House of Commons photoWon his last election, in 2006, with 65% of the vote.
Government Contracts June 2nd, 1998
Mr. Speaker, the facts speak for themselves. The conflict of interest code makes it clear that there is a cooling off period of one year and he violated it. How can the minister deny this is a conflict of interest and that it makes this sweetheart deal to Bombardier look worse than it already did?
Government Contracts June 2nd, 1998
Mr. Speaker, there is another rule bender. The former commander of Canada's air command, Lieutenant-General David Huddleston took a job at Bombardier and brokered the multibillion dollar sweetheart deal with the Canadian government, this Liberal government. He took the job only seven months after leaving the air force. This is a clear violation of the conflict of interest code and the cooling off period, and the minister knows it.
Are there any rules the government did not break when it awarded Bombardier—
Government Contracts June 1st, 1998
Mr. Speaker, this is the largest service contract ever issued in Canada.
With all the family connections to the Prime Minister, with the political donations to the Liberal Party and the fact that no competition was allowed, cabinet bent the rules.
Who made the decision to bend the rules? Was it the Prime Minister? Was it the public works minister, or was it both of them?
Government Contracts June 1st, 1998
Mr. Speaker, a $2.85 billion contract was dumped into the lap of Bombardier by the Liberal cabinet.
With all the political connections, the large donations to the Liberal Party and the fact that there was no competition in this award, it is obvious that cabinet bent the rules.
Who decided to bypass all the competition rules? Was it the public works minister or was it the Prime Minister?
National Defence May 27th, 1998
Mr. Speaker, I am not asking about an investigation. My understanding is that the investigation is passed. The surgeon general has been charged with obstruction of justice and possibly the destruction of evidence.
I ask that the minister confirm whether that is the case.
National Defence May 27th, 1998
Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the minister of defence if he could confirm that Canadian forces surgeon general Wendy Clay has been charged with at least one criminal offence.
Criminal Records Act May 15th, 1998
Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure today to support my colleague for Calgary Centre on Bill C-284.
This bill is based on an earlier bill, Bill C-382, produced by my colleague from Fraser Valley. It died on the order paper at the close of the 35th parliament.
In October 1996 the member tabled a 26,000 name petition which called for the changes similar to those this bill proposes. I am very pleased to see it here again.
This bill would amend the Criminal Code to prohibit for life all those convicted of sex offences against children from holding positions of trust and responsibility regarding children. Surely we can all support that. Thus far I have heard some positive comments from Liberals. I am trusting they will support the bill to see it through to the end and actually become law.
The bill would enable those responsible for children to make fully informed decisions about who they hire. Bill C-284 will give parents with children in third party care the assurance that those responsible for looking after their children have not abused this position of authority in the past.
The bill proposes to allow for the limited disclosure of an individual's criminal record if the individual has been convicted of a sexual offence against a child and later applies for a position of trust with respect to children. Such a disclosure will include an individual's criminal record for a previous sexual offence against a child or children even if they had served their sentence and had later received a pardon which had been removed on notice of conviction from the individual's criminal record.
That is a very important aspect of the bill given that pardons have been fairly easy to obtain. Often those in the area of pedophilia are very difficult to cure and would not be subject to as much protection as those who have committed other kinds of offences under the Criminal Code. I emphasize this limited disclosure will only take effect when an individual applies for a position of trust with respect to a child or children.
Bill C-284 does not propose that sex offences against children can never be pardoned. The bill does not propose that if one makes a mistake such as this that it should be forever on one's record. Rather, it proposes that if someone does sexually abuse children, that person could effectively be prevented from holding a position of authority with children again, as those responsible for children will be able to see that a job applicant has abused such a position in the past and thus they will be more judicious in their hiring practice.
Is this bill necessary? It sends a message that the protection of our children is paramount. We can look at some very high profile cases in this province in and around the London area. Others are ongoing as we speak like in Cornwall and places like that where tragic events have taken place. Crimes against children have impacted the lives of hundreds of people in the community. That is the focus of the bill. It would ensure those involved in this kind of activity will be censured in their activities when it comes to looking after children.
Bill C-284 is necessary to address the procedural deficiencies in the way pardons are treated. Currently when someone receives a pardon for a summary or indictable offence, no record is accessible by the public that there ever was a criminal conviction or that the pardon was ever granted. A pardon for a summary offence is issued three years after one completes one's sentence. One can apply to receive a pardon for an indictable offence five years after completing one's sentence.
Supply May 14th, 1998
Mr. Speaker, that was a very appropriate ruling. I know members on the other side are very delicate, very sensitive, when it comes to the process of democracy and the hep C vote was one example.
I just came out of the defence committee too and it is the same process. It is a top down process. Here we had a bill trying to correct the justice system within the military and it was all dictated up here and down at the committee. They sat there like a bunch of trained seals, clapping when they were asked to clap, jumping when they were asked to jump. That is the committee and that is the committee process that has to change.
To answer the member's question, he says Reform wants to cut $1 billion out of the defence budget. How little he knows about Reform policy. How little he understands even his own party's policy when it comes to the military.
The Liberal government wants to chop $2 billion from this budget, down from $9.2 billion. The Reform, recognizing that there is a strong need to support our men and women in the Canadian military, wants to increase this budget to $11 billion. That will take care of the procurement problems and the rusting out equipment. That will take care of some of the social problems and complaints.
The government has had five years to correct the problems. For five years it let the military suffer. For five years it allowed housing away below substandard to exist in which to put military families, five years and there was no consideration of the social needs of military families. That is where the fault lies and there is the answer to the member's question.
Supply May 14th, 1998
Mr. Speaker, the member likes to talk about verbal diarrhoea but there is only diarrhoea coming from one side of the House. Referring to democratic procedures, they are sadly amiss over on that side.
The prime example of this very undemocratic process is to watch the hepatitis C vote. How many members had to kowtow to that front line and their leader?
Supply May 14th, 1998
Mr. Speaker, thank you so much. That would help a lot.
What is essential however if the military is to thrive is to keep the bureaucrats and the politicians out of the administration of the military. What do they really know? But unfortunately we are looking at a government today that is somewhat dictatorial in its viewpoints and likes that control. I have to say that the Liberals have only contributed to the problem.
I would like to talk a little bit about the Somalia inquiry. It was in many significant ways an extremely important process. It brought to light the need for several positive changes to the Canadian Armed Forces.
The recognition of the need for military justice reform and increased accountability throughout the ranks are positive results of the inquiry. Without the Somalia inquiry, the top brass in national defence would never have been exposed to the glaring light of public accountability. Although restricted again by this government not wanting to expose everything, it was exposed as to their accountability and they were found wanting.
Of course the Somalia inquiry also exposed the Liberal government's gross arrogance. In shutting down the inquiry prematurely, the Liberals took abuse of power to dangerous new heights. It was the first time an inquiry was ever shut down. Never before had a government shut down a public inquiry simply because it was embarrassing the very government that commissioned the study.
Unfortunately the whole Somalia affair also did massive damage to the otherwise stellar reputation of the forces. Just when the inquiry was starting to get to the root of the defence department's internal problems, the government ended the process.
I certainly commend the member of the Conservative Party for bringing forth this motion. The debate is worthy and necessary. It has to reach heights beyond what it has right now to really provide a greater input of information to the public. I commend the member on the motion he has presented to the House.