House of Commons Hansard #5 of the 35th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was quebec.

Topics

The Late Senator Chesley CarterOral Question Period

Noon

Liberal

Roger Simmons Liberal Burin—St. George's, NL

Mr. Speaker, it was the fall of 1973 and I was for the very first time seeking public political office. I went to a community, an island called Pass Island off the south coast of Newfoundland, an island that has since been resettled. In those days it had a couple of hundred people.

Pass Island produced a very famous man by the name of Major Ches Carter. Ches Carter distinguished himself in many ways, first by serving overseas with the Royal Newfoundland Regiment during the first world war during which he was gassed, placed among the terminally ill in a hospital in England and left to die. He did not. He came back and had a distinguished career in education in Newfoundland. Come the second world war we found Ches Carter back on the battlefields of Europe. This time it was with the Canadian army, a full 10 years before Newfoundland and Canada had become one country.

He came back from there and picked up his education career. In 1949 Ches Carter was one of the original seven men who came here as the first members of Parliament from Newfoundland after Confederation. He was elected again and again, a total of seven times, the last time having been in the 1965 election and then in 1966 he was appointed to the Senate.

Ches Carter died last week at the age of 91 in Nova Scotia. He leaves us a great legacy. I am pleased to stand as the successor member for Burin-Burgeo, as it was then called, and now Burin-St. George's, but essentially the same piece of geography with a little bit tacked on from time to time.

There have only been four members for Burin-St. George's or Burin-Burgeo. They are the late Ches Carter, my late friend the Hon. Don Jamieson, Joe Price who sat here from 1984 to 1988 and of course myself.

I realize that there is only one member sitting in this House today who was here during the time of Ches Carter, but that is of course entirely beside the point. If we come here and serve our people well then it is not necessary for all the people we serve with to be around forever to remember our deeds and Ches Carter is proof of that. If one does well while one is here and if one is true to those who sent one here then the legacy one leaves will be the memory one leaves.

Ches's legacy is a very important one. I looked through the Hansard index for 1960 and 1961. Yes, he was fighting about foreign draggers inside the three-mile limit. I am still fighting that one. He was talking about atomic radiation hazards and trade with Cuba. I could go on. There was page after page of intervention by an obviously active member.

Time does not permit me to even capsule the impact he had here, but let me give one clear example with which many will be able to very quickly identify. Having been a veteran with the Royal Newfoundland Regiment in the first world war and in the Canadian army in the second world war, he had a particular interest in and knowledge of military matters and the legacy the war had left for those people who sometimes came back maimed and often without appropriate training to plug back into civilian life.

Ches Carter's battle was non-stop. His battle was non-stop in the interest of veterans in general and in particular the foresters who went out in the thousands from Newfoundland and eastern Canada to do their bit not in a military uniform but on behalf of the war effort. For many years after the war they were left without benefits because technically they were not military although they had gone overseas and had been exposed in many ways to some of the same dangers, certainly the deprivation and isolation of being away from home and so on.

It was Ches Carter who led the battle on that one. It was Ches Carter who after a long time won the battle. He saw to it that the battle was won on behalf of the foresters in the context of having them recognized for benefits under the veterans program.

In concluding let me on behalf of all Canadians, this Parliament and the Parliaments before it, salute a very great man, a very great Newfoundlander and a very great Canadian. Let me also say, on behalf of the House, our condolences, yes, but also our thanks for a life well served to his wife Elsie, to Alan his son and to his two daughters.

The Late Senator Chesley CarterOral Question Period

12:05 p.m.

Liberal

Len Hopkins Liberal Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON

Mr. Speaker, I just wanted to add a few words to that of my colleague about Ches Carter. He and I sat together here in the back two rows when I first came here. Ches Carter was a very humble man. He had been in both world wars as my colleague has stated. He was a great champion of veterans. He went to bat for them and was responsible I am sure for some of the amendments to the veterans legislation in Canada.

Ches Carter also exemplified a man who had been a citizen of Newfoundland prior to it becoming part of Canada. He then got into the federal scene and came here as a member from Newfoundland and was highly respected in this House.

