevail.

[Employment Centres, May 31st, 1996]

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

As part of the restructuring of employment centres, the Granby CEC, which is located in the riding I have the privilege to represent, saw its staff cut to an extent that is unjustifiable if we compare it to cuts made at the Cowansville CEC, in the neighbouring Liberal riding of Brome-Missisquoi. The Granby centre will now have the same number of employees as the one in Cowansville, although it must serve twice the number of taxpayers.

Although the minister has repeatedly said that the purpose of the restructuring was to improve services, can he tell us the logic behind a decision to allocate the same number of employees to both centres, when one of them serves a population twice as large?

[Minister Of Human Resources Development, May 31st, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, we must not hesitate to condemn the xenophobic remarks directed by the Minister of Human Resources Development at my colleague, the member for Bourassa. The minister's remarks smack of a deep-rooted and invidious attitude that advocates intolerance and encourages aggressiveness towards anyone who is not a genuine, old stock Canadian.

The member for Bourassa is a model citizen, who is keenly interested in making his own individual contribution to the life of his adopted community. So it does not matter whether the minister, who does not share his political ideals, likes it or not. It is disgusting, not to say shameful, that an hon. minister would make such remarks.

The least one could do, in such a case, is first to make a public apology, and then, without delay, to step down and offer one's resignation.

[Criminal Code, May 30th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, Corporal Michel Purnelle was arrested on April 26, 1996 in order to prevent him from providing any information to the Somalia inquiry being carried out by Mr. Justice Gilles Létourneau.

Seven charges were laid against him. He was placed under surveillance for six months. He was relieved of his military duties until June 15, and faces the possibility of permanent suspension or other sanctions. He has been prevented from publishing his book Une armée en déroute .

And why was he harassed in this way? Simply because he had the courage to defy the orders of a superior who wanted to prevent him from speaking out, from telling the entire truth about the 1993 incidents in Somalia involving the Airborne Regiment. He is accused of having given unauthorized interviews to the media and of having taken unauthorized leave from his job.

What is the message that the Canadian Armed Forces are giving to their members? If you tell the truth, if you co-operate with the Somalia inquiry, you will be hauled up in front of a court martial, relieved of your duties, and subjected to blackmail, even intimidation. Sad but true.

Justice Létourneau issued a strong warning to the armed forces when he learned of the decision of military authorities to lay charges against Corporal Purnelle. He pointed out that this decision sent a contradictory message to soldiers who perhaps had relevant information. This message is in sharp contrast to the official encouragement given soldiers to co-operate in any way possible in fulfilling the mandate of the commission. Double talk.

The minister refuses to co-operate. He says to anyone who will listen that no members of the armed forces have been prevented from providing information. Now it is time to shed light on this whole incident. I remind you that a man died in Somalia. This is a source of shame to Canada and Quebec.

As you know, before these unfortunate events, Canada enjoyed a spotless reputation as a peacekeeper. In any peacekeeping mission, our soldiers and especially their leaders, who represent us and who are our ambassadors, must act with dignity and professionalism. Their behaviour must be beyond reproach. They must not disappoint us. Such incidents must never happen again.

This is affecting our troops' morale. As long as the Canadian Forces are led by people who are more concerned about their own personal careers than about the reputation of our armed forces, such situations may come up again. Were our soldiers justified in losing confidence in their leader? Are their leaders worthy of our trust? Is the Minister of National Defence still credible? Who is leading the Canadian Forces? The minister has a duty to shed light on all the cloudy aspects of this unfortunate tragedy. He is accountable to Parliament and to the people of Canada for our armed forces and he must assume this responsibility. If the minister no longer has any control over the armed forces, he can no longer run the department.

It is time for the minister to take his responsibilities. The Bloc Quebecois, representing the official opposition in this House, demands that the minister do all he can to ensure that witnesses like Michel Purnelle will be able to give evidence freely. The minister must not allow any attempt to muzzle or threaten witnesses in any way, so that light can be shed on the unfortunate and tragic incident in Somalia.

Again, the people of Canada want the truth.

[Supply, May 30th, 1996]

In English only.

[Somalia Inquiry, May 10th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, what we hear in this House and what takes place outside is equally appalling. The chairman of the commission himself, Mr. Justice Létourneau, expressed great concern about the turn events were taking in this matter.

What message does the Acting Prime Minister think this is sending to our military when anyone who attempts to give evidence at the inquiry faces a court martial?

[Somalia Inquiry, May 10th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Acting Prime Minister.

Two days ago, we questioned the Minister of Defence about the questionable circumstances under which the army arrested Corporal Michel Purnelle to prevent him from making information available to the Somalia inquiry. A mere five hours after question period, seven charges were laid against him for having had the courage to disobey an order from a superior who wanted to stop him from speaking.

How can the Acting Prime Minister justify the fact that, a mere five hours after the Minister of Defence stated that no member of the armed forces would be prevented from giving information, seven charges were laid against a member of the armed forces who had to disobey orders so he could speak to the commission's attorney?