Dennis Mills

[Pearson International Airport Agreements Act, April 26th, 1994]

Madam Speaker, perhaps I could assist in straightening out this confusion. I was about to speak on debate and that is why I rose. When the member from the Bloc suddenly stood, I sat down. There are still a couple of minutes left.

[Pearson International Airport Agreements Act, April 26th, 1994]

Madam Speaker, toward the end of the hon. member's remarks he sounded as if he had taken the government position.

We as Liberals led by the Prime Minister have fought against the dismantling of the Pearson International Airport. We did that not only when we sat on that side of the House of Commons. During the election campaign when we heard that the then Conservative government was going ahead we said it was not our policy direction. We did not want to privatize Pearson International Airport. We campaigned against it and we acted immediately once the Prime Minister took office.

In no way, shape or form are Canadians confused when it comes to the decision the Prime Minister took. It was decisive and the right thing to do in the long term interests of all Canadians.

This is a strange approach we we have here today. We are trying to act on the decision and put the Pearson file behind us and properly pay those people who unfortunately got into a bad deal with the previous government.

We are trying to put that file behind us so we can rebuild a market in Toronto with a fresh policy start. There are a lot of unemployed people in Toronto. We do not intend to leave Pearson in the state it is forever.

However we would like to do this as a Government of Canada project. As the member so appropriately recognized, this is a Government of Canada asset. It generates profits for the people of Canada. That is part of the reason we did not want to proceed on this deal. It was not a good deal for taxpayers.

To mix the issue of lobbying with the action of the bill today is not the right way to go. Could the member not see this whole issue of reviewing lobbyist activity, and even reviewing the lobbyist activity as it pertains to Pearson International Airport, could be more appropriately handled when we bring forward the lobbyists registration bill which we will not only discuss in the House but in committee as well? In that way we would not be slowing down the whole process and we could put the bill behind us.

[Federal Grants, April 21st, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member looks in the estimates book for the Department of Industry he will see there have been tremendous cutbacks in the department.

He will also notice from an analysis of the industry estimates we are very carefully targeting the taxpayers' money relating to industry. We are targeting it to the proven winners in our community that we think have the best chance of putting Canadians back to work in industries that are very important to keep us globally competitive.

[Federal Grants, April 21st, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for his question because it gives us an opportunity to basically review the position that the Minister of Finance put forward in the budget.

The hon. member should realize we have already begun the review within the Department of Industry and with the private sector. We will reduce and eliminate the paper burden. This is a very important exercise and the private sector has welcomed it. It is well under way. The committee will be reporting to the Minister of Finance by the end of June.

At the same time I remind the hon. member we are continuing to investigate ways in which we can access capital for small and medium sized businesses. The Prime Minister has said repeatedly that we believe the greatest hope for putting Canadians back to work rests with the 900,000 entrepreneurs in Canada who are trying very hard to get this country going again.

The hon. member mentioned tourism and that is another area we are working on.

[Supply, April 18th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I listened attentively to the member of the Reform Party.

I have a short preamble to my question. If one were taking a drive through the province of Quebec right now and turned on the radio it would not matter what station, one could hear Anne Murray, Gordon Lightfoot, not just francophone recording artists, Canadian anglophone recording artists.

When driving outside Quebec, in any other part of Canada where there are another 1,400 or 1,500 radio stations, one cannot hear francophone recording artists.

Because these are Canadian airwaves, not French or English airwaves, does the member not think that as a measure of fairness it would be a good idea to have Canadian recording artists heard on all radio stations in Canada?

[Budget Implementation Act, 1994, April 15th, 1994]

Madam Speaker, I listened to the member from the Bloc Quebecois and I have to ask myself whether or not I have been working in the same Chamber, in the same Parliament of Canada, as he has this week.

I must say that even when one is in government there are many days when one shares the opposition's frustration with the speed with which things happen around here. We know that the private sector moves much more quickly than we do. It is just a fact of life.

The rules are different. The systems of checks and balances are not as rigorous as the checks and balances in Parliament but those checks and balances are here for accountability. We do not have the luxury that the private sector has of making decisions arbitrarily and flying them through the system in 24 hours.

I know there are many Canadians who would like to see it happen that way. There are days when I feel that is the way it should happen, but that is not the reality. We have accomplished some things in the last few weeks that were related to the economy of his community, my community, our country.

Look at the work that members of the Bloc, members of the Reform Party and our members have done. Look at the work that we have done in the industry committee on accessing capital to small business. It is important that members tell their constituents that the financial institutions of Canada are beginning to move. They are beginning to respond.