I want to extend our sincere appreciation to him for the work that he did on behalf of veterans across Canada and for his service in two world wars. He exemplifies very responsible Canadian citizenship and will be long remembered by those of us who knew him and should be long remembered by those Canadians for whom he made such a contribution.

I want to extend my condolences to his family. I thank them for allowing him to be part of this place and of the Canadian nation, to come forward to display his strength through humility for the improvement of veterans in Canada and to make his mark for the military forces in this country. He is an example for many to follow and we appreciate that.

The Late Senator Chesley CarterOral Question Period

12:10 p.m.

Reform

Bob Ringma Reform Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC

Mr. Speaker, may I join this tribute to Mr. Carter. While I did not know him personally, we all of course want to pay our respects to anyone who served Canada in such a forceful, wonderful way. We applaud the eloquence of the two previous speakers in this tribute to Mr. Carter and extend our condolences, sympathy and best wishes to his family.

The Late Senator Chesley CarterOral Question Period

12:10 p.m.

Bloc

Louis Plamondon Bloc Richelieu, QC

Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the Bloc Quebecois, I would like to join the three previous members to also say a few words about Mr. Carter.

Of course, none of the Bloc Quebecois members who are sitting in this House knew Mr. Carter, even though the member for Longueuil and I have been here for nine years. However, when visiting veterans in our respective ridings and throughout Quebec, we have heard how that man led a remarkable battle defending veterans' rights and trying to give them some security after their efforts during the world wars.

On behalf of the Bloc Quebecois, and in joining the three previous members who spoke so eloquently, I would like to extend to Mr. Carter's family our most sincere condolences.

The Late Senator Chesley CarterOral Question Period

12:10 p.m.

The Speaker

The hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan on a point of order.

The Late Senator Chesley CarterOral Question Period

12:10 p.m.

Reform

Bob Ringma Reform Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC

Mr. Speaker, I am sorry if I was out of order in rising before the Bloc Quebecois members. I do not know, but I think they have the right to speak before I.

The Late Senator Chesley CarterOral Question Period

12:10 p.m.

Bloc

Louis Plamondon Bloc Richelieu, QC

I have been very honoured to rise after the member from the Reform Party today. There was no precedence. I think he was just anxious to pay tribute to Mr. Carter. We understand that full well.

The Late Senator Chesley CarterOral Question Period

12:10 p.m.

The Speaker

It was very generous of the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan to point that out. However, in the case of tributes we more or less leave it quite open and you are able to speak at any time, sir.

Environment IndustryRoutine Proceedings

12:10 p.m.

Hamilton East Ontario

Liberal

Sheila Copps LiberalDeputy Prime Minister and Minister of the Environment

Mr. Speaker, if there is one overriding objective of the new government it is to put our country back to work. Canadians want jobs. They want business opportunities. They want government to support their initiatives and they want their voices to be heard in the drafting of public policy.

Canadians also know something that politicians have been slow to recognize: that our environmental and economic goals can and must support each other.

Nowhere is that more evident than in our country's environmental industry. This is one of the fastest growing economic sectors, with some 4,500 firms employing 150,000 people. Its annual sales are now approximately $11 billion and this figure is expected to double by the year 2000. By that year the global market for environmental technology, products and services will reach over $500 billion. Canada wants to be on the cutting edge of that green market.

What we have here is a Canadian success story and we must build on it. Mr. Speaker, this government is wasting no time in doing that. With my colleague, the Minister of Industry, I am pleased to announce that next Monday, January 24, we will begin the first of a series of public consultations with the aim of developing a Canadian Environmental Industry Strategy.

The consultations in Montreal, Halifax, Winnipeg, Toronto, Vancouver and Edmonton are being organized in close co-operation with the provincial chapters of the Canadian Environmental Industry Association. We hope that they will give us an opportunity to meet and share views with representatives of all groups who can help to shape a winning strategy for Canada.

As a focus for the discussions, we have prepared a paper entitled "Environmental Industry Strategy for Canada". This contains initial proposals for a partnership between the public and private sectors, a joint venture that will substantially increase Canada's share of the domestic and international markets for environmental industry.

