David Dingwall

[Canada Post, November 10th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member once again likes to roll around in the mud. It is pretty sad when in point of fact we informed his colleague who raised the issue at a previous time that the suggestion the hon. member was making was incorrect.

A letter I have, which I would be pleased to table for the benefit of the House, says:

Canada Post has completed their evaluation of your proposal dated July 28, 1995 for the sale and leaseback of community mailboxes. Our evaluation has concluded that the financing cost does not meet Canada Post Corporation's requirements.

I do not know what the hon. member is talking about.

[Agusta, November 10th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I would be happy to receive the video at any time. Perhaps she might want to have Canada Post deliver it.

The Government of Canada, as I am sure any reasonable individual would understand, had a binding contract with the company in question. We made a decision upon coming to office about the termination of the contract. There are termination costs the Government of Canada will have to provide in accordance with the contract. We will live up to the contract obligations and we hope to be able to provide that information in due course.

However the hon. member cannot jump from that resolution into thinking that automatically the company to which she refers may have some upper hand with regard to possible procurements of the Government of Canada.

[Agusta, November 10th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member was quite right in saying that an agreement in principle had been reached between the Government of Canada and the company to which she referred. Unfortunately the hon. member went on to make an assumption which has yet to be realized. In point of fact the Minister of National Defence has yet to give to the Department of Public Works and Government Services a request for a proposal.

We do not know who in the world might be submitting bids for various procurement initiatives of the Government of Canada. How the hon. member could stretch an agreement on termination costs with a particular company into saying that it will now be somehow successful in some subsequent bid is beyond the realm of reality.

[Helicopter Purchase, November 9th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member just does not get it. The contract he refers to was cancelled by the government upon coming into office.

As a result, we have entered negotiations with the two main contractors for termination costs. We have been successful with the first one. We have come to an agreement in principle with regard to the second one. I hope to be able to provide all of the details so the hon. member once and for all will be able to understand that these kinds of allegations and this kind of mud he has been playing in for quite some time are utterly false, just like the allegations he makes here again today.

[Helicopter Purchase, November 9th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I do not agree with the preamble of the hon. member's questions. His allegations contained in the body of his questions are absolutely false.

[Purchase Of Helicopters, November 9th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, the similarities between the Minister of National Defence and me are rather apparent.

The hon. member must realize there is such a thing as confidentiality between the contractor, who has a variety of subcontractors, and the government of Canada.

Negotiations have been ongoing for close to two years. They have been vigorous, they have been enthusiastic and at times they have been extremely difficult. We have now reached an agreement in principle. I will be happy to provide all of the details to the House at the most opportune time.

On the grounds of confidentiality, until certain matters have come to a final conclusion, I am precluded by law, by the contract and the agreement in principle to provide that information today. However, I hope I can provide it as soon as humanly possible.

[Purchase Of Helicopters, November 9th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is making reference to a contract the Government of Canada cancelled shortly after taking office.

I remind the hon. member as well as others that we successfully concluded the termination costs with Loral, thereby resolving that matter with that contractor.

Negotiations have proceeded with the EH-101. I am happy to report that after some very diligent, vigorous work by my deputy minister and senior assistant deputy minister an agreement in principle has been reached. I would like to provide all details to the House, which I will in several months. At that time members of the House, in particular the critics, will then have an opportunity to see whether the Government of Canada has done its job effectively in meeting the termination costs with that company.

[Social Housing, November 7th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the question. It seems that the facts have struck a rather sensitive nerve in the hon. member.

The House should also be aware that since we have come to office, this terrible minister of housing and the Minister of Finance, it should be clearly stated: $4 million was provided for the Creeson initiative in Montreal; $5 million was paid out for Réparaction programs for 950 households; $5 million for rooming house RRAP; $15 million cost shared for households under Maisons lézardées; private-public partnerships, 13 projects in Quebec. We extended the first home loan insurance program; almost 24 per cent of the take up is in Quebec.

[Social Housing, November 7th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member raises an important question, but I think the record ought to be cleared.

The Government of Quebec chose not to participate in various housing programs over a period of a number of years. For the benefit of the House, it should be noted that the first public housing program was available across the country from 1950 to 1985. Quebec chose not to participate. The second public housing program was available from 1964 to 1985. Quebec chose not to participate until 1968. Despite four lost years, the province still secured almost 25 per cent of the national units. The first rent supplement program was available from 1971 to 1985. Quebec chose not to participate until 1978.

The facts are very clear. The Government of Quebec chose not to participate in these national programs. As a result, the figures to which the hon. member refers are somewhat bogus in view of those facts.

[Canada Mortgage And Housing Corporation, November 6th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, the answer to the first part of the hon. member's question is no. The reason is that unlike the third party, the government does not have an ideology that the role of the national government is to be a Visa or Chargex for provincial governments.

We believe there ought to be a role for the Government of Canada in the affairs of the nation. Such a suggestion which has been proposed by the hon. member is not shared by other members of his own party who are asking the government to put more money into housing programs across the country.