Look at the tremendous announcement that we received this week from the Royal Bank of Canada on its new $125 million venture capital fund for knowledge based industries. That is a first.

I know it is not the be all and end all but our responsibility, and I say this to the Bloc through you, Madam Speaker, is not to just talk about the frustrations that we all go through in this institution. It is also to talk about some of the real meaningful things that we have accomplished here and we have accomplished some good things this week.

I would suggest that access to capital for small and medium sized businesses is beginning to happen and in a better way. We know we have a long way to go but members should tell their constituents about that. Part of our responsibility here is to deal in hope.

There is a second matter that I have to remind the members of the Bloc of because they are always questioning this: "What is in Canada for Quebecers? What is in Canada? Why should we be here? It is not working". I have repeated this message several times, and I am going to say it over and over: I cannot understand why the members of the Bloc refuse to talk about the announcement of the Minister of Finance on January 21, that is how far back it goes, when he announced the terms of the five year equalization renewal.

The minister announced that under the equalization act, an act of Confederation, over the next five years Quebec would receive $70 billion over and above the other basic allocations on programs and services. That additional $70 billion being transferred to the province of Quebec over the next five years is an unfettered, unguided, no strings attached entitlement.

Does that not mean anything to their constituents? Through Confederation, this federation of Canada, in the name of fairness-and in no way, shape or form am I questioning this-there is a $70 billion transfer under equalization from the have provinces to the have not provinces.

By the way, for the previous five years there was about $58 billion. We are talking over the last five years and the next five years about $130 billion being transferred to Quebec under the equalization entitlement.

In my community no one questions that, but they think that is a meaningful amount of money. I have never heard a member of the Bloc say yes, equalization is a good thing, and they do in fact recognize it. They always stand up and say: "We are entitled to that because of the personal and corporate income taxes that we put into the treasury. We are just getting back what we put in". That is not the case. This is $70 billion over and above that.

My point today in responding to the member for Charlevoix is that yes, there are many areas in this government where there is room for improvement and efficiency. There are some duplications that we must figure out and correct.

Of course I take an opposite position from the Bloc. If we want to talk about eliminating duplications, let us take in the area of small business programs. I would not suggest that we eliminate the duplication by just handing over all the small business programs to the province of Quebec and cancelling the national government's small business programs. I would say the reverse. Have the province of Quebec cancel theirs and let the national government operate them.

I am a traditional Trudeau trained centralist and I believe that we must have a strong national government. We must have a strong national government in order to create national programs. National programs are where we create national will. That is where we get the spirit that holds the whole country together.

The standards whether they be in education, environment or health care should be the same whether someone gets sick in Newfoundland, downtown Toronto, Quebec City or northern Saskatchewan.

This whole notion members of the Bloc Quebecois have of wanting to destabilize and dismantle the national government ultimately works against the citizens not only of Quebec but also of every region of our country.

I just wanted to take a moment to try and convince the Bloc Quebecois members that yes, we too are not satisfied with the speed with which things are happening here. We are trying to move as fast and as aggressively as we can. However, they should not forget to tell their constituents about some of the good things we manage to get done in the House and in committees day to day.

[Budget Implementation Act, 1994, April 11th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin my remarks by saying to the member that in no way do I consider the equalization money being transferred as feel good money.

I do not believe that the Bloc Quebecois are the only people who speak for the province of Quebec. We have a provincial Liberal government right now in Quebec. The money, I believe and hope, goes into responsible publicly accounted for projects, such as retraining, education, et cetera. Please, let us not call this money feel good.

I want to say to the hon. member who comes from the province of Alberta that I realize her province is going through deep pain. So is my city and my province. However having said all of that, Quebec and some of our Atlantic provinces are even much worse off than the member's province and my province. That is something we have to realize.

As far as the $25 million for the CBC goes, and I do not think it is receiving this money and just going out and buying frivolous things, this money goes through a very rigorous process and goes into Canadian content and new production. The hon. member talked this morning about the CBC getting more revenue.

One of the reasons why the CBC is short on revenue is that it is competing with the CTVs of the world that have much more American content. The content in terms of Canadian budget and Canadian productions is not anywhere near the budgets of programming on other networks, CTV, which basically rents its finished product from abroad. The money will be going to enhance the production of CBC programming which hopefully will raise its quality and which will ultimately make it as productive as other networks.

I think the member has to realize and have the good faith that the new administration of the CBC, not putting down the previous one, has assured the CRTC and members of this House that, as all of us in this country are undergoing restructuring and renewal, it does not feel that it is exempt. It is going to do its best to make sure that this money is used efficiently.