We already know what must be the key elements of such a strategy: increased funding for research and development, increased support for business, especially small and medium-sized enterprises, and better environmental standards, policies and programs. These are all priorities of the Canadian government and they received mention in Tuesday's speech from the throne.

We also have another priority. That is to ensure that every member of this House has a hand in helping to shape these strategies. We would welcome the participation of the representatives of the Reform Party and the Bloc Quebecois in participating in these meetings next week which are the very beginning of a new strategy to help Canada take advantage of our world market for environmental technologies.

We face the challenge of acting on those priorities to advance the environmental industry sector in Canada. We intend to listen carefully to all consultations. I can say that on the government side of the House we have a number of members who are specifically interested in this issue. We will use the input we receive to forge an effective strategy that promotes our country's economy and our environment.

The Minister of Industry and I are very happy to be working in close co-operation with the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of the Environment, the hon. member for Lachine-Lac-Saint-Louis, and with the Secretary of State for Science, Research and Development, the hon. member for Portage-Interlake who is taking a special interest in industrial and environmental technologies.

Our departments' and our government's twin goals are sustained job growth and a clean healthy environment. Green industries will play a growing part in helping us reach those goals.

An environmental industry strategy can help us act on pollution prevention. It can help us build green infrastructure in industries and it can and must help create the high-tech jobs we desperately need in those areas. That is the best way of guaranteeing a prosperous country, a healthy environment, and a realistic and brighter future for the Canadian economy and for Canada as a whole.

Environment IndustryRoutine Proceedings

12:15 p.m.

Bloc

Jean-Guy Chrétien Bloc Frontenac, QC

Mr. Speaker, it is indeed essential that all intervenors in this area be consulted prior to developing a comprehensive government strategy. The environment as such transcends partisan concerns and it is in fact incumbent on all nations to work together to find solutions to the pressing problems confronting us today.

I applaud this initiative by the government and the Minister of the Environment to include the industry and environment ministers in these consultations. It is indeed vital to examine these particular aspects of the issues we are being asked to consider. Instead of wishful thinking that is out of touch with our present day lives, the environment needs realistic and effective policies that will ensure sustainable development.

The environmental industry is one of the sectors that are crucial to our future economic development and the government must do everything in its power to promote the growth of this industry. The consultations with the provincial chapters of the Canadian Environmental Industry Association are essential in this respect. In the past, Quebecers and Canadians have too often been exposed to government strategies that were unrealistic and far removed from local needs.

The government should listen to the various groups, draw up a strategy and then provide the necessary resources to meet the objectives set forth in the course of the consultation process.

Ministers should listen to what the people have to say and not view these consultations as a media event.

The minister mentioned the importance of developing this industry, and I agree. However, this commitment should be followed by proposals that provide an effective framework for this enterprise.

Promoting the environmental industry is all very well, but it should not be seen as merely a way to silence criticism from environmental groups in Quebec and Canada.

We also want to warn the federal government and the environment minister that public consultations are useless unless recommendations are acted upon.

The environment minister knows that I will monitor these consultations very closely and ensure that any useful proposals that may result are implemented by the government as soon as possible.

Environment IndustryRoutine Proceedings

12:20 p.m.

Reform

Jim Abbott Reform Kootenay East, BC

Mr. Speaker, I stand today in response to the statement by the Minister of the Environment.

Before commenting on her presentation I would like to express my sincere congratulations on your election, Mr. Speaker. The process with which you were elected provided an indication of the new, more innovative atmosphere of this House. Certainly the first days of this sitting have shown your fresh approach.

The Reform Party intends to approach all issues raised in this Chamber with a three-step process. First we express support for the positive, then concern about potential areas for improvement, and finally constructive alternatives.

It has been instructive in reviewing the Reform Party blue sheet of principles, policies and election platform that there is in fact a strong parallel to the direction and intent expressed by the Liberals in their red book.

Of course we support public consultations in that we believe concerned Canadians are very intelligent and have already thought out many of the issues of concern with respect to the environment.

