Roger Pomerleau

[Sovereignists, November 4th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday, a government member castigated the Bloc Quebecois for the success of its festivities marking the first anniversary of real power with our friends, the Premier of Quebec, many Quebec ministers and over 800 supporters.

Quebec sovereignists are not afraid of appearing in broad daylight to show their allegiance to a sovereign Quebec. Sovereignists always meet openly.

However, the Prime Minister of Canada and Daniel Johnson meet secretly behind closed doors, taking special care not to alert the media. Federalists are preparing for the referendum battle, which is fine. But they should do so openly.

Stop hiding and use the same weapons we are using, namely frankness, intellectual honesty and openness. Face to face, I have no doubt that we will win.

[Cultural Institutions, October 28th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, does the minister endorse the recommendations contained in the Secor report on Telefilm Canada, to the effect that investments should be limited to presumably profitable ventures, from a commercial point of view, and does the minister realize that the implementation of such a recommendation would jeopardize the whole independent film production industry, thereby affecting young producers and original work?

[Cultural Institutions, October 28th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Canadian Heritage.

After weeks of waiting, the government will release today a series of studies on the future of its cultural institutions, for the sole purpose of justifying the major cuts it is about to make in that sector.

Does the Minister of Canadian Heritage realize that imposing major budget cuts to cultural institutions, such as the NFB, will only result in jeopardizing their integrity, and even the survival of an institution which is internationally recognized?

[Department Of Public Works And Government Services Act, October 26th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to speak on Bill C-52; I am especially pleased to speak on it because the riding which I represent in this House, Anjou-Rivière-des-Prairies, clearly lacks government services. I want to talk about this before getting into the main subject.

The only government buildings in my riding are marine navigation lights, a post office, an employment centre and an empty office building. That is not much. First we have the navigation lights. I think that the federal government cannot avoid this responsibility since the Rivière des Prairies flows through my riding and it must be marked with navigation lights. This is an absolute necessity. Then there is a post office in the heart of Ville d'Anjou, but having a post office in my riding is certainly not unusual since the riding of Anjou-Rivière-des-Prairies is one of the most populous in the Montreal area. In that regard, not having a post office would be inexcusable.

As regards the need for a Canada employment centre in my riding, I think that for a better understanding of what is at stake here, I should point out to the House that the riding of Anjou-Rivière-des-Prairies, located in the eastern part of Montreal Island, is considered by many experts to be an economically depressed area: the unemployment rate is much higher than in the greater Montreal area; the number of welfare recipients is at record levels; it has the lowest average household income; and the school drop-out rate is one of the highest in Quebec. That being said, I do not think having a manpower centre in my riding is a luxury. It meets a real need among my constituents.

However, according to rumours in my riding, the centre may be moved to the Saint-Léonard riding, next door. It seems this would allow for better allocation of available resources. In fact, the real reasons are pretty obvious. First they expand the area covered by the manpower centre responsible for East Montreal. They consolidate various services in the same building, so that offices already being used are now too small or redundant. Finally, the new Department of Public Works and Government Services decides to move the offices to a new building, where it

can offer government services first and foremost to a riding that, incidentally, voted for the winning side. Quite a coincidence.

In fact, if the rumours I mentioned earlier are true, the new government offices will be located in one of the least disadvantaged areas of Montreal.

Of course for the time being, these are just rumours. Nevertheless, there is a precedent. I realized this when I looked at the history of politics in this riding. The first Canada Employment Centre to open its doors in this riding was inaugurated in 1984. At the time, it was an extension of the employment centre located in the present riding of Saint-Léonard. Of course, at the time, in 1984, the riding of Anjou-Rivière-des-Prairies did not exist and Ville d'Anjou was part of the riding of Anjou-Saint-Léonard. After the election in 1984, this riding was represented in the House of Commons by the present member for Saint-Léonard.

In the fall of 1988, we had an election, and Ville d'Anjou was then part of a new riding, Anjou-Rivières-des-Prairies. The riding was represented by the future minister responsible for the development of greater Montreal, and interestingly, the employment centre in my riding became a full-fledged centre from that very moment. Since it was then too small, the employment centre's offices were moved, this time to the riding of Anjou-Rivières-des-Prairies.

In 1993, another election. Voters in Anjou-Rivière-des-Prairies elected a member of the Bloc Quebecois to represent them, as did many Quebecers during this last election, and hence current rumours that the employment centre is going to be relocated.

