Preston Manning

[Government Of Canada, June 21st, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, the government also promised to put an end to the politics of patronage and backroom deals.

But over the last 20 months what have we witnessed: $26 million diverted in Nova Scotia from highway 104 to a road in the riding of the minister of public works, campaign workers lined up in Victoria for patronage plums from the justice department, and the Liberal family contact rewarded again and again with government contracts and favourable cabinet decisions. This is like a rerun of an old movie: Brian Mulroney Part II.

Will the Prime Minister make a new commitment today to purge political patronage from his administration by restoring funding to highway 104 and by disciplining members tainted by patronage, starting with the minister of public works?

[Government Of Canada, June 21st, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, as this session comes to an end the great imperative for the Prime Minister is to re-establish the ethical standards of his government.

When the government came to power it promised to make government integrity its number one priority but 20 months later that red book promise is in tatters with ministers flouting the federal code of ethics, the ethics counsellor reduced to impotence, and the Prime Minister defending party loyalty and discipline over the principles of democracy and ethics.

Will the Prime Minister send a clear signal to Canadians today that unethical behaviour in government will not be tolerated? Will he can tainted ministers, starting with the Minister of Canadian heritage?

[Bosnia, June 20th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, no one is advocating instant solutions to this problem. We have been consistent on our position with respect to what should be done in that part of the world for the last year.

Due to the absence of a coherent government policy on peacekeeping in Yugoslavia, Canadians soldiers have been from one hostage crisis to another.

Since November last year Reform has been calling on the minister to consider the well-being of our peacekeepers and to develop specific criteria for their involvement or their disengagement in Bosnia. The government has steadfastly refused.

Given the increased use of UN soldiers as hostages and military pawns and their declining ability to fulfil their original humanitarian mandate, will the government make a commitment now to withdraw our soldiers from Bosnia as soon as possible?

[Bosnia, June 20th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, we share the minister's consternation but the question is: What are we going to do about it? We have gone from a dozen hostages to 700 and instead of delivering humanitarian aid our troops are now in need of food, water and supplies.

It is our understanding that 20 Canadians stationed at the two observation posts outside Visoko will run out of rations by Friday and the 700 soldiers held at the base have only enough food to last for two weeks.

What steps is the government taking to ensure the safe passage of supplies to our soldiers in and around Visoko and is the government taking any direct leadership role in this matter or merely leaving negotiations up to the local commander?

[Bosnia, June 20th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, while we wrangle about Canadian unity and the relative safety of the Chamber, Canadian lives are at risk in the former Yugoslavia.

We have learned directly from the Canadian camp at Visoko that earlier today Bosnian Muslims placed five anti-tank mines and two rocket propelled grenade launchers across the entrance to our base there.

The Bosnian Muslims have reportedly told our forces that they may not leave the camp and to attempt to do so would invite military retaliation. This means that in effect 700 more Canadian soldiers are now the hostages of yet another warring faction in Bosnia.

Canadians are rightly concerned about the safety of our peacekeepers and disturbed by the escalating nature of the conflict.

Can the minister of defence confirm that this is the situation facing our peacekeepers in Visoko and update the House on the prospects for their release?

[Code Of Ethics, June 19th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, surely the minister can see the difference between a regular political fundraising event and one where a minister is soliciting clients of his own department. If the minister cannot see the difference there, we really have an ethics problem.

No ethics code can be enforced as long as the government practices double standards when it comes to dealing with its own members. Liberal backbenchers who occasionally vote against the government at the direction of their constituents are punished. "I will not sign your nomination papers", says the Prime Minister. However cabinet ministers found flouting the federal code of ethics are defended and even applauded for their actions.

As a discipline for violating the conflict of interest guidelines has the Prime Minister told the heritage minister that he will not be signing his nomination papers at the next election?

[Code Of Ethics, June 19th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, pretending to not see an ethical issue is ignoring it or covering it up. We cannot go on with that vein of reply.

What has also become clear over the last two weeks is that the government's mechanisms and procedures for dealing with breaches in its code of ethics are simply not working. The heritage minister was caught in an obvious conflict of interest, yet the ethics counsellor was powerless to act. The Prime Minister only consulted the ethics counsellor as an afterthought and his report remains a deep, dark secret.

If this government is serious about restoring integrity to government and is unwilling to act itself, will it at least free the hands of the ethics counsellor and make him directly accountable to this Parliament?

[Code Of Ethics, June 19th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, when the government came to power it promised to make integrity a number one priority. The Prime Minister said there was an unprecedented level of public cynicism toward government and unless trust could be restored the political system would not work. Twenty months later the government is practising exactly the same ethics as its predecessor with conflicts of interest, patronage and old style pork barrel politics. What makes matters worse is that the Prime Minister has stubbornly refused to fire or even discipline ministers who violated codes of ethical conduct.

Since the government is unwilling to do the right thing overall, will it at least introduce clearer guidelines for ministerial fundraisers to prevent future conflicts of interest such as those embroiling the heritage minister?

[Minister Of Canadian Heritage, June 14th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, no Prime Minister or Deputy Prime Minister or House leader can present themselves to this House as the guardians of ethics in government unless they can tell right from wrong and unless they are willing to act on discernments of that kind. That is what ethics are all about.

I ask the government House leader one more time, and I will say it slowly so it is clear. Is it right or wrong for ministers to participate in political fundraisers targeted to people having business or regulatory dealings with their departments? If it is wrong, will the heritage minister resign?

[Minister Of Canadian Heritage, June 14th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, Canadians are wondering why the government pretends it cannot see the ethical issue which is involved here. Legitimate political fundraisers involving a minister do not target clients having business or regulatory dealings with the minister's department.

The heritage minister was clearly in the wrong and the government is making matters worse by pretending that it does not see the wrong.

By the ethical standards of the red book, is it right or is it wrong for ministers to participate in political fundraisers targeted to clients having business or regulatory dealings with their departments? Is it right or is it wrong?