Jim Hart

[Government Contracts, May 30th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, my second supplementary is for the Prime Minister.

The Minister of National Defence violated Treasury Board guidelines. The Prime Minister cannot escape the facts. The defence minister issued four contracts to Karabekos. Some of the contracts overlapped.

The work on the contracts was the same. This is one of the most blatant examples of contract splitting we have ever seen. Senior officials from Treasury Board have said that disciplinary action should take place.

I ask the Prime Minister again: Will he take immediate action and discipline the Minister of National Defence?

[Government Contracts, May 30th, 1996]

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

The Minister of National Defence has been caught abusing his budget and breaching Treasury Board guidelines, all to reward campaign pals. Let us look at the facts. Two contracts that the minister issued overlapped and amounted to $50,000. The work for each contract was the same. Last week the deputy secretary of the Treasury Board stated that it is not acceptable to contract split and when it happens, disciplinary action must be taken.

When will the Prime Minister obey the rules set down by Treasury Board and discipline the Minister of National Defence?

[Government Contracts, May 30th, 1996]

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

The defence minister thinks it is acceptable to hand out pork barrel contracts to campaign pals to do political work, all at taxpayers' expense. The minister broke Treasury Board guidelines by contract splitting. Canadians found this kind of patronage unacceptable from Mulroney and Canadians find it unacceptable now.

Why will the Prime Minister not raise his ethical standards to at least the level of Brian Mulroney's and put an end to this patronage budget abuse by his Minister of National Defence?

[Young Offenders Act, May 30th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on behalf of the constituents of Okanagan-Similkameen-Merritt in the aftermath of Tuesday's school bus hijacking by two teenagers. The school bus was loaded with young students who were taken on a horrific journey from one part of my constituency to another. It was a relief for all of us that the incident ended without injury or loss of life.

Canadians want the rights of victims placed above the rights of the accused in the justice system, but these two perpetrators are protected by the Young Offenders Act. Their identities are protected. Canadians feel that regardless of age, kidnapping, hijacking and the use of firearms in the commission of an offence should be dealt with in an adult court.

The Liberal government has promised to make significant changes to the Young Offenders Act. So far it has only tinkered

with it. This is pure balderdash. The Liberals promised to get tough on crime and violent crime in particular. The present government has failed to make Canadians' homes, streets and schools safe.

[Minister Of National Defence, May 29th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I will ask the questions. The minister's job is to answer them.

I have the contracts, I have the guidelines. The minister has broken the guidelines. Canadians can see that there is no value for money in these contracts. The minister hired a musical conductor to do partisan work in the minister's riding. Karabekos is not the only political hack that the minister has rewarded with cushy contracts. There have been three others as well.

Will the minister tell the House if the pork barrel contracts end here, or does he plan to hire every campaign worker on his team?

[Minister Of National Defence, May 29th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of National Defence has been trying to defend his pork barrel abuse of his budget. He says he saved the taxpayers millions of dollars. This is bogus. In fact, the minister and Karabekos cost taxpayers millions of dollars.

According to information I have received directly from Veterans Affairs, it admits that Karabekos was instrumental in extending benefits that the government had planned to cut off in the March 1995 budget.

Will the minister not admit that he abused his budget, rewarding campaign pals with cushy contracts that cost Canadians millions of dollars?

[Government Contracts, May 28th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I am not sure the Canadian public will be happy to hear that we now have patronage budgets for ministers.

The President of the Treasury Board keeps saying that he conducted a thorough investigation into these contracts. The investigation was a joke. Whom did he ask? He asked Department of National Defence officials if they followed Treasury Board guidelines and to everyone's surprise, they said yes. It is like asking the fox to mind the chicken coup.

Given these blatant abuses and conflicts of interest, why has the ethics counsellor not been called in to look at this matter?

[Government Contracts, May 28th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, the defence minister has abused his budget and now the President of the Treasury Board is in a conflict of interest trying to cover it up for him. I have seen the contracts. They are an example of contract splitting at its worst. The minister knows this and is condoning the practice.

Why does the President of the Treasury Board think it is acceptable for the defence minister to engineer contracts rewarding his campaign pals through Treasury Board guidelines?

[Government Contracts, May 27th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, the facts speak for themselves. The Minister of National Defence has abused his special ministerial discretionary budget to reward campaign pals in his very own riding. This budget is intended to benefit all Canadians, not political friends of the minister.

Will the Prime Minister restore some integrity to his government and order his Minister of National Defence to pay back the $150,000 taxpayers' dollars of money that he has siphoned to the pockets of his campaign pals?

[Government Contracts, May 27th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, when in opposition the Liberals railed against Mulroney for lining the pockets of his buddies at taxpayers' expense. Now Canadians learn that the defence minister has handed out at

least seven contracts of over $150,000. All the money has gone into the pockets of his campaign pals.

Why did the Prime Minister think it was unacceptable for Brian Mulroney to award his friends with lucrative contracts but he thinks it is acceptable for the Minister of National Defence?