We also wish to commend the government on the speed with which it is initiating this process. It is unfortunate that with the arrangements which have been made, we received official notice of this yesterday. I received the details at about 9.30 this morning. Unfortunately therefore, the Reform Party will be unable to respond to the very kind invitation of the minister to take part in this process.

We do have some areas of concern when the minister uses the terms such as increased funding and increased support.

Where the Reform Party differs significantly from the policies outlined in the Liberal red book is that we note on pages 67 and 68 of their red book they speak of funding research and development for green technologies, commitment of new government funding and consultation of incentive and support programs.

We have learned from history with boondoggles like the scientific research tax credit program introduced by a prior Liberal government and ongoing regional development grants and special tax incentives that there is frequently abuse, pork barrelling and outright waste of resources that Canada no longer has.

The Reform Party will therefore be watching very carefully what impact this initiative will have on the government's out of control overspending. We will also be interested to see what economies it will put into effect even on its country-wide tour next week. What new thrift style will the government bring to the actual public consultation process? For example, will its members be travelling by regularly scheduled airlines?

We put the government on notice. We will be looking for a statement of expenses incurred for this process and would expect a cost benefit analysis on the expenditure.

In summary, the Reform Party stands committed to ensuring that all Canadians and their descendants dwell in a clean and healthy environment and supports the federal government taking leadership in developing a new discipline integrating economics and the environment.

We also commend the minister on the speedy implementation of this process early in this government's life.

Environment IndustryRoutine Proceedings

12:25 p.m.

NDP

Nelson Riis NDP Kamloops, BC

I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I appreciate the standing orders do not permit me to respond to the minister, but I simply want to say that we appreciate this statement being made in the House announcing this new government initiative.

Coming on the tails of what the House leader was saying the other day, that there would be a number of debates on important policy issues in the House of Commons to which members can contribute, I simply want to say-

Environment IndustryRoutine Proceedings

12:25 p.m.

The Speaker

I thank the hon. member for not getting into debate or answering.

PetitionsRoutine Proceedings

12:25 p.m.

Reform

Lee Morrison Reform Swift Current—Maple Creek—Assiniboia, SK

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, I am pleased to present this petition on behalf of the people of Woodrow, Saskatchewan, requesting that Canada Post be restrained from the further closing of rural post offices including their own.

PetitionsRoutine Proceedings

12:25 p.m.

Bloc

Gaston Péloquin Bloc Brome—Missisquoi, QC

Mr. Speaker, on behalf of my constituents, I would like to present a petition denouncing rent increases in social housing in Bromont.

PetitionsRoutine Proceedings

12:25 p.m.

Liberal

Alfonso Gagliano Liberal Saint-Léonard, QC

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, I have the honour to present a petition which has been certified.

The previous government made cuts in social housing and today people in my riding and in neighbouring ones are turning to the House of Commons because the federal government froze the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation budget for the next five years while asking it to save money to help young couples.

The petitioners are asking Parliament to forego any rent increase in social housing and to lift the freeze on the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation budget in order to build new social and co-op housing, especially in east Montreal.

PetitionsRoutine Proceedings

12:25 p.m.

Liberal

Dennis Mills Liberal Broadview—Greenwood, ON

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36 the attached petition is certified correct. It is signed by many people from the greater Toronto area.

The undersigned residents of Canada humbly ask and draw the attention of the House to the following. As a consequence of the death, separation or divorce of their children, grandparents are often denied access to their grandchildren by their guardians. The relationship that exists between grandparents and grandchildren is a natural, fundamental one. Denial of access could constitute elder abuse and could have a serious detrimental emotional impact on both the grandparents and the grandchildren. Several provincial jurisdictions, including the Quebec

civil code, contain a provision to ensure the right of access of grandparents to their grandchildren.

Therefore the petitioners request that the Parliament amend the Divorce Act to include a provision similar to article 6(11) of the Quebec civil code which states: "In no case may a father or mother without serious cause place obstacles between a child and grandparents and failing agreement between the parties the modalities of the relations are settled by the court".

