Herb Gray

[Justice, December 7th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, this is a matter based on a decision made by the parole board which operates at arm's length from the minister and from the House of Commons.

I will be happy to draw the hon. member's comments to the attention of the parole board.

[Justice, December 7th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, this matter was put in the hands of the police. It is their responsibility to have this person returned to custody.

[Justice, December 2nd, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I will be happy to get the fullest possible information on this and give it directly to the hon. member. She has raised a serious question.

[Mil Davie Shipyard, December 2nd, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, it is unfortunate that in this difficult situation the hon. member can do nothing but try to sow dissension and ill will between various parts of Canada. I think it is shameful that he misuses this serious situation in this way.

This government wants to treat all involved in a fair and equitable fashion: MIL Davie, the shipyards in Atlantic Canada and everyone else concerned, and that is the way we have been acting. We have used the powers we have and unfortunately they do not extend to having the whole thing reopened. However, we are reviewing the whole process to try and make sure that this unfortunate situation does not happen again.

[Mil Davie Shipyard, December 2nd, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, according to the advice I received, the government does not have the power to have the contract in question reopened but, because it wants to ensure that MIL Davie and all other shipyards are treated equally in this matter, the government has asked the consortium to review its decision. We regret that the consortium has decided to maintain this decision. As I just said, that is why we will undertake a full review of this system of economic benefits and do what we can so that this situation does not happen again.

[Mil Davie Shipyard, December 2nd, 1994]

First of all, Mr. Speaker, I said that not only MIL Davie but also the other shipyards were wronged by the decisions in question because all the other shipyards did not have a chance to bid on the work which was taken away from Marystown.

Second, my answer was given in light of the fact that the previous Conservative government had passed a bill on the Atlantic Accord which does not give the present government the power to have the contract in question reopened. I am sorry but that is why the government is reviewing the whole program of economic benefits to be certain that the situation will not recur.

[Mil Davie Shipyard, December 2nd, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, MIL Davie was not the only one wronged by this decision. I think that all other shipyards that could have bid are in the same position. That is why the government, in light of the report from the Newfoundland-Canada Offshore Petroleum Board, asked for a review of the initial decision.

I am sorry to say that based on the legal opinions we have received we cannot insist that the call for tenders be reissued. I must add that a general review of all the economic spinoffs in this area is already in place. The government will take this situation into consideration to see what changes must be made in future to avoid a recurrence.

[Mil Davie Shipyard, December 2nd, 1994]

First of all, Mr. Speaker, before answering the hon. member's question, let me say that our thoughts and prayers go out to the Leader of the Opposition and his family. We pray that he will recover and regain his health. I think that I speak not only for my colleagues but for all Canadians.

I was in agreement with what the Prime Minister said when he made the remarks quoted by the hon. member. I continue to be in agreement with those remarks.

However, after the announcement of the consortium yesterday that they had acceded to the request of the government to review their decision but after doing so had decided to maintain their original decision, we sought legal advice. I say with some regret that the advice was that the government does not have the legal means to do anything to change that decision.

[Business Of The House, December 1st, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I wish to respond to the question of the House leader for the official opposition and provide to him and to other members of the House the weekly statement of government business.

This afternoon and tomorrow the House will debate second reading of Bill C-59, the income tax amendments. On Monday the House will commence with report stage of the grain bill, Bill C-51. On Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday we will consider that bill followed by the environment bill, Bill C-56 and the Department of Public Works and Government Services bill, Bill C-52. On Wednesday we will begin with third reading of Bill C-46 and if it is completed, revert to other unfinished business.

Thursday, December 8 will be the last allotted day for the present supply period and the government will be seeking approval of supplementary estimates at the end of government business on that day.

That is my statement.

[Saint John Shipyard, December 1st, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, as I understand it, this is an independent board, an arm's length board and it does its job according to its mandate.

I will seek the information the hon. member is asking for but I do not know why the Reform Party, which wants probity in actions by government bodies, refuses to pay attention to the work of an independent, arm's length board reviewing the expenditure of taxpayers' funds.