To end these rumours, the Minister of Public Works and Government Services need only have answered my question to him about the activities of his whole department in my riding, as several Bloc members asked him about theirs. The letters we received suggested that it was impossible for financial and accounting reasons to explain what is going on in the ridings.

Given that, you will understand my disappointment with the vote on the amendment moved by a fellow Bloc member for a committee to monitor this department. You will agree with me that setting up a public monitoring commission with the mandate of scrutinizing the contracts let by the Department of Public Works and Government Services would be the best way to ensure the openness that the Liberal Party promised us so much in its famous red book that everyone quotes abundantly.

We find such openness nowhere in any of the departments we address. I shall take a few current examples since they are very recent.

We have been trying to find out how many family trusts there are, how many billions are involved and for how long this money will not be taxed. We are not getting any answers. No one can give us exact figures.

There is also the Canadian Security Intelligence Service. Some very serious allegations are being made that it has infiltrated a political party, specifically the Reform Party. This service's activities are subject to review by an independent committee, but when that committee's members appear before a House committee, the only reply they will make to our questions is that they have become accustomed to not giving a definite yes or no as an answer. This is not transparency.

Let us look at the events surrounding the Pearson airport affair. A bill to deprivatize Pearson was introduced, and of course the people who invested money in the airport will be making claims. The bill provides that these claims will be heard in camera by the minister responsible, rather than here in this House, or before the Canadian people. This is not what I would call transparency.

An ethics committee was struck to keep an eye on lobbyists. Rumour has it that this whole business is unsavoury. And to whom does the committee report? Instead of reporting to this House, it reports to the minister.

The Communications Security Establishment, which is allegedly involved in spying activities on a large scale throughout Canada and perhaps internationally, has been mentioned today, and indeed with increasing frequency for a few days now. Eighteen hundred people are involved in its operations, and although difficult to estimate, its budget seems to be in the range of two hundred and fifty or three hundred million dollars.

This brings us to another subject, the inquiry conducted by the Keable Commission which published some extremely important information. I may recall that the commission-I will read the first paragraph of the inquiry-started its proceedings on March 8, 1976. The commission reported as follows: Former RCMP officer Robert Samson was summoned to testify behind closed doors at his trial on charges of placing a bomb at the home of Samuel Dobrin. He revealed that in 1972, members of the three main police corps operating in Quebec searched the premises of the Agence de presse libre du Québec without a warrant. This unlawful search was part of a police operation under the code name "Bricole".

Subsequently, the Keable Commission was to question all the witnesses who appeared in this case, and the commission's initial terms of reference were gradually expanded as it discovered more and more facts.

At one point, the people conducting the inquiry tried to obtain specific figures and information from the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, and when the RCMP refused, they went to court. The Supreme Court ruled in favour of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, and I would like to read to you what the members of the Keable Commission thought of this ruling. The following appears in Chapter 3, paragraph 3: "The Supreme Court's judgment recognizes the right of the Solicitor General of Canada to evoke, without further explanation, the interests of national security as grounds for refusing to produce documents relevant to a commission's inquiry. In so doing, the Supreme Court reinforces what Chief Justice Jules Deschênes of the Superior Court referred to, in a detailed study of section 41(2) of the Federal Court Act, as the absolute privilege which shields the executive from the judiciary. Of all the countries whose jurisprudence in this area was examined by Justice Deschênes, including England, Australia, New Zealand and the United States, Canada is the only country that repeatedly favours the doctrine of absolute privilege".

In other words, there are citizens in this country who are above the law, against whom no legal recourse is possible.

This is what transparency means, and unfortunately, Bill C-52 does not provide the controls we proposed. They are not in this bill, and we will therefore vote against this legislation.

[Supply, October 25th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I listened very attentively to the speech by my hon. colleague, who described in a general way the monster that Canada's debt has become. I wish to point out to my hon. colleague that this monster was created by the Liberals and the Conservatives. The Liberals created this debt under the guidance of the hon. Peter Trudeau and raised it to almost $200 million. The Tories then brought it up to where it is today and the Liberals, on regaining office, assure us that it will reach $600 billion very soon. We fully agree that the debt has become a monster.

Second, my hon. colleague has just told us that we stand on the brink of bankruptcy, another statement which we totally agree with. I think that our comedians are often much better than politicians at describing some situations. A Quebec comedian, Daniel Lemire, is always saying that we should probably declare bankruptcy and start over under a new name. That is exactly what we will do soon.

