Debates of Sept. 26th, 1994

Department Of Industry Act

[The Deputy Speaker]

It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 38, to inform the House that the question to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment is as follows: the hon. member for Bourassa-Immigration.

[Mary Clancy, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Citizenship and Immigration]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to take a few minutes to speak on the subject of Bill C-46, the Department of Industry Act. This is very comprehensive legislation providing for a department with far-reaching responsibilities and a wide array of instruments to carry them out.

The department it creates is a necessary tool in the agenda of the government to generate economic growth and job creation and to prepare for the innovative and, indeed, very different economy of the 21st century.

Bill C-46 recognizes once again what are the real needs of the new economy, what is demanded of Canadians if we are to continue to enjoy the economic well-being that a resource rich past has made possible.

This bill provides the organizational structure to permit a consistent, coherent focus on those strategies which will assist Canadians in the transition from a resource based to an information based economy.

This organization will have the lead role in generating the consensus and gathering the studied advice of the main players in the economic development game, whether they are business people, scientists, engineers, educators, consumers or other governments.

The bill recognizes that at the heart of economic development and job creation are science and technology, research and development, technological and managerial innovation, areas that have for far too long been neglected in this country.

Attention to these issues and approaches to the challenges they present are long overdue. Canada has been slow to recognize the importance of innovation and technology to competitiveness. Technology has transformed the economy dramatically with increasing growth in the knowledge and information based industries.

Also technology is revolutionizing the way we do business in manufacturing, in resource industries, and the service sector. Thus innovation has become the key to growth in both the new and traditional sectors of the economy. Our performance in embracing innovation has not been spectacular.

For example, the percentage of Canadian firms that carry out any research and development activities is less than one-half of 1 per cent of Canadian enterprises. That is unacceptable.

Further, not only do we have too few leading edge firms developing new technologies, we do not have enough Canadian firms searching the world marketplaces to find technology and bring it home, using it here to build our innovative capacity, in other words adapting it to the Canadian experience.

Canadian businesses, scientists, and Canadian workers are becoming increasingly aware of these needs and yet they cannot meet such challenges by themselves individually and separately.

Somehow the concerted, co-operative effort of all the participants must be brought to bear in addressing the problem. That is precisely what the government has recognized and is taking steps to bring about.

The red book that first outlined the agenda that the government is following pointed out the need for an innovative economy. It also pointed out that innovation does not just happen. It thrives in countries that consciously understand the innovative process and take measures to create a national system of innovation.

It stated that the role of the federal government is to work with the private sector, to identify strategic opportunities for the future, and then to redirect existing resources toward their fulfilment. Common sense, a hallmark of the government.

That is the spirit in which the government has approached the science and technology sector as a key to development of an innovative economy. The February budget illustrates that spirit in action. Again, common sense.

The federal government spends about $6 billion per year on science and technology. Tax expenditures account for about $1 billion more. One of the measures announced in the budget is a true strategy to maximize the benefits of these expenditures, a strategy for research and development with priorities, direction and review of results.

The Minister of Industry was charged with the task of preparing a paper on science and technology clearly stating the government's priorities, to set the stage for a national dialogue on a new national science and technology strategy. This paper was released on June 28. In the meantime a full review of science and technology programs is under way.

The February budget also announced a number of initiatives to further the cause of an innovative economy. The Canadian technology network to help small businesses get access to new technology to compete in world markets was announced, as was a technology partnership program to help smaller firms gain access to research results done in government and university labs.

An engineers and scientists program will help small businesses get the technological expertise they need. Development of a Canadian strategy for the information highway was announced. Again, common sense.

Other decisions and initiatives have followed. Negotiations were completed with the United States for participation in the space station resulting in an excellent deal for both countries.

A new long-term space plan was announced. The National Centres of Excellence funding was extended, 10 networks renewed and the second round of competitions for new networks launched.

A new president of the National Research Council was appointed and the council's declining budget was stabilized, as were those of the granting councils.

Initiatives aimed at helping young Canadians adapt to an innovation economy such as SchoolNet, Computers for Schools and Innovators in the Schools have met with great success.

The evidence is clear to me that the government is on the right track and well-launched on the route to assisting in the creation of an innovative economy. The bill which officially establishes the chief instrument of the federal government's role in this task is yet another step along the route.

The Department of Industry created by this bill will be uniquely equipped to become the workshop in which the major players in the innovative economy can forge their weapons. This is the organization that will be able to provide the listening post, host the consultations, lead the discussion and develop the resultant policies.

It will be able to provide the consistent, continued attention required to develop and implement coherent strategies over the time required for them to be effective. Common sense once again.

I have every confidence in the abilities and creative energies of Canadians. I do not find the idea of common sense funny. I find it, again, common sensible. I am sure we have the capacity to create an innovative economy capable of competing in the global marketplace well into the 21st century, as long as we do not spend a lot of time laughing.

What Canadians need to get the job done is the kind of common sense leadership that the government is providing; leadership with clear objectives and concrete measures to achieve them. Bill C-46 is one of these concrete measures. I firmly recommend its approval by the House.

[Andrew Telegdi, Liberal, Waterloo, ON]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague mentioned that we have a new president at NRC. The gentleman's name is Dr. Arthur Carty. He was vice-president in charge

of research at the University of Waterloo. That is most significant because the University of Waterloo has very much been an innovator in the new technology.

