David Collenette

[National Defence, May 1st, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I know my colleague has shown a great interest in this matter and I commend him for it. He will remember that the bureau of competition did conduct an exhaustive review of this particular issue. The interdepartmental committees worked on contracting procedures and found that all of these procedures did comply with all aspects of competition law.

A number of recommendations were made for increasing the competition and encouraging new companies to bid for this business. A number of measures were implemented in the past year, and as a result of the changes there were four new companies that did engage in the bidding process. It now turns out that both of the successful companies that won are run by the same person and for unknown reasons have withdrawn from the competition.

There will be further information coming on this file a little later. I want to assure the hon. member that we have taken his suggestions into consideration in the formulation of our new policy.

[Bosnia And Croatia, May 1st, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister has made it known a number of times, as well as all of us in the government, that if the arms embargo was lifted it would precipitate Canada to take its soldiers out of ex-Yugoslavia.

In principle, we do not favour doing anything unilaterally. We are working with our allies on the ground. A concerted effort will be made to deal with all the problems there. Should those forces have to leave, it will be done in co-operation with those with whom we are serving.

[Bosnia And Croatia, May 1st, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, we know it is a very dangerous situation in the former Yugoslavia. Canadian soldiers are making a heroic effort to continue to discharge their mission.

With respect to the question of the mandate, that was debated in the House some weeks ago. We re-engaged for a further six months and nothing has caused the Government to Canada to change its mind since that time.

[Seagram, April 28th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member obviously does not know the procedure for reporting the use of government jets. Every month the use of jets is made public.

We have lots of calls on lots of issues. That information will be public within 30 days. There have been no complaints about the procedure.

I find it rather odd the member would raise it in this context. My officials were absolutely correct in saying to the member that they could not give the information to him today, because there is an established procedure and it is working.

[Government Spending, April 26th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, a number of adjustments have been made with respect to the

veterans affairs budget which reflect the cost of living. A number of adjustments have been made for economic reasons.

I will take the hon. member's question and discuss it with officials, who are busy with the Canada remembers ceremonies, and I will get back to him with an answer.

[National Defence, April 26th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member seems to be advocating even greater cuts in the budget of the Department of National Defence.

I would like to point out that while the members for the official opposition advocated in the last election a 25 per cent cut in federal expenditures in defence, when we have cut not nearly by that amount but by a significant amount over the last couple of years, the first to object to the application of those cuts are the hon. members for the Bloc Quebecois.

[National Defence, April 26th, 1995]

First, Mr. Speaker, the department must realize all the savings as announced in the 1995 budget as with 1994, simply because we have only so much money that floated by Parliament to the department. Therefore, rest assured the budget cuts that were announced will be put in place as they were in 1994.

I would like to dispute what my friend opposite said when he talks about the problems with the Canadian frigate program. As with all new technological developments, and the fact that a lot of new integrated systems require pioneering developmental work with the frigate, there are teething problems. There are problems with getting accustomed to the new technologies.

However, what the hon. member has conveniently forgotten to mention is that this project has come in about a billion dollars under budget.

[National Defence, April 26th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I might remind the hon. member he was a member of the special joint committee on defence which recommended to the government that we explore the possibility of replacing the Oberon submarines. That is what we have done.

I know members of his party had some disagreement with the basic elements of the report but I do not remember his actually dissociating himself from the part of the report that dealt with submarines.

[National Defence, April 26th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, it amazes me how people can go to committee, hear an answer, then come to the House of Commons and completely give a distortion like the hon. member has.

I said that the government has given authority to me as minister and my officials to explore the possibility of purchasing secondhand submarines from the British navy.

Discussions have been ongoing. At a certain point in time, my colleagues in the cabinet will have to decide whether or not they wish the Government of Canada to purchase those submarines.

[National Defence, April 25th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, what I have said, and I said it on that program, is that defence expenditures are not an instrument of equalization. There are other programs of the Government of Canada to attain those objectives.

I did say that in any capital program we do our best to ensure there are regional benefits, that all regions of the country benefit proportionately.

I underline for the hon. member that much of the defence industry is located in the province of Quebec. If he checks the records he will see that much of the capital spending that has been engaged in by ministers of defence in the past has been on industries located in his province.

I do not expect that to change.