The government is now saying that we must deal with this monster, that we are on the verge of bankruptcy and that they must and will make cuts. They will cut unemployment insurance, social assistance, transfers to the provinces, increase education costs, generalize the GST-they will give it a different name but charge it on everything. They will probably eliminate the only tax shelter available to the middle class, RRSPs, and tax retirement funds. All this is sending out a clear message: they are attacking ordinary people. The Bloc Quebecois agrees that the debt should be tackled and that cuts should be made. This is not a problem. But we are against singling out ordinary people. That we disagree with.

While complaining about the lack of money and the huge debt problem, they easily find the billions of dollars needed to finance an unprofitable project such as Hibernia. While telling us there is no money left, they easily find the hundreds of millions of dollars they throw out the window every year, according to the Auditor General of Canada. They also give tax credits worth millions of dollars to the hon. Peter Trudeau and Brian Mulroney for returning their papers to the government, while telling ordinary people that tax credits will be cut.

My question is this: When cleaning stairs, one does not do only the bottom steps. I would like to know if my hon. colleague has ever cleaned stairs and if he realizes that he should start at the top and work his way down?

[Breast Cancer Week, October 21st, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to bring to the attention of the House that Breast Cancer Week is coming to an end. I hope that, this week, all stakeholders in the political and scientific community have had the opportunity to stop and reflect on the importance of research and of funding support groups as a way to find a cure for this disease, which affects an increasing number of women.

Such reflection is important because, notwithstanding lofty statements in support of medical research in this area, several women's groups are questioning the health minister's sincerity. For example, the federal government is going to sink $12 million in a forum on health which is bound to fail, while research on breast cancer needs additional money to be able to make important inroads.

The Government of Canada must send a clear message to Canadian and Quebec women.

[Member For Bonaventure-Îles-De-La-Madeleine, October 7th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, to our great surprise, the member for Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine, the Liberal Party's specialist on statements under S.O. 31, has dissociated himself from his party's caucus and expressed reservations about the proposed reform of social programs. He said: "I have some reservations about occupational training, etc."

To show his dissent and to distance himself from his party, the member for Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine joined a strategic friend in his party, the member for York South-Weston, who said: "For the ten years we were the Official Opposition, we accused the Conservatives of reducing the deficit on the backs of the poor and we are doing exactly the same thing".

I therefore call on the Liberal Party's No. 31 to pay attention to his fine career, because breaking the party line is unlikely to please his Prime Minister or many other people, for that matter.

[Department Of Public Works And Government Services Act, October 4th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I would have a question for my hon. colleague from the Reform Party who made a remarkable speech. Our colleague tells us that real politicians would tell us that it is going to hurt. I agree up to a certain point. Now, who will this hurt?

At present, some people avoid paying tax on billions of dollars by using family trusts and tax havens. Here is my question: Is my hon. colleague prepared to hurt these people too, so that all members of our society pay their share?

[Supply, September 29th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to the comments of my hon. colleague who just gave us a list of the legislative authorities which would allow us, according to her, to make sure that the Canadian Security Intelligence Service is a body that we can control to a certain extent.

She also said that, to some degree, CSIS is accountable to ministers who are empowered to control its activities.

I would like to repeat to my hon. colleague that the RCMP was also, in fact, a regulated body and accountable to ministers. That did not prevent it from committing inexplicable criminal abuses. We now have created a new Canadian Security Intelligence Service. We put into place legislative measures and we now pretend that the problem no longer exists. What difference does my hon. colleague see between the situation that existed from 1970 to 1980 and the current situation?

[Supply, September 29th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to what my colleague, the member for Terrebonne, had to say and it frightens me in a way. We all know that the SIRC was created following enquiries. I am talking particularly about the Keable enquiry which was held in Quebec towards the end of the 1970s. It was sparked by a unimportant event. A former RCMP officer had been caught placing a bomb. Somehow this expanded and led us to find out about very disturbing facts.

The RCMP had set fire to a barn, stolen lists of Parti Quebecois members, illegally opened mail-a totally democratic way of doing things after all-placed bombs and written false press releases in the name of the FLQ. Those events made us realize the need for a special service, one which would be totally independent from the RCMP, the Security Intelligence Review Committee.

Given what we are learning today, given the reasons why the committee was established, given the fact that it is totally impossible to know what is happening there, even though we repeatedly made requests, does the member feel that security is now better, worse or equivalent to what it was in those days?