I wonder if the hon. member would like a comment on the following. So often we hear the laissez-faire approach from the Reform Party but when we look at successful economies presently able to compete internationally they are economies with a national strategy.

Would the hon. member agree this puts us in a position of being able to have a national strategy with a Team Canada concept as we go out and compete in the international marketplace, exporting, bringing business to this country, putting people to work?

[Mary Clancy, Liberal, Halifax, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for Waterloo for his question. Indeed I would agree most particularly. As the hon. member is aware, my riding of Halifax as well has universities that have been part of the kind of development that his well respected University of Waterloo has been.

Without an industrial strategy such as the one proposed through the Department of Industry in concert with the Department of Finance and other departments, we will not be prepared for the next century. I know this perhaps better than some because I come from an area of the country that suffered a great deal when we agreed to choose Canada and become part of this great country in Confederation.

We had a north-south bias. We had the days of wooden ships and iron persons as we now call them. Many things happened in the way of transportation, the passage of goods and other things that were not always to the financial benefit of Atlantic Canadians.

However, being part of this great Confederation has always been to the benefit of Atlantic Canadians. We are perhaps not the proudest but among the proudest citizens of this country. We are glad we chose it and would do so again and again.

We also know that to ensure our region is healthy, to ensure that Ontario, the engine that drives the country, is healthy and to ensure that the great Canadian west and north are healthy, an industrial strategy is an absolute necessity.

I applaud the minister and the department for the work they are doing in this area.

[Maria Minna, Liberal, Beaches—Woodbine, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to speak on the subject of second reading of Bill C-46, the Department of Industry Act.

Like other members who have spoken on this topic, I am convinced that this bill is a sound strategic initiative by this government and an excellent piece of legislation. I like this bill for its comprehensive inclusion of the chief functions necessary to achieving the government's agenda for economic growth and job creation, for its incorporating under one organizational umbrella the many concerns related to growth.

I take particular satisfaction from the recognition by the bill of the importance of small and medium size businesses and tourism. My riding has many small businesses and I believe firmly that this bill will be of great assistance to them.

In recent months as I met and spoke with small and medium size businesses in the metro Toronto area one of the recurring things that came through consistently was that is was very difficult for them to access government programs. It meant going from department to department and most small and medium size businesses do not have the resources to research what government programs are available, how to access them, who to talk to and how to research them and whether or not their company is eligible for any of these aids or partnerships that we offer.

It is important and critical that the four departments are now coming together, that there will be one stop shopping and that the businesses will be able to access these programs and work collectively.

In order for Canada to succeed in the global economy and to create the jobs that we need it is important that there be one consistent vision and one cohesive approach to strategic planning. To me it is important that when we put together R and D, the manufacturing, marketing, the promotion of mobility across this country and all of the things that this department will be grouping within it, these things work together, that one augments the other and supplements the other, and that business can access all of it at the same time.

Some of the examples that were given to me by business were things such as research and development is great but you can develop a product and not be able to bring it to market. One example was given where there was some research done by a university but where the product was in the end manufactured in the U.S. The jobs are in the manufacturing, not just in the research. That is where a large number of jobs are. It is critical that these kinds of things happen within our country and that kind of linkage exists.

It is also very important to me and I am very pleased to see that sustainable development and the environment are included in clause 5 of this bill. Putting together the environment and industries in the same clause, dealing with it very aggressively in making it a partnership is very critical. We have to be leaders in this country. The environmental industry is job creation. It is a plus. It is not a detriment, as some people might think.

To me it is extremely important that industry will be working together with the environment and that the environment is part of the planning of industry so that it is not something separate that one does as an adjunct to the industrial strategy of this country.

The red book which detailed this government's agenda before the last election foresaw this bill. It announced that the government would focus on small and medium size businesses as the determining factor in turning around the economy. The speech from the throne made good our electoral commitment by placing small and medium size businesses at the top of the agenda, focusing on them for long term job creation.

The February budget followed through, announcing a long list of small business related initiatives. With the February budget papers the government published its action plan entitled growing small businesses. This publication was meant to stimulate discussion and get the business community actively engaged in helping to create an environment more conducive to small business and entrepreneurship. For example, Industry Canada is exploring with the Canadian Chamber of Commerce the feasibility of developing a business network strategy to set up some 30 business networks to foster co-operation and collaboration among small and medium size firms with common interests.

Also, an array of initiatives has been announced as part of the small and medium size enterprise agenda.

A pilot program will be launched under the technology partnership program, exploring the feasibility of incentives for universities to enter into partnerships, the small and medium size firms to develop emerging technologies for industrial application.

As part of the science and technology review, the Secretary of State for Science, Research and Development will conduct consultations on a program to provide small and medium size firms with cost shared salary support for hiring scientists, engineers, technologists and industrial designers, as my colleague said previously.

A new fund has been established to help expand existing business through the Federal Business Development Bank. The Canada community investment fund has been announced, one of the aims of which is to ensure availability of equity financing for small firms.

Industry Canada is working with a private sector coalition to set up a national business network demonstration program. The program will help business create networks to foster co-operation and collaboration and better prepare Canadian small and medium size businesses to compete at home and internationally.

