Crucial Fact

  • His favourite word was tobacco.

Last in Parliament April 1997, as Liberal MP for Cape Breton—East Richmond (Nova Scotia)

Lost his last election, in 1997, with 38% of the vote.

Statements in the House

Parliament Hill October 27th, 1994

Mr. Speaker, the long range plan developed by the Department of Public Works and Government Services addresses in a logical sequence the need for preservation.

As recent visitors to Parliament Hill will have noticed, we are currently undertaking repairs to restore the Peace Tower and to stabilize the outside masonry of the Centre Block.

We are also installing new water mains that will make it easier to fight fires on the Hill, and of course the government is taking the requisite steps to make the Parliament Buildings conform to the National Building Code.

The first scheduled major rehabilitation project on an occupied building is the West Block.

Following the next dissolution of Parliament we will close down the West Block for a few years and use the Justice Building as alternative office space. Complete repairs to the West Block require the removal of asbestos and we cannot put the health of MPs and staff at risk by keeping the building open during the repairs.

New mechanical and electrical systems must be installed. New fire detection, alarm and sprinkler systems must be in place. New waterproofing, windows, new energy saving devices are required. Sewage facilities must be upgraded. Walls, ceilings and roofs require attention. Elevators, doors and washrooms must be modernized to accommodate the disabled.

When the West Block is reopened, renovation of the Centre Block will begin early in the next century, with MPs and staff from the Centre Block moving to the West Block.

A long range plan is absolutely vital if we are to safeguard the Parliament Buildings. The cost over a 12 to 15 year period is approximately $265 million. Of course we cannot afford to spend all that money at once nor can we afford to shut down the essential operations of Parliament. That is why the plan is over a 12 to 15 year period.

Given the current climate, we are not talking about a Cadillac renovation here. I want to be very clear on this. Consistent with our Chevrolet approach we have prioritized and addressed only the most critical of the health and safety issues that affect the parliamentary precinct. If not, that figure would have been in excess of $450 million.

During the course of renovations we will be working with the House of Commons, the Library of Parliament and the Senate to ensure continued access to visitors to Parliament Hill.

All contracts will be awarded through the open bidding system. Since Parliament Hill is the focal point of Canadian democracy, only Canadian businesses and Canadian workers will be eligible to do the rehabilitation work.

This is not about fancy new furnishings or lavish new offices. It is strictly about protecting our history and guaranteeing the safety, health, environment and accessibility of the Parliament Buildings. Canadians expect the Parliament Buildings to be preserved. They are willing to pay for the renovations if they are done in a prudent, fiscally responsible and open manner, and that is what is being accomplished.

As the minister responsible for public works and government services, I would be happy to report to the standing committee on government operations on the progress that has been made, answer questions members or other individuals might have concerning those expenditures to assure all members that the expenditures are prudent, fiscally responsible and have been carried out in a very open fashion.

On a continuous basis all attempts to minimize to the fullest extent possible potential disruptions resulting from noise, dust or interruption of services are being made.

I sincerely want to thank all members on both sides of the House for their understanding and patience during these major renovations.

May I add my thanks to the Speaker and to all parties in the House of Commons for their advice. As members opposite will know and appreciate, the Board of Internal Economy, which is represented by three political parties, proved to be most helpful on this relocation project.

I am very pleased we have the consent of all the major parties to proceed with this vital initiative which protects the health and

safety of visitors and occupants of the parliamentary buildings, Canada's most important national heritage site.

Let me repeat what I said at the beginning. I apologize to my colleagues if these deliberations and the statement has caused them inconvenience, however they are fully aware that information was provided to government employees and not to members, so I thought it only appropriate that I come to the House at the soonest possible time to share this information with all members of Parliament.

As members opposite know, the subject matter has been discussed at the Board of Internal Economy where all parties have been represented and have had an opportunity to participate. I believe that goes back, if memory serves me correctly, to some time in May of last year.

In conclusion, I regret the inconvenience we may have caused colleagues opposite but I want to indicate to them that I believe this is in the best interest of Canada's national heritage site, the parliamentary precinct.

Parliament Hill October 27th, 1994

If the hon. member finds the subject matter so difficult to comprehend I will read very slowly so that he can understand each and every word. I am prepared to be fully co-operative with the opposition in every way. I was extending an apology for the inconvenience which we caused to the opposition.

