House of Commons photoWon his last election, in 2011, with 56% of the vote.
Government Contracts June 7th, 2002
Mr. Speaker, this government had a detailed knowledge of the obvious problems at the department of public works. However, instead of making real changes, it hid the problems.
Why does this government invest so much energy in covering up for itself and why does it make so little effort to deal with the real issues and the real scandals?
Supply June 6th, 2002
Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order: Why was he fired?
Supply June 6th, 2002
Madam Speaker, I just want to let the hon. member for Mississauga West know that nobody in this place, including his colleagues, are surprised to know that he has a $700 a month bill for hot air. This comes as no surprise to anybody.
I have what is a simple question, I suppose, for the member. He bragged about the legacy of the Liberal Party since 1993 in balancing the budget, cutting taxes and doing all kinds of wonderful things. If the Liberal Party has done such a good job, why did it just fire its finance minister?
Supply June 6th, 2002
He was talking about you.
Supply June 6th, 2002
Flat tax.
Government Contracts June 6th, 2002
Mr. Speaker, while the Liberals applaud like trained seals cleaning chalkboard erasers, I think Canadians are less than impressed by that answer. Canadians deserve an apology for that.
Taxpayers pay for the CBC. Taxpayers paid for the ads. Now they pay Groupaction to run the ads that they paid for on a station that they already own. Then Groupaction gives $112,000 of the $630,000 contract to the Liberal Party as a donation.
Why do the Liberals not apologize to Canadians for this gross corruption?
Government Contracts June 6th, 2002
Mr. Speaker, two Liberal connected firms, Groupaction and Media IDA Vision, earned $630,000 in commissions for placing $45 million worth of government ads with the CBC.
The CBC is a federal crown corporation. Why did taxpayers have to pay Groupaction $630,000 to place government ads on a government TV station?
Public Safety Act, 2002 May 30th, 2002
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise to speak to this amendment to the amendment. Before getting into my speech, I would like to congratulate my colleagues from the Bloc Quebecois for their great effort in fighting the government on Bill C-55.
We understand very well why the Bloc Quebecois and Quebecers in general do not trust this government since the events of 1970. They have good reason to be suspicious of this government because of past decisions that affected the province the Quebec.
The situation is similar in western Canada. Historically, a Liberal government appropriated natural resources in that region. We understand perfectly the issue of civil liberties and the reason why members of the Bloc Quebecois are so intent on protecting these liberties from this government.
When the government decided to introduce Bill C-55 members from every party and every part of the country were hopeful that the lessons of the defeat of Bill C-42 that the government experienced had been learned.
The big problem with Bill C-55 is twofold. A number of the complaints raised by my colleagues from the Progressive Conservative Party and the Bloc Quebecois are entirely in sync with those of the Canadian Alliance. We also find it frustrating that the government does not take seriously the idea of fighting the war on terrorism, getting involved and making a substantive contribution.
Let us look at the way the armed forces have been treated by the government during Canada's contribution to the war on terrorism in Afghanistan. The troops are now being withdrawn but, lo and behold, their desert environment camouflage uniforms will be ready in the second week of July. The government's timing is impeccable.
Bill C-42 had a number of problems that the government belatedly acknowledged. The unfortunate thing about politicians, and maybe this is the alpha male side of politics coming out, is that for some reason no matter how many times Canadians beat them over the head, they cannot admit when they have made a mistake. We consider the war on terrorism a serious crisis. When the attacks took place in New York city, Washington, D.C., and on the flight over Pennsylvania, the Americans said that anybody who participated in the war on terrorism should consider having a war declared upon them.
Canada had a war declared on it by terrorists, people who were willing to murder civilians to make some obtuse and nonsensical political point. However, the government acted about as quickly as molasses. It was embarrassing.
When the government introduced Bill C-42 it was full of holes. It knew it was full of holes. It was inadequate and did not fund our armed forces, did not secure the civil liberties of Canadians, and did not do many of the things that Canadians expected at a time of war. The government should have admitted it had made a mistake, pulled it back and moved forward to introduce a new piece of legislation.
Bill C-42 was pulled back just prior to Christmas. Bill C-55 was introduced and even the transport minister who was the minister responsible, which is a curious person to be responsible for the bill, said Bill C-55 was 90% the same as Bill C-42. Surely the government had received the message between September 11 and February or March when the bill was introduced that Canadians expected more from the government in terms of supporting the armed forces.
More was expected in terms of the Sea King helicopters, submarines and desert environment camouflage uniforms. However, the government put in place interim orders for cabinet ministers. What is interesting is that when the government introduced Bill C-42 the timeframe that a number of cabinet ministers were allowed to invoke interim order was 90 days. That was pulled back in Bill C-55. The government said it understood the concerns of Canadians about the idea of giving interim order powers to cabinet ministers so it reduced it from 90 days to 45 days.
