House of Commons photoWon his last election, in 2006, with 60% of the vote.
The Estimates February 23rd, 1994
Mr. Speaker, according to the budget tabled yesterday, the government plans to spend $163 billion this coming year.
Is the Minister of Finance now telling us that because he is committed to deficit reduction he is prepared to accept reductions as recommended by the committees to the main estimates as they will soon be tabled?
The Estimates February 23rd, 1994
Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance.
For the last 25 years Parliament's annual review of the estimates has led to a total reduction in government expendi-
tures of one-millionth of one per cent. Clearly the system has not been allowed to work. It has been 20 years since the government last accepted a recommendation to reduce expenditures.
Therefore, I ask the Minister of Finance if he is prepared to accept recommendations from committees to reduce the estimates, thereby allowing Parliament to do its job.
Defence Policy February 17th, 1994
Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence for his eloquent defence of the defence department.
At the edge of my riding are CFB Namao and CFB Edmonton. We heard the defence minister speak this morning about how there will be cuts. I understand that cuts have to be made. However, today we are debating the need for a defence review. I am quite concerned that the minister intends to make some serious cuts to the defence establishments.
Prior to the commencement of the review or right at the very beginning rather than at the end, CFB Edmonton now employs about 2,800 military personnel and quite a number of civilians in addition to that. It is the base for search and rescue for Canada's north. As I mentioned, there was the plane crash in Resolute Bay where there was loss of life because we were unable to get people in there quickly enough to save those lives.
Can the parliamentary secretary give any assurance whatsoever to me and my constituents, if the rumours are true that CFB Edmonton is perhaps on the chopping block, that their jobs are secure? This is a major defence installation. We cannot just say that all the things they were doing yesterday are now totally superfluous and just close the whole place down. This is the hub of the western forces in Canada and many headquarter facilities are there.
Can the parliamentary secretary give his assurance that CFB Edmonton will be maintained so that these people can be assured they are performing a vital role as they have been in the past toward the defence of Canada?
Defence Policy February 17th, 1994
My question therefore is for the last speaker. The riding of St. Albert where I live is on the edge of a major military installation, CFB Edmonton, which employs approximately 3,300 people. That is a major installation.
I would like to give a bit of a background on how much is actually involved in that installation. The base provides administrative and technical support not only for the elements of air command but for those units located in Edmonton from the National Defence Headquarters, Land Forces Command Headquarters, Maritime Command, Training Systems Headquarters and Communications Command. It is a tactical aircraft centre for the Canadian Air Forces as well as a parachute training centre.
In addition, it is the home of such units as the Canadian Airborne Centre, Parachute Maintenance Depot, Survival Training School plus four flying squadrons. Not only that, but the search and rescue for western Canada for the the north is located in Edmonton.
A couple of years or so ago we had a horrible crash in Resolute Bay where we were unable to get our search and rescue people in to perform a rescue without the loss of life. I think it is absolutely important that we have a military installation in Edmonton that can serve the north.
The Minister of National Defence has said that there will be major cutbacks announced within the next few weeks prior to the defence review taking place. I would like to suggest and ask my colleague from the Reform Party who was speaking whether he agrees with me that no cuts should be made, especially on a major military installation of 3,300 people, until such time as a defence review has taken place and we can find out whether or not this is really needed. How can it be decided that a hub of military installations that serve all of western Canada, employing 3,300 people, is no longer relevant?
I would like to ask the member for Saanich-Gulf Islands if he agrees with that point of whether we should wait until the review is finished before we make any major decisions of that kind.
Defence Policy February 17th, 1994
Mr. Speaker, first I would like to comment on the points raised by my colleague from the Bloc Quebecois who argued against creating another committee because it was duplication. Last week they were taking the exact opposite point of view when they said: "Let us form another committee to examine the waste and duplication in government". Now they are opposed to the creation of a committee that is going to do some additional work.
I would like to ask the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence-
The Budget February 16th, 1994
Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is for the Prime Minister.
If the Prime Minister is going to achieve a balanced budget eventually, and the red book states that the government will do it in three years which will require an $8 billion a year reduction, will we see that in the budget coming down next week?
The Budget February 16th, 1994
I think, Mr. Speaker, that was an item for debate, not an answer to the question.
The Budget February 16th, 1994
Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister.
Yesterday the Liberal premier of New Brunswick committed his government to a balanced budget, an achievement unheard of in federal Liberal circles.
Will the Prime Minister take a lesson from his Liberal colleague in New Brunswick and finally commit this government to achieving a balanced budget by the end of this Parliament?
supply February 11th, 1994
Mr. Speaker, you caught me unaware but certainly I have enjoyed the tone of this House today. We have been constructive in our debates. We have recognized that the Auditor General has a real role to play as our servant to ensure that the taxpayers' money is spent wisely and well.
As I mentioned earlier this morning, this is only the third time since the position of Auditor General was created in 1878, I think it was, that we have debated his report in this House. I gave notice that we will be back debating this again and I would hope that we can enter into some kind of arrangement with the government to ensure that this becomes an annual debate.
supply February 11th, 1994
Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member for his speech.
One thing that I was rather puzzled about was when he started off by saying in his speech that the way in which we had written the motion was far too restrictive and then he finished up his speech by saying that we should focus on one particular area. It seems rather a conundrum to me.
In the last few weeks we have been listening to what is becoming a bit of a broken record. The Bloc Quebecois seems to say that there is a panacea in the duplication of federal and provincial spending. I heard one member talking about Gaspé where he thought if we eliminated federal and provincial duplication there would be more fish in the Gulf of the St. Lawrence.
I heard another member suggest that if we eliminated the duplication there would be sufficient money available for the job creation program. Another member said that if we eliminated the duplication there would be sufficient money to create all kinds of positions for day care.
They are now still on about the same situation they talked about yesterday that if we happen to create another committee this will be the panacea that will solve all of the problems that we have and things will go on from here and everything will be bright and beautiful.
My question to the member, which is basically a repeat of the question by the member from Kootenay, is how does the Bloc Quebecois believe that the answer lies in duplication of federal-provincial spending? Spending by the federal government happens in the province of Quebec, British Columbia and in my home province of Alberta.
How does it think that this panacea of elimination of duplication is going to provide all kinds of money to solve all the problems when it is just using that as an agenda to try and build some kind of defence or justification for its own political platform which has no basis whatsoever?