However I believe the minister of state and the whip for our party informed the opposition of the miscue which took place. I felt compelled that we would come here this morning to share this information and have members of the opposition add their comments to the decisions which have been arrived at.

I want to take this opportunity to advise members of the House and Canadians whom we represent of the latest initiative related to the long range plan for the preservation and rehabilitation of our most important national symbol, the Parliament Buildings.

Over the last number of years funding for renovations to Parliament Hill has been severely restricted. The Auditor General in his 1992 report noted that the government has neglected to undertake most of the necessary repairs and renovations to the parliamentary precinct identified in the 1970s and the 1980s.

Parliament Hill requires urgent attention. The simple fact is that we can no longer afford to neglect it. Over the next 12 to 15 years, and I wish to underline this point, the buildings and grounds will require considerable attention. During that period we will in turn address the requirements of all buildings on the Hill to guarantee that in the future they remain safe for Canadians and healthy for the occupants.

We want to ensure that the buildings and grounds on Parliament Hill are energy-efficient, are relatively cheap to operate, meet environmental standards and are accessible for all Canadians. We must protect and preserve our national heritage.

The long range plan developed by the Department of Public Works and Government Services addresses in a logical sequence the need for that preservation. As recent visitors to Parliament Hill will have noticed, we are currently undertaking critical repairs to restore the Peace Tower and to stabilize the outside-

Parliament Hill October 27th, 1994

Mr. Speaker, at the outset let me say to my colleagues opposite that I apologize for any inconvenience which may have been caused to them as a result of the statement not getting there earlier as opposed to the late time they received it.

Public Service September 20th, 1994

Mr. Speaker, again I thank the hon. member. I thought he was going to stand in his place and congratulate the Government of Canada.

I will give the hon. member a demonstrable item that the Government of Canada concluded with the province of Quebec in order to rid itself of overlap and duplication. We consummated an agreement relating to housing and the delivery of housing programs in the province of Quebec. It thereby costs less money to the Government of Canada and enables more Quebecers to take advantage of Government of Canada programs.

Public Service September 20th, 1994

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member raises an important question.

I wish to advise him and other members of the House that the mandate as indicated by the Minister of Finance in his last budget has asked each and every minister to do a review of his or her department to find ways in which to increase efficiency. In fact section 5(2)(a) of the Department of Supply and Services Act reads: "investigate and develop services for increasing the efficiency and the economy of the public service of Canada".

I find nothing inherently wrong with the Government of Canada embarking upon a study to try to ascertain the efficiencies in order to do away with duplication and overlap.

Anti-Smoking Advertising June 13th, 1994

Mr. Speaker, no request has been made by the Minister of Health to my department with regard to the comments made by the hon. member.

Dynamic Maintenance Ltd. June 3rd, 1994

Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member has a substantive allegation to make, he should make it. Not only should he make it clearly and unequivocally in this House, but he should also go outside and make that charge in the national media. If he is not prepared to do that and if he is not prepared to consult with the Deputy Registrar General, then I suggest the

hon. member ought to exercise prudence as opposed to irresponsibility.

Dynamic Maintenance Ltd. June 3rd, 1994

Mr. Speaker, to the last part of the hon. member's question, the answer is no.

I find it rather insulting that the hon. member would stand in his place and question the integrity of the Deputy Registrar General who has given an opinion based upon the facts which have been provided to him that no conflict whatsoever exists in this particular case.

If the hon. member wishes to pursue it further, why does he not raise those substantive questions with the Deputy Registrar General?

Dynamic Maintenance Ltd. June 3rd, 1994

Mr. Speaker, I wish to inform my hon. colleague that the contract in question was consummated before the election. Eight bidders were involved in the process and it was whittled down to four. The successful bidder in this particular incident saved the taxpayers of Canada, which I assume is the goal of the hon. member, approximately $3.4 million.

The Deputy Registrar General of Canada has provided an opinion which clearly states that no conflict of interest exists in this particular instance.

Polling June 2nd, 1994

Mr. Speaker, I do not know if the rules permit me to answer a hypothetical question. It is a presumption of the leader of the Reform Party which we do not concur with.