Douglas Young

[Hughes Aircraft, May 4th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member indicated in his first question, the contract was entered into some time ago. It is problematic. There are negotiations under way. I can confirm there are problems with the contract, with the delivery time and the cost of the contract. We are concerned about the technology and I

want to assure my hon. friend that every attempt will be made to negotiate a settlement in the best interests of the Canadian taxpayer.

I do not want to confirm or deny the exact numbers being discussed. I do want to share with my colleague our deep concern about a matter which has not been dealt with appropriately in my view which has resulted in some corrective measures being taken with the personnel administering that contract. The deputy minister and others who are interested will be reporting to me and I would be more than pleased to keep my colleague informed about the progress of this matter.

[Hughes Aircraft, May 4th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question because it is, indeed, an extremely difficult situation for the government. As soon as I learned about the potential problems with this project, I asked the auditor general to launch an investigation. I have also asked the deputy minister to start negotiating right away with Hughes Aircraft to find a solution that would be acceptable to the Canadian government and especially to Canadian taxpayers.

I totally agree with my hon. colleague. This is a situation that we will monitor very closely. However, I think that we have taken the appropriate measures at this time, and I fully intend to follow this matter very closely.

[Agreement On Internal Trade Implementation Act, May 1st, 1995]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-88, an act to implement the Agreement on Internal Trade.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed.)

[Highways, May 1st, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, it is very unfortunate that the hon. member does not understand that when agreements are made with provinces there is an ongoing process of consultation.

The moneys that are going to be spent in Nova Scotia, as is the case with any other funds expended on behalf of the Canadian taxpayers, are subject to very stringent review both by the Auditor General of Canada as well as our department when we are reviewing those expenditures.

I know the hon. member is new to the House. It is true he has been up three or four times-and it shows-but the problem he has is in addressing questions like this using words like misappropriation of funds. If the hon. member were a little bit more careful he would understand that misappropriation of funds has implications that go far beyond a simple renegotiation of a contract to allocate funds for highway construction in any province.

Therefore, I ask the hon. member to reconsider that kind of insinuation.

[Highways, May 1st, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, it is an unusual situation when members of Parliament, and for that matter because of a previous incarnation when I was in the New Brunswick legislature, not to have politicians talk about roads, especially in Atlantic Canada.

I can assure the hon. member that the discussion of the allocation of highway funds for Nova Scotia took place with the minister of transport for Nova Scotia. Those consultations are ongoing with Nova Scotia and other provinces.

I am sure the hon. member recognizes that when members of the House have an opportunity to discuss with their provincial colleagues matters of mutual interest, it is certainly not a matter of conflict of interest, but a matter of doing their jobs. It is something of which the hon. member is not too aware, obviously, by the interest he has brought to this matter over the last couple of weeks.

[Agriculture, April 26th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, it is obvious that the changes the hon. member has referred to are very important ones. One that we think has to be taken into account is the future ownership of the CNR.

A project to commercialize CN will be made public by legislation presented to the House of Commons we hope relatively soon. Certainly there will be nothing in that legislation that would preclude the result the hon. member seeks. That is, western farmers will be invited and encouraged to participate in the largest single share issue in the history of this country.

[Questions On The Order Paper, April 24th, 1995]

(a) and (b) The responsibility for the collection of de-icing fluids at Transport Canada airports remains with the air carriers or de-icing operators. The means of collection and disposal are outlined in the site specific glycol mitigation plan submitted to Transport Canada.

Glycol mitigation plans have been submitted at the following Transport Canada airports: Halifax International, Quebec City,

MacDonald Cartier International (Ottawa), Lester B. Pearson International (Toronto), Thunder Bay, Regina and Winnipeg International. The four local airport authorities also have plans in place, i.e. Vancouver, Calgary, Edmonton and Aéroports de Montréal, Dorval/Mirabel.

The mitigation plans are designed to ensure that spent glycol fluids are contained, collected and disposed of in an environmentally acceptable manner.

The effectiveness of the plans are measured by the amounts collected and from stormwater analysed against the CEPA guidelines.

It should be noted that copies of the glycol mitigation plans were submitted to the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development.

[Pearson International Airport, April 24th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member has come directly to the point with his supplementary question.

There is no question that if we continue the process that some are on at this point, as the hon. member says, it could cost Canadian taxpayers $500 million without a nail being driven or an inch of asphalt being laid.

The point is the Government of Canada has made known its position. We are prepared to pay up to $30 million for reasonable out of pocket expenses to compensate those people who were involved in the process, many of them third party not directly involved in the process that led to the granting of that final contract.

The difficulty with the Reform Party is as usual it wants its cake and wants to eat it too. That is not the way it works in the real world.

[Pearson International Airport, April 24th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, it is a winding and torturous road to get to that question. I thank the hon. member for listing the objectives of Transport Canada.

I do not want to comment on matters that are before the other place, but I understand there is some consideration being given to an inquiry there. I want to emphasize the importance the government attaches to getting to work at Pearson, developing the premier airport in Canada.

There can be all kinds of reasons in the minds of some to delay the work that has to be done at Pearson. As far as we are concerned the time has long past since we should have begun the work of putting thousands of people into the construction

project at Pearson International Airport, making it the kind of crown jewel of our air system it should be.

[Infrastructure, April 24th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, it is usual to answer a question asked by a member who knows better.

The reallocation of funds under this agreement and any other agreement comes as a result of requests from provincial governments. It does not just occur in Nova Scotia; it occurs on a regular basis. The extent to which provinces exercise their jurisdiction for spending money on highways and determining where those highways should go is something the hon. member should know.

The Government of Nova Scotia has announced recently the construction of a highway along, I gather, where the member thinks it should have gone originally. We are very pleased to be participating in that project as well.