Another example of our recognition is the hospitality industry. The key role of tourism in the economy is clear. Five per cent of the Canadian workforce is employed in some 500,000 full time equivalent tourism jobs in more than 60,000 enterprises.

Employment in tourism is growing one and a half times faster than industries as a whole. Visitors to Canada last year contributed approximately $9 billion in foreign exchange and Canadians added about $18 billion while travelling within Canada.

I want to point out that it is not simply in work within this ministry that co-operation is happening. We look at the HRD department and how it is going to be complimenting what we are doing in this department. Look at the hospitality industry. That department has recently signed an agreement with the National Tourism Human Resource Council. Its objective will be to co-ordinate and support research and analysis of the industry's training needs. It will formulate national occupational standards and certification programs. It will provide the means for the sharing of information initiatives and it will be a national advocate on behalf of the tourism industry for human resource issues.

Human Resources Development Canada endorses the council and the goals that it has set for itself. The federal government is contributing over $977,000, the tourism industry is providing over $2.2 million or thereabouts. This is only one of 13 sectoral agreements that had been signed. Since the hospitality industry agreement was signed a great many more have been signed.

This shows that we are not just looking at the industrial side which is absolutely necessary. Coupled with that we are also looking at the manpower required in order to create the jobs in these industries. There cannot be one without the other. We have a new bill and new department pulling together all of the industrial strategies necessary for the country.

However, we also have another department that is looking at the manpower required and arranging sectoral agreements with various sectors of the economy to create the kinds of skills and manpower required for the jobs we are creating for the future.

I am very much in support of this bill and I want to congratulate the minister for pulling this together. I hope the House will support it.

[Carolyn Parrish, Liberal, Mississauga West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, Bill C-46 is a balanced, streamlined and positive bill. The country is ready for a new industrial, scientific revolution.

I would like to share briefly with members some of the signs that are occurring in Mississauga and I would like to ask for her comments at the end.

Mississauga is the ninth largest city in the country and is a microcosm of Canadian society. The forecast for housing in Mississauga was $600 million. It was revised today to $850

million in new starts. The industrial growth has been revised from 2.2 million square feet to 3.5 million square feet for next year.

Does the member for Beaches-Woodbine believe that Bill C-46 and all this wonderful economic activity going on in Mississauga balance or co-ordinate at all with the election of a sensible, positive Liberal government?

[Maria Minna, Liberal, Beaches—Woodbine, ON]

Mr. Speaker, obviously it does compliment. I suppose that is a leading question if I ever had one but it is a great question.

The member is quite right. We talk a great deal in this House about getting rid of duplication and cutbacks. There are all kinds of comments coming from the opposition about the overlap. In this case we are doing exactly what a great many people have been saying, let us get rid of the overlap of the duplication and let us pull together into one bill all of those aspects which are necessary to deal with the new strategies of the global economy and the new technologies of today. We are dealing with technology. We are dealing with all of the different aspects that involve these things.

At the same time we are looking at the manpower needs for the future in the new strategies of industry. Small and medium size businesses need this kind of assistance and infrastructure. They are working with us. We are not coming up with these solutions or policies in isolation without consultations with small and medium size businesses and business in general in this country.

As I said, the sectoral agreements which were signed by the Minister of Human Resources Development were signed in agreement. We are working together and sharing the responsibilities. That is how this country was built and where the future of this country lies, in a partnership with business.

[Cliff Breitkreuz, Reform, Yellowhead, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak on this bill.

Bill C-46 provided the federal government a chance to do more to change the status quo. This bill will give the Minister of Industry powers relating to regional economic development programs in Ontario and Quebec. This is outlined in part I, subclause 4(2) of the bill.

Will these powers actually extend to the Minister of Industry and will he retain these powers or will the Governor General continue to vest to the Minister of Finance control over the federal office of regional development Quebec? We will be watching these developments very closely.

It is clear that present ways of administering government lack effectiveness and efficiency. I need only point to the federal debt which is well over the $500 billion mark and rising to illustrate that point.

By the end of the next three years this government will have added approximately $97 billion to the federal debt. That is the highest increase in the history of Canada for any three year period. The so-called fiscal plan of the government shortchanges all Canadians. The plain fact is that fixing the deficit targeted at 3 per cent of GDP is not good enough when our federal debt is at 71 per cent and the total public debt is nearly 100 per cent of GDP respectively.

The government must change the way it operates now if it is going to bring the country's financial house in order. Bill C-46 does little to achieve this goal which is the main reason we cannot support it.

Bill C-46 is a statement of what the Department of Industry does. This bill gives the minister sweeping powers to create an environment where government is the central tool of economic development and deeply involved in the private sector. My colleague from Okanagan Centre went into great detail in that area.

There were 52 Reform MPs elected for some very fundamental reasons. The Canadian electorate wants change to the system. Last year's election was the first wave to bring about that change. One of the reasons Reformers were elected has to do with our policy regarding private enterprise. Reformers believe that private enterprise must be the engine which drives the economy. A dollar left in the pocket of the businessman is more efficiently spent than a dollar spent by the government. This is common sense. Businesses are in the business of creating jobs, making and investing money and unfortunately governments are in the habit of spending it, very often frivolously.