Further, an amendment to the Divorce Act would give a grandparent who is granted access to a child the right to make inquiries and to be given information as to the health, education and welfare of the child.

The House resumed consideration of the motion for an address to His Excellency the Governor General in reply to his Speech at the opening of the session; and of the amendment.

Speech From The ThroneGovernment Orders

12:30 p.m.

Ottawa South Ontario

Liberal

John Manley LiberalMinister of Industry

Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate you on your election as Speaker of this House.

Some members will know that it was the Speaker who as much as anyone played a role in my coming to this place and I am so pleased to be here under his direction as Speaker. I have every confidence that you, Sir, will perform your task in a way which is going to bring great honour to this place and to the role that you hold.

I would also want to thank my constituents of Ottawa South for re-electing me on October 25. It is a great honour for me to represent them here, in the House of Commons. It is also an honour to have been appointed minister. But the greatest honour of all is to have this opportunity to serve the people of Ottawa South.

I think for all of us the greatest honour is to be able to represent our peers in the House of Commons. This is a place rich in history and tradition. The role that we play here I believe is very important. I believe it to be a great honour and a great privilege to be servants of the people.

Politicians have been given a bad name and we are all conscious of that and Mr. Speaker in his opening comments to us upon his election alluded to it.

I think what we need to reinforce is that after all is said the role of politician is not something of which we should be ashamed. The role of a politician is to be a servant. To be a politician is to wear a badge of honour because after all we are here as servants of the people who sent us. That to me is a very great badge of honour.

I would also like to express my appreciation to the Prime Minister for the confidence he has placed in me in asking me to serve as his Minister of Industry. What I hope to do in these few moments is to outline some of the ideas I take with me into this portfolio as I undertake the work which was given to me. Much of my mandate has been made clear I believe.

The red book stressed the importance of job creation and economic growth, and in the throne speech we again emphasized the importance of economic growth.

The people who sent me here talked to me about a lot of things. What I heard repeatedly was the concern they have for jobs, if not jobs for themselves personally then very often jobs for their children or their neighbours. How many times I have heard people say: "I have adult children who are trained, qualified and skilled but they cannot find work".

I believe the heavy weight of despair the recession of 1990 brought to bear on our people is one of the things that all of us were elected to address in a very direct and positive way. What we have to do is very clear. We need strategies to follow. We need strategies to create jobs. We need strategies to encourage growth in the economy.

Part of that strategy obviously has to be the tackling of obstacles because there are obstacles to overcome as we launch this new phase of economic growth. I know no one on this side is unaware of the unhappy circumstance when this week we passed $500 billion in federal indebtedness. The burden of debt we are carrying as a country, not just at the federal level but also at the provincial and municipal levels, is something which no government regardless of its political stripe or ideology can fail to consider.

I have encountered questions about whether worry about the deficit did not indicate a certain political bent to one side of the spectrum. I cannot agree with that. Our colleagues from the New Democratic party who govern in three provinces in Canada are frequently engaged in discussions about how to deal with the serious problems of provincial indebtedness. Our colleagues from Conservative governments in some of the provinces are likewise faced with tackling those problems.

We are also faced with a slow economic recovery this time.

The fact that the recession that started in 1990 dragged on for so long is an indication that our economy is undergoing fundamental changes.

This is not just like the last recession. What we have encountered is a fundamental change in our economy. There is a restructuring whereby many companies are rebuilding on the basis of downsizing. We have seen a significant reduction in employment even while economic growth is beginning again. That in turn has caused what can only be described as a crisis of confidence, particularly among consumers.

If we look at the tracking of graphs as we grow out of the past recession and compare them to the tracking after the recession of the early 1980s what can be seen indicates the lack of consumer confidence which has been prolonging this recession. There are very low numbers in residential housing for example and in consumption of durable goods.

Consumers do not have confidence. Why? It is because not only do we have a high rate of unemployment of 11 plus per cent but we are also faced with the fact that virtually 40 per cent of the people who have jobs are concerned they are going to lose them. Where can we inspire confidence to begin to build again?

