Preston Manning

[Liberal Party, May 6th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, Canadians will not be diverted from the issue at hand, and the issue at hand is the integrity of the government.

When the Liberals were in opposition they denounced NAFTA. Once in power they accepted it. When in opposition they said the CBC budget was sacred. Once in power they slashed it by $377 million. When in opposition the Liberals wanted to kill the GST. Once in power they hid and harmonized it. In opposition the Liberals slammed every single policy the Conservatives dreamed up. Once in power they dressed up legislation and claimed it as their own.

Which Liberal Party should Canadians believe, the Liberals in opposition who denounced every Tory policy, or the Liberals in government who have adopted those policies?

[Liberal Party, May 6th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, during the last election the Prime Minister told Canadians: "There will not be a promise in the campaign that I will not keep".

Once the ballots were counted, however, the Prime Minister changed his tune: "Sometimes in the course of a mandate you are faced with a situation where you cannot deliver. You have to have some flexibility". That is quite a switch.

Who should Canadians believe, the Prime Minister on the campaign trail saying he will keep all his promises, or the Prime Minister in office saying all his promises will not be kept?

[Goods And Services Tax, April 24th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister evades the issue of integrity. If he wants me to repeat something in the House, I will repeat something he said in 1991 when he was in opposition.

He was asked by a fellow Liberal what assurance he could give the people of Canada that the Liberal Party will have a value system that people can trust. The Prime Minister said: "Trust will come when we say we will get rid of the GST. We will have an alternative, but we will not try to buy votes. People want an honest government. They do not want a repetition of what this government", the Mulroney government, "has done to this nation, making promises and breaking them all the time".

How does the Prime Minister reconcile what he said in 1991 with what he has done this week with the GST? Will he admit the integrity of his government is in danger of sinking to the level of the Mulroney administration?

[Goods And Services Tax, April 24th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, today we have witnessed the outrage many members of the House feel about the government's attempt to reinterpret and hide its broken promise on the GST. It is the same outrage felt by millions of Canadians who took that promise at face value.

What the government has done reinforces the public perception that promises made in election campaigns are utterly worthless and that politicians, even prime ministers, cannot be trusted.

In reinforcing that perception, the government has undermined the integrity of every member of the House, regardless of their party.

Will the Prime Minister acknowledge the damage the GST shell game has done to the integrity of politics in Canada, and what, if anything, does he propose to do to repair the damage he has done?

[Liberal Party, April 23rd, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, the question is on free votes. No amount of going around the mulberry bush, no amount of false bravado from the members, will avoid the fact that the question is on free votes in this Parliament.

The Prime Minister is showing the same contempt for question period that he has shown for democratic representation in disciplining the member for York South-Weston.

Liberal spin doctors said that the member for York South-Weston had to be disciplined because he voted against the government, not because he voted against the GST. They implied that if the member had simply voted against the new GST legislation the punishment would not have been necessary.

Let me put this theory to a little test. Will the Prime Minister allow his MPs a free vote on the GST legislation that the finance minister introduced this morning?

[Liberal Party, April 23rd, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, there is a disgusting pattern emerging in this type of answer.

First we have campaign promises: scrap the GST, free votes in the House of Commons. Then we have the red book interpretation, modification, qualification. Then we have the government's action which is something else again. We end up having a simple, clear promise broken and public trust in the government broken. There is no integrity here.

Is it now the government's position not to allow free votes on government legislation?

[Liberal Party, April 23rd, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, on page 92 of the Liberal red book the Liberals promised "more free votes will be allowed in the House of Commons".

This promise is made in a paragraph which also promises MPs a greater role in drafting legislation through House of Commons' committees. It is obviously talking about a free vote on government legislation, not private members' bills.

There have been some free votes on private members' bills in this Parliament and previous Parliaments, but this Prime Minister has steadfastly refused to allow even one free vote on any government legislation.

When will the Prime Minister live up to his red book promise and allow free votes on government legislation?

[Somalia Inquiry, April 17th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, if these remarks constitute the minister's understanding of ministerial accountability, no wonder his department is in a mess and no wonder he is failing.

This minister was the Minister of National Defence when the military hierarchy initially tried to whitewash this whole Somalia affair. He was the Minister of National Defence when these vital documents were tampered with. He was the Minister of National Defence when his officials deliberately tried to block inquiries to the Somalia inquiry.

Whether the minister likes it or not, the buck stops with him. I ask him one more time: Does he accept responsibility for any wrongdoing that the Somalia inquiry determines took place while he was Minister of National Defence?

[Somalia Inquiry, April 17th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I was asking about dereliction of duty. I was not referring to the events that specifically gave rise to the Somalia inquiry. That occurred under another government and led to the establishment of this inquiry. That is not the dereliction of duty I am talking about.

I am referring to the attempted cover-up of data relevant to the Somalia inquiry, a cover-up that occurred under this government and under this minister. I am referring particularly to the alleged scheme by the public affairs branch of DND under General Boyle to rename, hide and even destroy important Somalia documents.

I ask the minister again. Does he accept that this attempted cover-up constitutes a serious dereliction of duty by officials responsible to him in the department?

[Somalia Inquiry, April 17th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday I asked the Minister of National Defence to explain to the House exactly what is his understanding of ministerial accountability, particularly in relation to events surrounding the Somalia inquiry.

We received the weakest answer that any minister has given to a question in this House since the 35th Parliament began, so we want to try again.

According to the doctrine of ministerial accountability, as articulated by a former Liberal Speaker of this House, ministerial responsibility extends to situations where there is a serious dereliction of duty by an official of the minister.

Does the Minister of National Defence accept that the attempted cover-up of data relevant to the Somalia inquiry constitutes a serious dereliction of duty by somebody in his department?