Reformers value enterprise and initiative. We see the government's role as fostering and protecting an environment in which initiative and enterprise can be exercised by individuals and groups. Regional development programs have the potential to create waste and abuse. It is no surprise that a senior cabinet minister from Quebec is currently in charge of FORD-Q. Nor is it a surprise that a senior cabinet minister from the west is in charge of Western Economic Diversification. And the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency is administered by the Minister of Public Works and Government Services.

These regional development programs, which account for well over $1 billion per year, do little for the long term benefit of the country. They are supposed to enhance employment opportunities, strengthen the national economy, stimulate investment and promote the interests and protection of Canadian consumers.

These are not my musings, they come straight from Bill C-46. However I submit that these programs do very little to achieve their self-proclaimed goals. FORD-Q is an example of how a regional development program just does not stack up. The objective of FORD-Q, as outlined in the 1994-95 main estimates, part III, is to promote the economic development of the regions of Quebec with low incomes, slow economic growth or

inadequate possibilities for productive employment, by emphasizing long term economic development and sustainable employment and income creation.

In an address to the Standing Committee on Industry in May the finance minister waxed eloquent, as he usually does when he speaks, about the so-called merits of FORD-Q. He told the committee:

Over the last six years FORD-Q's activities in all the regions of Quebec have created remarkable spin-offs: $1.1 billion invested in more than 3,600 projects, a total investment of nearly $5.8 billion and 56,000 jobs. We have enjoyed outstanding success.

I find it very interesting that the finance minister considers spending over $103,000 for one job to be an efficient use of taxpayers' money. What is even more interesting is what the finance minister said to the committee in his next breath:

Quebec is nonetheless saddled with an unemployment rate that approaches 13 per cent.

The evidence is there. In the last six years FORD-Q has done little to promote long term economic development and sustainable employment. Quebec has an unemployment rate higher than the national average, yet part of FORD-Q's mandate is to promote sustainable employment.

Additionally, FORD-Q was to help convince Quebec to stay in Canada. It is a miserable failure in that area as well.

It is important to point out that FORD-Q is not the only regional development program which falls short of its mandate. The Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency also merits comment. Since ACOA launched its co-operative program in 1989, a program of federal-provincial economic development initiatives, two things have happened: first, the average unemployment rate in the Atlantic region has increased by nearly 2 per cent; second, the number of people on welfare has grown by nearly 3 per cent.

I ask the question: Has ACOA really made the Atlantic economy more viable? The numbers would seem to indicate otherwise, as would the deplorable state of the fishing industry, especially in Newfoundland.

Western Economic Diversification is another example of a regional development program engaging in huge expenditures of taxpayers' dollars. This year's budget for WED is over $452 million. Its mandate is to promote the development and diversification of western Canada's economy. Since its inception in 1987 to the end of fiscal 1993 WED has doled out more than $1 billion to over 3,000 projects. That is over $330,000 per project, never mind the fact that only 40,000 jobs, many of them short term, have resulted from this huge expenditure.

The average welfare rate in some of the western provinces has gone up by almost 2 per cent in the last three years, and the unemployment rate has followed a similar path. Again the numbers indicate that regional development programs are not very effective.

As a critic for regional economic development, I would like to relate some information we obtained which shows why these programs are questionable expenditures of taxpayers' dollars.

FORD-Q recently finished up its support program for fashion design. This program committed $2.9 million to raise the profile of fashion design from the Montreal region. Of that $2.9 million, $2.6 million was in the form of grants, money which is not repaid. On researching this particular program we found that three companies went out of business shortly after receiving their grants. There were three additional companies for which FORD-Q officials could not account. Why would FORD-Q give money to these companies without keeping tabs on their progress?

We looked into the whereabouts of these companies and found that only two of the companies were still in operation. Combined, the grants for these companies totalled over $234,000. That money has gone up in smoke. FORD-Q officials cannot even keep track of where the money is going. FORD-Q under the Montreal development fund program is now handing out another $1.5 million to the fashion design sector. How much of that money will go unaccounted?

Taxpayers would rather manage their own money than have one branch of the government take it and pump it back into programs that just do not seem to work. There are examples this kind right across the country. Taxpayers deserve a better fate than having their money squandered on so-called regional development programs. It is no wonder division exists in the country when questionable programs for every region of Canada waste taxpayers' dollars.

As a new government the Liberals have a chance to truly change the way things are done. These regional development programs were used by the Tories as pork-barrelling tools. I would encourage the Minister of Industry to do a thorough review of all the regional economic development programs, including western economic diversification.

In fact I ask the minister to go even a step further and turn all economic development over to the provinces.

[Morris Bodnar, Liberal, Saskatoon—Dundurn, SK]

Mr. Speaker, the suggestion of the hon. member in his speech dealing with western diversification is that there should be a review. That is presently taking place. The review is being conducted.

During this review and while visiting communities in Alberta and British Columbia, the business people in those provinces have indicated that there is a need for western diversification funding during a certain time in the development of product. In Saskatchewan the biotech industry exists because of western

diversification. It has become the envy of other science communities and has become one of the leading biotech centres in the world.

Does the hon. member feel that all funding for all purposes in the development of industry in western Canada should be cut off by western diversification? If so, does he see any role whatsoever for western diversification in western Canada?

[Cliff Breitkreuz, Reform, Yellowhead, AB]

Mr. Speaker, in so far as the human resources review is concerned it has been so on and off that no one really knows where it is right now.

