Mr. Speaker, it is an honour and a privilege to stand today on behalf of the people of Okanagan-Similkameen-Merritt and all Canadians in opposition to the Bloc motion.
House of Commons photoWon his last election, in 1997, with 53% of the vote.
Supply November 21st, 1995
Mr. Speaker, it is an honour and a privilege to stand today on behalf of the people of Okanagan-Similkameen-Merritt and all Canadians in opposition to the Bloc motion.
Department Of Human Resources Development Act November 20th, 1995
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to rise on behalf of the people of Okanagan-Similkameen-Merritt to oppose Bill C-96, an act to establish the Department of Human Resources Development and to amend and repeal certain related acts.
As we all know, this piece of so-called legislative genius proposes to transfer legal powers from one department to a new department. A new department. Another department.
Once again the Liberals are not listening to Canadians. Canadians have repeatedly demanded, in fact they have begged, the Liberals to reduce the size of the federal government. All over the world, western democracies are reducing the size of bureaucratic monsters. Canadian provinces are doing everything they can to reduce the size of their operations. Other governments are trying to eliminate the waste of taxpayers' dollars, to eliminate duplication of tasks, to eliminate overlap in duties and to eliminate inefficiency and ineffectiveness. Not the Liberal Party of Canada.
The federal government, under the command of a man who brought our country to the brink of destruction, is creating more bureaucracy and red tape.
The Liberals are quick to say that this legislation only serves to reinforce existing federal powers for social programs. In the current post-referendum phase in which we are living Canadians do not want to reinforce any areas of federal government intervention. In fact, Canadians are demanding alternatives to the status quo.
The Liberals insist the legislation does not create any new powers for the federal government. How can we believe this, given the Liberal government's intention to increase government and to reinforce its firm grip of power over social programs for Canadians?
The Liberals are silent with respect to the increase or decrease of staff in the human resources development sector. There is nothing more scary than a silent Liberal, unless it is the Liberal defence minister saying that he needs a pen. In fact, this legislation contains a royal recommendation which authorizes expenditures that are undisclosed. Undisclosed?
This bill is a masterpiece of Liberal silence. Ask any Liberal member and he or she will tell you with a straight face that any expenditure under the bill is expected to be minimal, so Canadians have nothing to worry about.
The defence minister's new quill-tipped, gold lettering engraved pens, encased in some kind of black velvet, were a minimal expense.
The Liberal government's $100 million gun registry is a minimal expense. Most non-Liberal Party sources agree that $100 million is the minimal amount that the punishment of law-abiding, responsible firearms owners and users is going to cost. On the subject of how much the gun registry is going to cost, most authorities, that is those who do not belong to the Liberal Party of Canada, believe it will cost Canadian taxpayers much more than $100 million.
Since this past August I have uncovered over $100 million worth of wasteful and questionable spending by the Minister of National Defence and his senior officials. One hundred million dollars means nothing at all to this Liberal government. It has only to be careful to make sure that the defence minister does not spend $100 million on gold-plated pens.
The Reform Party of Canada is looking forward to building a new Canada of the 21st century. The Reform Party has a program which would allow the federal government to withdraw from fields it currently occupies jointly with the provinces.
The provincial premiers are in favour of negotiating the transfer of power from the federal government to the provincial governments. The Reform Party's voice has no attachment to the status quo. The Reform Party is not interested in dragging our country back into a constitutional quagmire. Our 20-point plan can modernize and decentralize the country, something for which Canadians are clearly asking.
Bill C-96 is an embarrassment to the Liberal government. The Liberals should withdraw this phoney bill. The Prime Minister has nearly smashed our nation to smithereens as a result of his complete misunderstanding of the will of the people of Quebec and all other provinces. The Prime Minister misjudged the referendum within Quebec. He misjudged the referendum as a national issue. Canadians had to take it on themselves to travel to Quebec to express their wish for that province to remain in our family.
Canadians were hoping the Prime Minister would lead the way in assuring Quebecers that all Canadians wanted Quebec to vote no. Canadians as usual since October 1993 were sorely disappointed by the Prime Minister. We have been let down. The Prime Minister and the Liberals have lost the confidence of our nation. Yet the Liberals are busy creating another federal government department. This is pure balderdash.
The Minister of Human Resources Development and the Minister of Western Economic Diversification has been fudging his handling of Canadian social programs since the Liberals took office. The infamous red book made lofty promises of social policy reform. This minister has yet to be able to get anything meaningful past the Liberal cabinet.
The bill is a desperate attempt by this minister to do something about our nation's social policy. Canadians want social policy reform. This bill creates bureaucracy. It does not reduce government or reform social policy. This bill takes the existing situation and shuffles it all around.
The Reform Party is offering Canadians the opportunity to decentralize powers to the provinces and truly reform our public tax supported institutions. We propose to get our money's worth from what we have to work with. Unlike the Liberals, we want to
bring power closer to the grassroots of Canada. We do not propose to continue allowing bureaucrats in Ottawa to answer their phones and just say no to whatever the people of British Columbia, Ontario, Quebec, Nova Scotia and all other provinces are asking.