Internal trade barriers. I am talking again about obstacles that we have to overcome. Can it be explained to me why in Canada our regime of international trade is roughly equivalent to what the GATT provided internationally back in the late 1940s? What makes it so hard to us to break down the barriers of trade among our own Canadian provinces? We do not have a big market in the world. Our domestic market based on population is roughly the size of the state of California. Yet we have created these obstacles among us to take that already small market and make it even smaller. We like 10 little markets instead of putting together one medium sized market which would enable us to compete in the world.

I have to say we have made headway in that area during the meeting held this week in Ottawa by the Minister of Industry and the Minister of Economic Development. There is a great common will among the ministers to find effective means of removing trade barriers between Canadian provinces.

We now have a fixed schedule. We will have a preliminary draft agreement of an internal trade agreement by February 14, Valentine's day. We hope that will be further transformed by provincial negotiators into a draft agreement for consideration by ministers by the end of March. We are working on a strict and tight timetable on this file and we have enormous good will among all provincial governments and the federal government to tackle this obstacle.

It can create jobs, not just because of the encouragement of trade within Canada, but the fact that we have these internal barriers is a deterrent to foreign investment. Why? It is because under our international treaties it is just as easy to trade into Canada from the United States, in fact it is easier, than it is to trade within Canada across provincial boundaries. Why are we penalizing ourselves in this way? It simply does not make sense. I am hopeful that this process toward progress on this file will continue very rapidly.

In addition to attacking obstacles we have to build on our strengths. It is reflected clearly in the red book and also in the speech from the throne that one of the strengths in this country we have to build on is the small business sector. There are 900,000 small and medium sized enterprises in this country. If we could enable them each to hire one Canadian then our unemployment problem would no longer be upon us.

For that reason I think the efforts the Canadian Chamber of Commerce has under way to identify how to create one million jobs in Canada is something we in government ought to encourage and support. It is the kinds of partnerships we can build with the private sector, business organizations, labour organizations and others that are going to enable us to overcome obstacles and build on some of our strengths.

Small business has told us pretty clearly what problems they face. They are the masters or the creators of 80 per cent of the new jobs in Canada. Yet they tell us repeatedly-my colleague from Broadview-Greenwood has borne eloquent testimony to this-they cannot get adequate capital or financing to do what they want to do to create jobs.

We must find a way to bring our financial institutions to bear all of their resources on how to solve this problem of inadequate capital in small and medium sized business. I am not so sure we do it by passing laws and making rules but we are working very directly with financial institutions and trying to see what it is that makes it so hard to provide adequate capital for small business, in particular small businesses that are engaged in the process of developing and marketing new technologies. I will say a little more about the innovative economy in a few minutes.

I can understand why it is difficult. How does one secure debt against knowledge? A knowledge based enterprise finds it difficult, however, to get the capital resources it needs in order to build foreign markets, to do research and development, to get the kinds of sales it needs and to finance those sales over development periods. These are problems we are going to have to tackle.

Small and medium sized business needs technology. Technology diffusion has to be the key to building a more active and more aggressive small and medium sized business sector. It is clear in the studies that have been done that growing small business means adequate capital, adequate access to new and existing technologies, good marketing and management skills. Those are the keys. There are no secrets here.

The question is: How do we help small business in achieving the things that it knows?

It is clear to us that the small and medium-sized businesses are the key to the economic recovery that, I believe, we are all waiting for.

We also need to concentrate our efforts on building a new and innovative economy. Canada is a very blessed country. We enjoy enormous prosperity and have over many years. Why? It is largely because we find ourselves in a country that is rich in natural resources. We built our prosperity on resources we were able to access easily and that the world wanted to buy from us for very good prices.

During the war my predecessor, whose desk I am proud to sit at in my ministry, C. D. Howe, built the Canadian manufacturing economy to meet the needs of the war. After the war, he was able to transform it to peaceful purposes behind tariff barriers.

At a time when Europe was flattened and when the new competition we now face in Asia was virtually non-existent, Canada was able to build a strong manufacturing based economy. There we were as we came through the 1950s and 1960s. With strong sales of natural resources, high prices and a good manufacturing base, things were going well for us. It looked like it would never end.