[Budget Implementation Act, 1994, April 11th, 1994]

I do say it with a straight face. As I was saying to one of our colleagues this morning, the CBC is really not like any other business in the country.

I do not know why I am defending the CBC because it has never been particularly good to me or for that matter to any other politician. It is one of those rare situations where we are defending an organization that is constantly attacking us. That is what makes this country so interesting.

Mr. Speaker, you signalled that I have only a couple of minutes. As we head into this very sensitive period where once again we will all be required to make sure that in the interest of national unity we bring our best foot forward, I really feel that it is important that the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, Radio-Canada-radio, television, Newsworld-have a solid footing and a solid organization. This is an institution, as I am sure most people in Canada would agree, that is probably the best binding agent we have in a communications instrument.

We hear from musicians in every region who might otherwise not get the opportunity to be heard on a national basis. As I mentioned earlier today in debate it is a high quality organization for communication and production. It is also a tremendous training ground.

This is one area where, when we analyse the balance sheet of the CBC, we have not given it proper credit. This has been an area where it has trained people who ultimately have gone on to produce on other TV networks and in the motion picture industry. They are high quality technicians. Many of them now are creating product that we are exporting around the world. It is giving us not only a presence in North America but a Canadian presence all over the world. For that reason I would urge all members to support this bill.

[Budget Implementation Act, 1994, April 11th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin my remarks by continuing on the theme that the member for the Reform Party discussed. It had to do with the contradiction of the Bloc Quebecois coming into the House and constantly talking about separation, yet at the same time asking for more support for megaprojects.

I have absolutely no problem with the members from Quebec fighting for their constituents, for their community and for projects that will help revitalize the city of Montreal and the province of Quebec. If we can get the economies of Montreal and Toronto going again it will go a long way in affecting all parts of the country.

What bothers me is the fact that the members from the Bloc never talk about the announcement that the Minister of Finance made on January 21 when he stated the terms of the five year equalization renewal, the equalization entitlement. As you know, Mr. Speaker, because of our Constitution we have an equalization formula. It is a complex formula where the provinces of British Columbia, Alberta and Ontario, which are the wealthier provinces, are contributing to those provinces in our Confederation that do not have the same resources.

On January 21 the Minister of Finance announced a $70 billion package for the province of Quebec. Over the next five years there will be a transfer of funds that will go to the province of Quebec, unfettered, no strings attached. I have yet to hear a member of the Bloc acknowledge that the $70 billion transfer under the equalization entitlement to the people of Quebec is a good thing. They seem to pretend it is not happening, that it does not go on.

I am not begrudging this transfer in any way. It is part of our contract to keep Confederation together. But when they stand in the House and talk about some of the difficulties we are having collectively in trying to get our economy going again, I wish in fairness that they would acknowledge the fact that for the last five years on equalization the province of Quebec received $50.2 billion and for the next five years it will receive an additional $70 billion.

The people in my community in Toronto cannot figure out transferring $130 billion to a community that is talking about separation. I am waiting for the day when the Bloc members start speaking publicly about the equalization entitlements and

the amounts that the people of Quebec will be receiving over the next five years.

They should not confuse their constituents by saying, as the member of the Bloc stated earlier, that they pay so much in income taxes to the federal treasury. I think the member said $28 billion or something and that they should have all of that back. They get all of that back and more under equalization.

Therefore, do not link the income tax being paid to the equalization entitlement. They are two separate issues. The equalization transfer is over and above all the other programs, services and fundings that are transferred to the province of Quebec.

I want to say, as someone from downtown Toronto, that to spend $100 billion over the next five years to keep Quebec feeling that it is part of Confederation, I personally would have absolutely no problem.

It was a very rough week for us in Toronto. We thought we were going to receive the centre for NAFTA for the environmental studies. We did not receive it but that is the game. You win some and you lose some. I guess my point is that I wish the members of the Bloc would show some of appreciation, not just to their constituents but to the people of Canada.

I realize that is just a little bit off topic from the budget amendment that we are discussing today but I thought it was relevant to the debate.

The part of the bill I would like to speak specifically to has to do with part IV, the borrowing authority of C-17. This is the section in the bill where-and I can see my friends in the Reform Party getting twitchy already-through the approval of the Minister of Finance, we are authorizing the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, Radio-Canada, to a further borrowing power of $25 million.

I know that the members of the Reform Party have great difficulty with how we, when we are in such difficult times, could authorize for the CBC a further indebtedness or a further support of $25 million. I want to say to members on the other side that this is the right thing to do.

[Budget Implementation Act, 1994, April 11th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin my remarks by-