Our policy is to cease funding to regional economic development. The reason why Alberta and to some extent B.C. have diversified their economies so well has not so much to do with federal funding, it has to do with the provinces providing the right kind of atmosphere and climate for these diversifications to occur.

[Len Hopkins, Liberal, Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON]

Mr. Speaker, this bill that is before the House today-

[Ian McClelland, Reform, Edmonton Southwest, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I believe that my hon. colleague was splitting time with me so that I should probably be up at this time.

[The Deputy Speaker]

The lists change all the time. It was the Chair's understanding that the Reform Party was not splitting time and that the member for Edmonton Southwest was going to go for the full 20 minutes if he so wished after the two members on the other side.

[Ian McClelland, Reform, Edmonton Southwest, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I will follow the Liberal speaker.

[Len Hopkins, Liberal, Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the Department of Industry Act in Bill C-46 that is before the House today combines many things into one department. There is not too much wrong with that because in the last Parliament-at least in 1984-we saw 40 ministries represented in the House of Commons. It was the largest cabinet in Canadian history.

Today we have 22 ministers in the House of Commons. The Department of Industry Act will provide a clear, comprehensive, legislative mandate and some co-ordination for many of those departments that were before separated and divided among 40 people.

Some people have the idea that everything the Department of Industry will be doing was listed by the parliamentary secretary today when he was speaking. Why should it be all listed? I believe we can safely say that such an impression is just that, it is an impression. While titles ideally should be symbolic, they should not be mistaken for substance.

If a number of subjects are built into one department and the minister has some initiative, some vision and some leadership ability, as we have in the Department of Industry, all those things are going to be co-ordinated very well.

The minister has many challenges in the proper co-ordination of all the various agendas that have been handed to him in one department. Let us take tourism for example. One of his jobs is to promote the tourism industry.

I have seen a very good group of tourism people put together in former departments shoved from one department to another. In recent years, they have been chopped to pieces and now just a few of them are left.

I sat in on a committee in the last Parliament where even representatives of big tourist industries were saying: "We do not need Tourism Canada at all. We can look after ourselves. We would rather promote ourselves." That is fine if you are one of the big tourism industries. They can look after themselves at home and they can do their advertising abroad. The small and medium sized industries are not in the same favourable position.

We should be promoting tourism in every nation of the world. Canadian citizens represent a lot of people from various countries. We should be zeroing in on those countries because there is a friendship base to go on. We should invite those people to come over here to visit their relatives and to travel. We also should go into the massive population areas of the world as well and advertise there.

Seventy per cent of the world's population will be living on the Pacific rim in the year 2000. That is the area where Canadians should be zeroing in for tourist business as well as for international trade.

In every phase of the Department of Industry that this bill is setting up today, we are going to require that vision, that breadth of mind, the determination that we mentioned in the red book during the election campaign. New initiatives are necessary. We cannot stay with the status quo. We cannot promote the status quo. We have to change with the demands of the international market. That should be no big problem.

Under the new legislation we will have sections in the department of industry such as science, development of new technology, communications, investments, consumer and corporate affairs and industrial development generally. They are not the total department by any means. We need some co-ordination. In the Public Service of Canada and other sectors there have to be people with some imagination, and real life experience does not hurt once in a while.

We talk about high technology. Many people think of it only in terms of industry, that is the old term industry. They forget that agriculture is an industry. We have large farms today that are industries in their own right. We have the dairy industry. We

have new technologies in the dairy industry, the beef industry and in cash crops. We could talk about any of them. There are new developments.

If members want to see the change in the agricultural industry over the years they should go to a modern day ploughing match such as the one we had in Renfrew county this past week. They will see all kinds of changes. Even the faces of members of Parliament who go there change. I am proud to say that 17 members of the House saw fit to plough. I congratulate the hon. member who came first, a member of the Reform Party from British Columbia. I compliment my colleague from Hastings-Frontenac-Lennox and Addington who came second. I congratulate the hon. member for Erie who came third. However it would do us a lot of good if we kept up with modern technology. Maybe we would make better ploughers.

Nevertheless we have all this equipment and advertising, 42 city blocks of it, and people talk about agriculture as if it is a way of life. It is a real industry in itself and that is what every parliamentarian has to realize.

I notice investment is a very important part of the new Ministry of Industry we are setting up today. If there is anything that businesses need today, it is stable financial sources to work with. If there is anything we have to do in Parliament, it is to provide a source of money for industry to operate, to develop and to progress.

The Federal Business Development Bank will have to change. There must be reforms. We have to move into a new era. In my view Parliament, the 35th Parliament of Canada, and the present government have the greatest opportunity. Yes, they have many challenges but along with the many challenges are the great opportunities. The Government of Canada, ministers and members of the House have a great opportunity to bring a new deal to our nation of Canada. We have to do it with some vision. We have to look forward. We cannot be antsy about changing our ways.

Recently a Japanese homebuilder along with a Canadian entrepreneur visited my office. The Japanese want to buy houses from Canada, but they do not want to buy houses that will North Americanize the Japanese culture. They want Canadians to produce parts for their housing that will retain the Japanese culture. If that is what they want and if there is a big market there, it is up to Canadian entrepreneurs and the department of industry to work with them to develop new housing to suit the Japanese culture.