Today the problems that we face in some ways reflect upon the very strengths that we had in those decades. It was easy for us to be prosperous at that time relative to many other countries that had to build their war-torn economies up from the ground.

Now we find that our cheapest natural resources have been sold off. It becomes more expensive for us to acquire them whether they are from the forests or the mines. The fish are gone. Agriculture is becoming tough and competitive. Our manufacturing economy that was built up during and after the war is finding that change is overtaking it.

The rebirth of Europe in the 1960s and 1970s was tough competition. Now we have the emergence in Asia of strong manufacturing based economies. These are the problems we face. What do we do now?

We need to find the innovation and the change that will enable us to compete against these companies in places around the world. If I can put it in a phrase, my objective as Minister of Industry is to make the Canadian business sector synonymous with quality and innovation. It is by emphasizing these two characteristics that we are going to regain our place in the world. That will be the key to our economic growth.

Some people think governments do not play a role in these things. They think one just stands back and lets the world unfold as it is going to. That is wrong. Government plays a very important role in this. Government has to play a role solving some of the problems we talked about earlier. Government also has to play a role itself in not being an obstacle.

We are prepared to work with provincial governments to ensure that whatever burdens are being placed on business can be reduced. As an initiative of this government we want to work with the provinces to reduce duplication and overlap.

As the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs said, overlap is indeed a concern for the government.

We are prepared through strategic investments, through the Canada Investment Fund, through the creation of technology networks and by giving leadership on issues like the electronic highway to help the Canadian business sector to move forward into the 21st century.

The information highway is a good example of the fact that government has a role to play. We saw Vice President Gore in the last weeks make a major statement on what the information highway can mean and look like in the United States. We have to play a leadership role in defining what this highway is to look like, how it is to help Canadian business move forward into the future.

We have some advantages here as a country which is so huge geographically and so sparsely populated. We have built strengths in telecommunications and in satellite communications, despite what may have happened to Anik. Those who want to watch it on Newsworld will have to miss it for today.

However, there are strengths that our Canadian industrial base has within it that will tie perfectly to the rapid explosion of the information technologies. One of the roles of government is to provide the necessary leadership. We want to help find ways in which the regulatory regime should be structured to encourage the right level of competition of Canadian ownership. Those are two of our goals. We will see to it that we are in the right place to

encourage pilot projects to see how this new technology infrastructure is going to work.

We are playing a role, for example, in the Canary project which is tying research facilities across Canada together. We recently had the pleasure of announcing in Ottawa-Carleton the establishment of the OCI net which is a measure to provide what will ultimately be a node on the information highway which is to come.

These are exciting possibilities. There are many more to come. We have a role to play. We need to remove the obstacles that impede economic development. We need to build on our strengths. Canada is a marvellous country. We believe in it. We can overcome the obstacles as we have in the past and we can build on our strengths.

Speech From The ThroneGovernment Orders

12:50 p.m.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)

Before proceeding to the 10 minutes of questions and comments, I wish to inform the House that pursuant to Standing Order 33(2)(b) because of the ministerial statement, Government Orders will be extended by 13 minutes.

We will open questions and comments with the hon. member for Québec-Est.

Speech From The ThroneGovernment Orders

12:50 p.m.

Bloc

Jean-Paul Marchand Bloc Québec-Est, QC

Mr. Speaker, thank you very much. I am very pleased to be able to speak for the first time in this hon. Chamber, the symbol of democracy in Canada.

I believe that I am the last Bloc member to speak for the first time, but that does not take anything away from the importance I attach to my maiden speech or from the pleasure it gives me.

I am also especially honoured to be the member for Québec-Est and to represent that riding. I take the opportunity, as many of us have already done, to thank my constituents who had the good judgment to elect me as their member. I have the honour to represent a very beautiful riding in Quebec City and to have won by 21,000 votes. This is an impressive victory, all the more so since I ran against a very well-known personality in Quebec whose name I will not mention in this House.