That was an arbitrary, ad hoc cutting of 90 days in half to 45 days. When we had our briefing prior to the public announcement and tabling of Bill C-55 we asked department officials what new principle was being accomplished or achieved by cutting from 90 to 45 days. They shrugged and said they are were cutting it in half because it was more accountable. There was no new principle being put in place. Nothing has been learned. I find this a curious thing.
I want to discuss the idea of putting in an interim order measure for cabinet ministers, and believe me the Canadian Alliance takes seriously the idea of working on a non-partisan basis to advance the country's national interest particularly in time of war. However, the only reason we can see behind cutting the latitude for imposing interim orders without getting cabinet approval from 90 to 45 days is to isolate the decision of invoking an interim order around a particular cabinet minister. The political damage associated with putting in place a bad interim order would be isolated to that one cabinet minister and would not spread throughout the entire cabinet.
There is no reason whatsoever for that, even if we take the example of September 11, and the House leader for the government knows this very well. On September 11 there were 300 or 400 planes that were grounded and hundreds of those planes were grounded in Gander, Halifax, and Toronto because the United States did not want them flying into the northeast of the United States. Those planes were grounded on the order of the government, the Prime Minister and the transport minister. It happened within minutes of knowing that planes had flown into the World Trade Center towers.
The government did not need any interim order measures to do that. It just did it. Those powers were there. They were in existence and the government did not need Bill C-55 to ground those planes. The government does not need these powers.
I will now give a private sector example. If General Motors were to have a vehicle with faulty airbags it would decide to recall this particular vehicle. In order to make that decision all it has to do is get a quorum of the board of directors together and have a majority of the quorum decide to do that.
My guess is that a majority quorum of the board of directors of a large company like General Motors could probably get themselves organized together inside of about six hours if it is a serious emergency. We are a G-8 nation with unlimited technological capacities to get members of cabinet together. If we cannot get a majority quorum of cabinet together to decide to invoke an interim order then I question the capacity of the government's ability to tie its shoes and to remember to put on its underwear before it does that.
This is simple stuff. We have all the technological capacities to do this. We have telephones and video conferencing, all of which count in terms of getting people together for cabinet meetings. There is no reason why that standard could not be put together.
I would suggest, within the context of criticizing the government's interim order measures in Bill C-55, that given the recent scandals that we have seen in the House, and we have seen the minister of immigration who has the Speaker's ear which is always good, that Canadians are thinking about their leaders. We see scandals associated with the minister of immigration who does not like to answer those questions in the House. We see scandals associated with the former minister of public works and the former former minister of public works. We see scandals associated with now the former minister of defence. We see scandals associated with the current justice minister, and the current solicitor general.
The idea right now of giving individual cabinet ministers the ad hoc power to invoke interim orders without having to go to cabinet for full approval for 45 days is more than a little suspicious for every day Canadians. Canadians are thinking to themselves about this group of people in power. This is a group of people who are anxious to avoid accountability for their actions, who do not even stand up in question period and answer simple, obvious questions, such as those asked of the minister of immigration about why he changed his story about staying at the Boulay lodge. One day he said he was not there and the next day the minister said he was there.
The solicitor general is hiding behind the Deputy Prime Minister. For whatever reason he cannot seem to summon the will to stand up in the House and answer the most simple questions. With that reality, Canadians are suspicious of the capacity of the government to take responsibility for its actions, face the cameras and face the nation through this House. The government does not seem to be able to answer those simple questions.
Canadians are more than a little suspicious and would look rather jaundicely at giving cabinet ministers more power to invoke interim orders on an ad hoc basis without cabinet or parliamentary approval. Canadians have every reason to be suspicious of that. The government has not addressed the concerns of Bill C-42. Bill C-55 is a terrible piece of legislation. I congratulate all my colleagues for opposing it.
Government Contracts May 30th, 2002
Mr. Speaker, Canadians deserve an open and transparent way out of the contract mess of the government. There are two simple things the government can do to do that.
The first thing is the British have made public the ethical standards of their cabinet ministers and in fact they are published on the web. The government can do that. It is a very simple thing. The second thing is that the inquiry into the contract mess should be made public. These are two very simple things in which at one time in the past the Liberal government used to believe.
Why are these simple ideas so hard for the government to grasp?
Government Contracts May 30th, 2002
Mr. Speaker, the justice minister has acknowledge that Jean Lafleur is a friend of his and that he will continue to have a friendly relationship with him even though an RCMP investigation is under way.
Is this the way the minister of justice should conduct himself? Is it right for the minister of justice to pal around with someone who is at the centre of a serious police investigation that may involve a violation of the public trust?