Jean Chrétien

[National Defence, September 17th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, General Boyle stated what happens to everyone, which is that there arise in large administrations situations where the boss does not know all the details. He came right out and said so to the Commission. The Commission will draw the appropriate conclusions in the context of an inquiry that has already gone on for nine months.

We would all sometimes like to see certain documents that are not shown to us, but in so far as we accept responsibility for a department and our duties, and do not shirk them, we must now wait and see what the Commission will have to say about this matter, and about everything to do with the Somalia inquiry.

[English]

[Somalia Inquiry, September 17th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, this government is one of complete openness. It is the first time that we have had a complete inquiry. They have spent eight months debating all the elements not on Somalia but of the operation of the department. Now they have moved on the mandate to look into what happened in Somalia and they will report in due course. Let them do their jobs. I want everybody to let the chief of staff do his job and the minister of defence do his job.

[Department Of National Defence, September 17th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, this is the first time in a long time that there has been an inquiry into national defence. When we have an inquiry in relation to a big organization such as this, of course it is going to be difficult. A commission is working on the situation and it will report.

In the meantime, we have been reducing the number of bases, personnel and so on. It has been done in a very competent way, with no strikes and no disturbances.

Of course some people do not agree. As the Minister of National Defence said yesterday, not everybody is happy. We used to have 120 generals and we cut them by one-third. There was a surplus of generals and some had to go. We have to cut more. Those who are not happy can go. Some will have to go anyway. Those who are unhappy should be very happy not to be there.

[Department Of National Defence, September 17th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, a very long time before the leader of the third party came to Parliament the Minister of National Defence was a member of Parliament serving in the cabinet. It is because of his experience that I asked him to take on this very difficult task. He did not ask to go there; I asked him to take it over. I said: "You will be there for a long time because I will not change my ministers every time the leader of the opposition or the leader of the third party gets up in the House".

As far as Mr. Boyle is concerned, he is not my political friend. I met him the day that I offered him the position of chief of staff, after recommendations from inside and from the Minister of National Defence.

[Department Of National Defence, September 17th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I said very clearly yesterday that we are in a very important and difficult situation and changing the way things were done at national defence before. We have major operating cuts. We have a huge reduction of armed forces personnel. These things are very difficult to deal with.

I said yesterday that what the military needs at this time is stability in leadership. One of the problems that created this situation is that under the previous administration there were six ministers of national defence in nine years. I do not believe a problem can be solved by playing the game of changing people every time the House of Commons asks for it. Real leadership is when there are good ministers doing a good job under difficult circumstances. The Minister of National Defence has my confidence.

[Research And Development, September 17th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, Quebec is now receiving 22.3 per cent of all R&D funding, and this year is getting $11.3 billion more than it has paid out in taxes to the federal government.

[Job Creation, September 17th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to inform him that we have a program that is still operating now and that municipalities are using that program to create jobs.

The question is whether "now" should continue after April 1.

[Job Creation, September 17th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, when I spoke to the provincial governments, the Minister of Finance was with me. And when I spoke to the Federation of Canadian Municipalities in Calgary, the President of the Treasury Board was in Calgary as well.

However, we must ensure that the program is administered in such a way that it creates jobs and is not simply a substitute for normal expenditures by provincial or municipal governments.

[Job Creation, September 17th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, at the conference we had with the provincial governments in June, I discussed with the premiers the possibility of continuing the infrastructures program next year.

Since then, the federal Minister of Finance has met his provincial colleagues or will be meeting them to discuss what should be done to ensure we get results. We do not want this to be a substitute for normal expenditures by municipalities.

Furthermore, the minister directly responsible for the infrastructures program, the President of the Treasury Board, has met the municipal affairs ministers. I think progress is being made. In fact, I made the offer myself in June, and at the time, a number of premiers took a negative position. It seems they may have changed their minds during the summer.

The ministers are working on this, and we hope to be able to find common ground.

[Employment, September 16th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, the leader of the Conservative Party should remember that when we took over from the Conservatives the level of unemployment was 11.5 per cent. It is now at 9.4 per cent.

As far as the question of the employment insurance program, at that time the fund was in a very serious deficit of approximately $6 billion. As prudent administrators we want to build a surplus, but in the meantime we have managed to reduce the premium from $3.30

to $2.95. We are reducing the premium on a gradual basis. We have paid for the deficit which was established by the Tories. We are building a reserve because when it is an insurance scheme it is normal in business to have a reserve when there are better years.

That is exactly what we are doing. We are cleaning up the mess created by the Progressive Conservative Party.