China is opening up. There are all kinds of new ideas and new opportunities. The message the Minister of Industry has to send to industries and entrepreneurs in Canada is that it is for them to make their product fit the demand.

The Minister for International Trade is going around the world. He has to find opportunities, bring them back to Canada and give them to our entrepreneurs. They should be flexible. With the expertise in the department of industry they should be able to meet that market, make a great success for Canada and provide jobs, great opportunities and growth right in Canada.

[Robert Bertrand, Liberal, Pontiac—Gatineau—Labelle, QC]

Mr. Speaker, Bill C-46, an Act to establish the Department of Industry, is yet another initiative, another attempt by this government to achieve the targets it had set itself in terms of economic growth, job creation and federal administration restructuring.

Whether we like it or not, Canada is rapidly moving away from the widely resource-based and strongly labour-intensive economy we have had so far and towards an economy based on information, knowledge and innovation. The economic standard calls for the restructuring of not only our industry and trade, but also our society. It also calls for greater attention being paid to basic factors, that is to say the underlying sources of growth and competitiveness as well as to the establishment of a climate conducive to entrepreneurship and less reliance on government financial assistance.

We must do better in the areas of education and training and emphasize research and development. Today more than ever before, we must face changes with an innovative and flexible attitude. We must take an international perspective which opens the door to both unforeseen opportunities and stiff competition on the globalized markets. The infrastructure will have to be capable of supporting tomorrow's economy, which pre-supposes making available to the Canadian public in general world-class communication and information technologies.

We must also make all of our activities more effective, in the private and public sectors alike. Business and industry must eliminate waste, reduce costs and make the most of Canadians' skills and talents. More generally, in order to revive the economy, the government must give priority to fostering a climate in which businesses can create more jobs for Canadians, and that is just what the Prime Minister did on September 18 when he announced the program to be developed by the Department of Industry by the end of October.

This program is aimed among other things at improving the business climate for entrepreneurs, helping businesses take advantage of the new technology, searching for growing markets, and promoting the tourism industry in particular.

It will not be easy to meet all these requirements. All participants will have to work together continuously. Furthermore, the government will have to adopt a consistent approach to the allocation of our resources and to the development and implementation of these same policies. That is why we have brought together in one department all the effective economic development tools that previously came under the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, the Department of Communications, Investment Canada and the Department of Industry, Science and Technology.

First, this reorganization will increase efficiency by eliminating duplication and overlap. Second, it will lead to more coherent policy development and thus greater effectiveness. The mandate of the Department of Industry is to promote economic development in Canada and to continue to keep the commitment made in this regard. Instead of simply distributing money to solve problems, the Department of Industry will work in conjunction with industry, teachers, scientists, technologists, researchers, consumers as well as other governments to reach these objectives.

By giving responsibility for the consumer affairs policy to the Department of Industry, we will ensure that consumers have a say in the development of policies influencing our marketplace. Efficient market operation is essential to economic renewal, and will benefit consumers as much as businesses. The Department of Industry Act sets up an integrated process in which consumers' concerns will be addressed as early as possible in the policy development process.

Efforts to protect consumers can thus be focused on preventing problems, rather than on solving them after the fact. In areas of vital interest for all Canadians, such as biotechnology and genetic engineering, the Labelling Act, and the regulation reform, our action will be based on consumers' interests. The co-operation of the Consumers' Association of Canada in many initiatives reflects consumer representation in the policy development process.

Let me mention, among others, the consultative committee on the information highway, the drafting of a new privacy protection code, the discussions between the federal government, the provinces and the industry on a code of practice for electronic funds transfer, as well as a pilot project to set up an alternative to dispute resolution, so as to allow consumers easier access to small claims court.

Those departmental initiatives are well underway, as shown by recent announcements made. As you know, the action plan unveiled by the Prime Minister to create an innovative economy, is consistent with our guiding principle. The Minister of Industry will soon announce the details of that important initiative. You are also well aware that Industry Canada participates actively in various program and policy reviews which will help us fulfill our mandate under the law.

Here are a few examples of our activities. We have finally made real progress regarding the domestic trade issue. Indeed, the Minister of Industry recently had the pleasure and the honour of contributing to the signing of an agreement between the provinces, the territories and the federal government on the first measures to eliminate the obstacles to domestic trade which have been created in our country over the last 127 years.

The agreement on domestic trade signed by the first ministers on June 28 is a good thing for all Canadians. Obstacles to domestic trade cost Canadians up to $7 billion a year. Having the goal of allowing for freer movement of individuals, goods, services and capital, this agreement provides for the elimination of trade barriers by July 1995.

The agreement sets general rules prohibiting the implementation of any new obstacles and abolishing existing barriers in ten areas, including transportation, government contracts, investment and workforce mobility. The agreement provides for another very important feature, a dispute settlement mechanism for these areas. Obviously, there is still much to be done. However, some of the provisions in this agreement will help us make more progress. The kind of co-operation we got in preparing the agreement allows us to hope for free movement of goods, services and workforce in Canada within a true economic union.

[Ian McClelland, Reform, Edmonton Southwest, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it has been a very interesting morning and afternoon in the House as this debate unfolded.