Western Canadians have as many problems with the status quo as our Quebec counterparts. Virtually all Canadians want change and the Liberals do not realize it. Our forefathers managed to change our nation each time we were faced with difficulties in how we would govern ourselves.
In terms of social services, including medical services, we propose to change the role of the federal government to that of fostering co-operative interprovincial agreements rather than imposing unilateral standards and withholding transfer payments as a punishment for non-conformity. By proceeding with the bill the Liberal Party is acting completely against the will of Canadians. The government should be ashamed.
I must sound the alarm for Canadians watching that the bill does away with an annual report for the new department. As hard as it is to believe, even though we are $550 billion in debt the Liberals are creating a department of the federal government that does not even have to report its administration costs.
The Liberal Party and its leader have been terribly smitten because they have been trying to appease Quebec without consideration for the wants and desires of other provinces.
The Reform Party is rising like a phoenix out of the west. After the next election the Reform Party will have at least an additional 100 seats. These seats will come from lost Liberal seats in rural Ontario and eastern Canada. The grassroots movement of our party is a wave that is sweeping across the nation. After the next election Canadians will see a new form of federalism come to the country with the Reform Party of Canada as a new government.
On behalf of my constituents and all Canadians I say no to Bill C-96.
National Defence November 9th, 1995
Mr. Speaker, again the minister did not answer the question I posed.
Does the minister realize the destruction of significant incident reports after six months could prevent situations like the Somali affair from ever becoming public?
What will the minister do to the correct the problem?
National Defence November 9th, 1995
Mr. Speaker, yesterday I raised two incidents of alleged misconduct and cover-up by the senior management team surrounding the Minister of National Defence.
Today I want to ask the minister about his policy on significant incident reports. I have learned from the information commissioner that these reports are now only retained for six months and then they are destroyed. Significant incident reports are the documents the Somalia inquiry is based on.
Why has the minister changed the policy in order to have these reports destroyed after only six months?
National Defence November 8th, 1995
Mr. Speaker, today we have strong evidence against at least two of the minister's senior officials, the chief of the defence staff and Lieutenant-General Boyle, who has denied the existence of documents which have surfaced with his signature on them.
Was the minister's helicopter press conference today a feeble attempt to divert the attention of Canadians away from yet more reports of corruption, deception and misconduct by officials surrounding the minister?
National Defence November 8th, 1995
Mr. Speaker, as usual I am asking questions concerning the Minister of National Defence's mismanagement of his portfolio.
This morning the military police revealed documents alleging fraud by the chief of the defence staff. Access to information documents show the CDS has misused public funds.
Canadians have serious problems with the defence department's continually having to investigate itself because of the minister's mismanagement.
Has the CDS offered his resignation or has the minister demanded the resignation of the CDS?
Indian Affairs November 6th, 1995
Mr. Speaker, the minister knows full well that there is no roadblock at this particular point.
I have spent the past two weeks personally seeking out the minister in an attempt to have him do something about this situation. The British Columbia government is helpless. Its hands are tied. Canadians have already learned that the federal government's inaction was a major cause of the Oka crisis. The B.C. government has been consistently reminding the federal government of its duties and responsibilities.
Will the minister take action now and prevent another Gustafsen Lake?
Indian Affairs November 6th, 1995
Mr. Speaker, the Penticton Indian band and the British Columbia government have failed to reach an agreement regarding the Green Mountain Road, a federally owned road. Yet another Indian band in British Columbia is poised to set up roadblocks and the band has threatened violence.
We have been constantly asking the government to exercise its constitutional duty to be responsible for Indians and lands reserved to Indians.
What is the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development going to do about the situation?
Question Passed As Order For Return November 3rd, 1995
With respect to the decision by the government to cancel the EH-101 Program, ( a ) what is the total cancellation cost the government must assume including (i) penalties paid to contracted companies, (ii) research and development costs incurred by the government, ( b ) what was the total cost the former government had allotted to spend on the EH-101 acquisition program including spare parts and pilot training and ( c ) how much was to be spent annually on the EH-101 Program during the lifetime of the program?
Return tabled.
Questions On The Order Paper November 3rd, 1995
With respect of the Department of National Defence's white paper promise to purchase new search and rescue and shipborne helicopters, ( a ) does the government intend to purchase one helicopter for both roles or two, ( b ) what is the total amount of money the government is allotting to the purchase of new search and rescue and shipborne helicopters, ( c ) over how many years will the new search and rescue and shipborne helicopters be purchased, ( d ) how much money will be allotted annually to a program to purchase new search and rescue and shipborne helicopters ( e ) is the government considering purchasing a scaled down version of the EH-101 and if so will companies awarded penalties due to the cancellation of the former government's EH-101 Program be getting new contracts?