I am a new member who intends to be a good MP and to represent his riding well. I come back to what the Minister of Industry said. I appreciated it as an opening. He said that we have an important responsibility to be honourable, to be sincere, to work hard because we have heavy responsibilities, and that is what I intend to do. I intend to do that for my constituents, especially since most of them voted for the Bloc knowing full well that we are a sovereignist party. I believe firmly in this option and I think that I will therefore defend it with great zeal and gusto.

I would also like to take the opportunity to raise a point which has not yet been raised and that surprises me a lot. We have had many discussions to date on the relative merits of Canada versus Quebec, as they relate to the question of sovereignty, and no one has yet spoken about the rights of francophones outside Quebec.

I would have liked the Speaker to be here today, not only to congratulate him on his election, and I take the opportunity, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to congratulate you on your appointment. Nevertheless, I would have liked him to be here because he is a Franco-Ontarian. I have had a chance to discuss the issue of francophones outside Quebec with the Speaker, because he comes from Ontario, as I do. I am a native of Ontario myself.

I was born in Ontario.

That is why I am a sovereignist today: I was a francophone outside Quebec and I know the situation they are in.

If there is one thing that I will mention and emphasize in this House, it is the abuses and injustices which francophones outside Quebec have suffered. Many people talked about the virtues of Canada, like the Minister of Foreign Affairs and others yesterday and the day before, but I did not have a chance to answer. Now I will give my reply.

Speech From The ThroneGovernment Orders

12:55 p.m.

Liberal

Dennis Mills Liberal Broadview—Greenwood, ON

I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I just need some clarification. We had the Minister of Industry here. I thought I heard you say questions and comments. We asked the minister to stay here thinking there might be a question. I wondered if in fact there would be a question.

Speech From The ThroneGovernment Orders

12:55 p.m.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)

I thank the hon. member for his comment. Recognizing the member for Quebec-Est in his first intervention here in this House of this 35th Parliament I think seized the occasion. I understand and have witnessed all members making reference to their constituents, thanking them and so on. Certainly I want to give the floor back to the member for Quebec-Est and give him the opportunity to complete his comment and would hope that in the end it would allow time also for the Minister of Industry to reply to his comment.

Speech From The ThroneGovernment Orders

12:55 p.m.

Bloc

Jean-Paul Marchand Bloc Québec-Est, QC

Mr. Speaker, I did not want to be too long in my introduction; I simply wanted to comment on the very interesting statements made by the Minister of Industry.

As was mentioned, the minister referred to several issues. He said, among other things, that one of the most important objectives stated in the Liberal Party's red book is the creation of jobs. It just so happens that I am the official critic for the Bloc on agricultural issues and these days the minister of agriculture

is negotiating with the Americans a substantial loss of jobs in the field of agriculture, in fact a potential loss of 10,000 jobs in that sector for Quebec and Ontario.

It is rather puzzling that one of the first agreements signed with the Americans by a government which claims to be in favour of job creation could in fact lead to the loss of several thousand jobs in the agricultural sector.

I agree with the hon. member when he says that our society is undergoing radical changes. He emphasizes of course that those changes have strictly an economic dimension, and I agree with him that the world is indeed in a state of flux which affects Quebec and Canada, and which triggers a real problem of confidence. This brings me back to his comments on the role of members of Parliament: we must inspire confidence. We must inspire confidence, but I am under the impression that we are not doing very well in that regard.

Take, for example, the GATT agreement which the minister alluded to. I assume that the hon. minister is among those who believe that GATT is a very good agreement. It is obvious that we derive some benefits from it, but we have also suffered substantial losses.

Personally, I am not among those who believe that GATT is such a marvellous thing. On the contrary, I am under the impression that the opening of new markets, in the context of that agreement, adversely affects levels of production. It favours major American industries at the expense of Canadian ones.

In the agricultural sector, we have suffered considerable losses through GATT.

Speech From The ThroneGovernment Orders

1 p.m.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)

In fairness, I will allow one brief question as I have to give the minister time to respond. Therefore, a very brief question from the hon. member for Québec-Est.