Gerry Ritz

[National Defence, April 22nd, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, we see today that 69% of Canadians do not buy the excuses made by the Liberal jet setters over there. No one questions that the Challenger 604 is a better aircraft, after all it is 19 years newer, has better technology and we are pre-buying $8 million worth of spare parts. That goes a long way toward warranty claims.

What Canadians really want to know is who over there ordered the immediate replacement of the Challengers instead of the heavy lift aircraft and Sea King replacements our armed forces really need?

[Government Expenditures, April 19th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I will take 34% more holidays.

It is tax time again and Canadian taxpayers have serious doubts about the Liberal government's priorities. When they see $100 million going to upgrade the Prime Minister's flying circus instead of the very real priorities of water treatment plants or highway improvements, they get upset, and rightly so.

Would the minister not agree that newer, faster, more efficient jets should at least carry a newer, faster, more efficient government?

[Government Expenditures, April 19th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, another Liberal ad going there.

The numbers on the new Challenger jets just do not add up and there is a very good reason for that. It is March madness spending at its worst. There is nothing in the budget, nothing in the main estimates, no planning whatsoever.

I am sure the auditor general will have a hoot with this program come the next time she tables her report.

In November 1992, the current minister of public works asked:

--when will this old and tired government learn that the taxpayers' money does not belong to the Tories and that they cannot use it to reward their friends?

What has changed?

[Points of Order, April 18th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday, in response to a question from my colleague from Macleod, the Minister of National Defence twice stated that he would be happy to table the cost breakdown on the contract for the new Challengers.

Unfortunately, I guess he forgot shortly after question period. I am wondering if the Chair could maybe expedite that for us. Maybe the minister could table it today.

[Government Expenditures, April 18th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, nobody is concerned about the quality of the Challengers. What we are concerned about is the quality of the contract. In 1986 while in opposition, again the Minister of Public Works and Government Services said “Sole source contracts can only be given where there is a pressing emergency in which a delay would be injurious to the public interest”.

Now that he is on the government side, will he just admit that his department has broken all the rules to purchase two Challenger jets from his friends at Bombardier? It is a kind of sneaky subsidy thing. When will he just cancel the order?

[Government Expenditures, April 18th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, in 1992 the present Minister of Public Works and Government Services demanded to know “Why does this tired old government think that the rules are made to be broken?”

Ten years ago the minister knew that a sole source contract, signed in the dead of night behind closed doors, was wrong. We can appreciate that the Challengers may one day need replacement, just like the government, but we see no reason to ignore the rules to do it.

This contract is too big to be sole sourced, does not represent any emergency, can be fulfilled by more than one firm and it is definitely not in the public interest at this time. Who ordered this minister to break his own rules?

[Health, April 17th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, the auditor general sees it a little differently. She says this Health Canada program “does not address the requirement to properly control and manage government assets”.

Again I ask the minister of public works, does he have any proof that this March madness training was ever delivered?

[Health, April 17th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday the auditor general reported that Health Canada accepted a $300,000 bid to supply telecommunications training. The contract, which was signed on March 31, 1998, stipulated that the training must be completed the very same day. Despite the fact that Health Canada could never explain how this training could be accomplished in one day, public works paid the bill.

How can the minister of public works justify this outrageous abuse of taxpayers' money?

[Government Expenditures, April 16th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, that process has been well underway for 21 years. Tomorrow is a long way off.

Yesterday the Prime Minister said that the government as a whole made the decision to blow $100 million on jets that we really do not need at this time. Somebody decided to trample sound accounting procedures and then plucked $100 million from the already stretched military budget. That was March madness at its finest.

We really would like to know which one of the high flyers over there actually signed off on this $100 million fiasco?

[Government Expenditures, April 16th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, this past week Canadian taxpayers have continued to hear a litany of excuses as to why these Liberal high flyers need new jets. They claim the present Challengers are out of date. They are 19 years old yet the government's own report says they are fine.

The Sea Kings are twice that age and continue to carry our military personnel into war zones. I would suggest to the Prime Minister that they have more than two or three urgent landings a week.

Does the Minister of Public Works and Government Services have a new excuse today or will he just cancel this unwarranted expense?