I am moved to ask rhetorically one question. What is it about getting elected that makes politicians venture capitalists? Is there some magic laying on of hands or something that we go through that I missed, that all of a sudden somehow we have the right to extract tax dollars out of the hides of people who are barely getting by earning $8 or $10 a hour, take it into government and then regurgitate about 20 cents to give it to somebody to go into competition with the people who gave us the money in the first place?

What is it about getting elected that gives us the wherewithal to start taking money from individuals and giving it to other individuals or giving it, worse, to corporations?

[Dennis Mills, Liberal, Broadview—Greenwood, ON]

How did you get elected?

[Ian McClelland, Reform, Edmonton Southwest, AB]

By saying that we are going to put a stop to this foolishness. We got elected by saying we have had enough of that. People in Alberta have learned that you cannot get yourself elected by continuing to spend other taxpayers' money

like it was someone else's. We have to start treating this money like it is our own.

I will give three reasons why we should not be in this business, MagCan, NovAtel and Gainers. We have no business being in business.

How did we get here? It is 1994. Here we are sitting in the Parliament of Canada. Many of us are sitting here because the last government imploded upon itself-Kim Campbell. How did we get into this reorganization in the first place? I guess that is the first question we have to ask ourselves. How did we get here in the first place to do this reorganization?

We got here because Kim Campbell noticed that there were a few bumps on the road ahead and she figured that perhaps one of the things that she could do is reduce the size of government, reduce the size of the cabinet which had grown to 40 or so members.

It makes sense, right? It does not make sense if you do it for the wrong reasons. It should have been done for the policy reason, not because they wanted to get elected, not for political reasons, but because it was the right thing to do.

Most people realize that before you make substantive organizational change you would do a review to make sure that you are making the change in the correct way and going at it carefully.

What did we do? The Liberal government inherited Kim Campbell's last gasp to get herself elected. It then had the opportunity and, recognizing the wisdom of downsizing government which was definitely a step in the right direction, carried forward and added to it.

Let me quote from Organizing to Govern . This is a book written by Gordon Osbaldeston and most people in this House would certainly recognize that name. For the benefit of people watching, Gordon Osbaldeston had a distinguished career in the Canadian public service. He has held posts in the foreign trade commission service and was a deputy minister in the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs and the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce.

He was secretary to the Treasury Board, Minister of State for Economic Development, under-secretary of state, Department of External Affairs, Clerk of the Privy Council, on and on-35 years of distinguished service to our country.

He wrote a book called Organizing to Govern .

I heard him being interviewed on the news the other day and it was interesting because the radio interviewer said if he was a proponent of radically downsizing government and retracting the tentacles of government from the daily life of Canadian business, how is it that he for the best part of his life was involved in the expansion of the government's role in everybody's business.

His response was that as we age we sometimes learn something and he hoped he had learned something over his long career in the public service.

In any event, rule number one in organizing and governing, three rules to live by, is resist proposals to reorganize unless you are certain the benefits of the proposed change outweigh the costs. He goes on to say organizing is not as free lunch, adding new organizations or ministerial portfolios adds complexity and reorganizing existing ones causes disruption. Neither of these costs should be taken lightly. At minimum it can take three years to implement a major organizational change and in many cases five years.

Our public servants, all 6,000 involved in this reorganization just in industry, and all of the public servants all over the country deserve some kind of a medal for the chaos they have had to live in and endure over these last 20 or so years.

If we believe Mr. Osbaldeston to be accurate, and there is no reason to think we should not, look what has happened in the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce since 1892 when the then Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce, Mackenzie Bowell, went to Australia and drummed up business for the CPR. We are still doing it. We started in 1892.

In any event remember, according to Mr. Osbaldeston, it takes at least three to five years to be able to accommodate change and so here we have industry trade and commerce from 1892 to 1969-virtually nothing. They probably ran the thing out of a reasonably small room. Then it started to grow.

In 1963 it changed; 1965, 1968, 1969, 1971, 1978, 1983, 1983 again, and then we started adding to it and adding to it. What happened was that all of a sudden after the war C.D. Howe really ran the whole government from his position in the Department of Defence Production. He became the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce and a very powerful figure in government.

Through his seat of power it started to expand the department of industry. The department of industry did not become obtrusive and get its tentacles into everything. For those of you in business who have a daily relationship with Statistics Canada you know exactly what I am talking about when we talk about intrusive.

Walter Gordon became the minister and I am going to quote again from the book Organizing to Govern by Gordon Osbaldeston: ``Since their defeat in 1957 the Liberal Party have been honing ideas for the next election campaign. One individual who played a key role in ensuring that a new department of industry was part of the Liberal platform was Walter Gordon''.

If it sounds like déja vu, it is déja vu. Someone lifted the red book over there and there it was all over again-how are we

going to go about getting elected? We are going to hone the Department of Industry. We are going to get more intrusive. We are going to make sure that we can say, let us get on with it.

I am quoting again: "Gordon lead a royal commission appointed in 1955 to look at the economy. Few of the commission's recommendations were adopted by the St. Laurent government. When Lester B. Pearson became the new party leader, Gordon's ideas came to the fore and in a party that was looking for new ideas and keen on economic reform he found fertile ground. He had long been a friend of Pearson and now he became a trusted adviser".

