Stephen Harper

[Government Expenditures, September 30th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question.

I hope the Prime Minister will agree that verbal commitments or verbal agreements made at dinner meetings, cocktail parties or on golf courses are not the proper way to conduct the business of the Government of Canada. This is an extremely dangerous route to go.

When the Prime Minister spoke to former Prime Minister Mulroney did he ask him whether there were any verbal agreements with various other parties, for example, with the Pearson consortium or the EH-101 contract? When he does do that, how much does he feel the taxpayers of Canada will be dinged for on those verbal commitments?

[Government Expenditures, September 30th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, last night Canadian taxpayers became aware that they had an additional financial obligation of $34.5 million, two years after a Conservative government supposedly committed to it and months after a Liberal government had been in the process of denying that commitment existed.

Governments have a moral obligation to fulfil their commitments, but governments have an obligation to undertake those commitments in a financially and legally responsible manner. The Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs has repeatedly assured the House that no formal or written documentation existed on this agreement at the relevant time period.

What I want to know from the Prime Minister is what are the guidelines in this government and in the previous government for senior officials, for cabinet and for cabinet ministers to undertake these kinds of financial obligations on behalf of Canadian taxpayers and how precisely are those criteria fulfilled in this case?

[Rights Of Members, September 29th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, as we have come to expect, that answer was wonderfully irrelevant.

The supplementary question I have is on the issue of free votes. It has been the practice in the House and in most legislatures that on basic moral issues there are free votes. Even the NDP government in Ontario recently allowed free votes on issues related to sexual orientation.

Will the government remove the whips and allow free votes on issues of sexual orientation that pertain to government legislation?

[Rights Of Members, September 29th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, you will know that one of the most ancient and most basic rights of Parliament is the right of free speech. Furthermore we practise this extensively to the point of tolerating 54 members of Parliament who use it for the primary purpose of breaking up the country.

According to press reports it is now the policy of the government that this right cannot be exercised when it involves government members whose moral and religious views may conflict with government policy.

Can the government categorically deny these reports and assure the House that government members, and all members, have the right to object to government policy on moral and religious bases in the House and outside of the House, whether those views are the same as those of the Minister of Justice or not?

[Questions On The Order Paper, September 27th, 1994]

With regard to grain cars purchased or leased using federal public funds, ( a ) who is responsible for allocating their use, ( b ) what is their present geographic distribution, and ( c ) how is the revenue resulting from their time-mileage use accounted for?

[Taxation, September 26th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, earlier in question period in refusing to rule out new taxes on RRSPs and private pension plans, the Minister of Finance referred to the necessity to consult Canadians on this issue.

Will the minister tell the House precisely which Canadians have been demanding new taxes on their RRSPs and private pension plans? Is it not true in fact that only this government and this minister want to see these new taxes?

[National Unity, September 21st, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question.

It is in the interests of this party and should be in the interests of the government to get the views of all Canadians on the unity of the country. I am surprised that the Prime Minister does not want that.

Here is my supplementary question: Does the Prime Minister intend to contact officially the new Quebec Government to urge it to respect its commitment and hold its referendum as quickly as possible, on the simple question of Quebec separation?

[National Unity, September 21st, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, you will know there has been some debate outside the House this week concerning the date of a referendum in Quebec. You will also know that many Canadians, after 25 years, are sick and tired of this separatist merry-go-round.

I would like the Prime Minister to clarify for the House whether he has clearly communicated the position of his government, of the vast majority of members of the House and the vast majority of the population of Canada that the premier of Quebec should fulfil his commitment to have this referendum as soon as possible. What assurances has he received in that regard?

[Questions On The Order Paper, September 19th, 1994]

For the last five years, ( a ) how many Canadian Forces members have filed an application for a redress of grievance, ( b ) what is the mean length of time to process a redress from date of filing to final resolution, and ( c ) what percentage of redresses are decided in favour of the applicant?

[National Defence, September 19th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, since the budget in February there has been growing concern in Calgary regarding the cost of the government's plan to transfer the Lord Strathcona's Horse and the First Service Battalion from CFB Calgary to CFB Edmonton.

Initial government estimates placed costs at $23 million. However, the government has now admitted revised costs of an additional $21 million for construction and renovation. Another $30 million is likely needed to clean up existing ranges. The cost for defaulting on leases will probably be around $16 million and of course there are other costs.

Recently released documents indicate that DND's primary rationale for this is to compensate Edmonton for the loss of three AIRCOM squadrons.

I call on the minister to obtain an independent cost assessment in light of all new information and to hold this decision in abeyance until that time. A failure to re-evaluate this decision can only be interpreted as contempt for the intelligence and the money of taxpayers.