It is really interesting to see how we got to where we are today. Nobody really planned it. It just sort of happened. All of a sudden we have $3 billion a year going through the Department of Industry, with that department's civil servants, bureaucrats and politicians picking winners and losers in the marketplace.

I will get back to my quotation: "The reason the Department of Industry was created was because Walter Gordon wanted one and he had the personal influence with Pearson and those close to him to ensure that he got it. But why did he want it? What pushed Gordon's thinking to a new department? Undoubtedly Gordon's overriding motivation was his personal philosophy regarding government and industry. When his royal commission reported in 1957 it described severe problems with foreign investment in Canada and an associated weakness in the Canadian industrial sector.

A senior official who worked closely with Gordon on the royal commission described Gordon's views as follows: "The whole idea of a separate governmental entity to concern itself with Canadian secondary industry really was inspired by Walter Gordon. He was an interventionist, a bit of a nationalist with a protectionist kind of mentality".

Is this not the same Liberal government opposite that signed the NAFTA? I will quote again: "His protectionism took the form of using-" Listen to this. This will send chills down the back of everyone here. You people in television land may want to turn your TV sets off, folks. You are not going to like what you hear.

"His protectionism took the form of using government power, government funds, government leverage and pushing these things in one direction rather than another. Almost all of it had protectionist overtones, albeit in the form of subsidies rather than higher tariffs". Where has that put us today?

[Jim Abbott, Reform, Kootenay East, BC]

That is where the debt came from.

[Ian McClelland, Reform, Edmonton Southwest, AB]

It is a clue. The question is, where did the debt come from? We have a clue here. We are narrowing in on how we got a debt of $500 billion and how we are going into the hole. This year alone the debate is $40 billion and $110 million every single day.

It is debt we are putting on to our children, our grandchildren and their children. Their standard of living is not going to be nearly as good as ours because we have been living beyond our means. It is immoral. It is not right. Our generation has to take responsibility for that debt.

One of the things we have to do is recognize the window of opportunity, change and get our economy back on track, get the government back on track doing what government should do.

[An hon. member]

What should government do?

[Ian McClelland, Reform, Edmonton Southwest, AB]

That raises the question. What should government do and what should the real role of government be in a free economy? I would submit that it is a whole lot less than we are doing today.

Let me give an example of the extension of what we started with all the good ideas of Walter Gordon. They were well meaning. He certainly did not get up the morning and say: "How can I wreck the country? Do you know what I would really like to do? I would really like to make sure my great grandchildren cannot afford to buy a car". C.D. Howe did not say: "We beat the Germans but we are sure going to destroy our future generations". It just sort of happened but look what it has led to. Transfer payments in the Department of Industry. Contributions under technology for environmental solutions initiative, $10 million; contributions to defence industry productivity programs, $158 million; contributions to Bombardier de Havilland.

It should not be called the department of industry; it should be called the department of grants to Bombardier, de Havilland and SNC-Lavalin.

Here is another one. It is over a number of years. It is $143,682,285. It is a 1994-95 disbursement forecast for contracts signed with SNC-Lavalin and subsidiaries for geographic programs all over the world. The $143 million is subsidized by little people earning 8, 10 or 12 bucks an hour.

David Lewis, a member of the New Democratic Party in this House, Stephen's father, coined the phrase corporate welfare bums. It is true there are corporate welfare bums. We have to wean corporations away from the public trough. If we are stupid enough to make it available they are going to be smart enough to take it because it is their tax money as well.

What do we do? It is fairly simple, fairly straightforward. We pay attention to what is going on in Alberta. There is no point in going through the trials and tribulations of what is going on in Alberta and not learning from it. The very least we can do is

learn from what is going on in Alberta and carry that forward to the whole country.

Government must reduce its intrusion into the marketplace and get back to basics. Our job is to look after the infrastructure of the country that cannot be looked after other than through the national government. Above all, we should have in the department of industry some kind of overriding mission statement so that we can look at it every day and ask whether what we intend to do or are trying to do fits with what our plan should be. Do we have a goal? Do we have even clue one about where we want to be at the end of the day? The first thing we need is a mission statement.

I submit this might be a place to start to establish and maintain a culture which rewards entrepreneurship, innovation and research and which ensures a level, honest, competitive marketplace. Nothing more, nothing less.

Business people in Canada do not want a free handout from the government, but if we are stupid enough to give it to them they are going to be smart enough to take it. It is up to us to say no.

Therefore I would like to move a subamendment to the Bloc amendment. I move:

That the amendment be amended by striking out the word "Quebec's" and substituting the following therefor "each province's" and by deleting the word "regional".

[The Deputy Speaker]

I understand the subamendment of the hon. member for Edmonton Southwest was seconded by the hon. member for Okanagan Centre.

The subamendment has already been submitted to the Clerk and has been found to be acceptable.

[Dennis Mills, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Industry]

Mr. Speaker, the member for Edmonton Southwest talked specifically about the grants that were processed through the department of industry and mentioned a few names. Most Canadians would realize that even though three or four names were mentioned, thousands of small and medium sized businesses across the country benefit from support from Industry Canada.

I have a question for the member. He seems to have the point of view that the notion of grants should be phased out or eliminated. In the tax act of Canada there are tax expenditures in the billions of dollars to the oil and gas sector of the country that are the same as tax grants. Is the member suggesting that all tax grants in the tax act of Canada be abolished?