House of Commons Hansard #97 of the 35th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was industry.
Jim Abbott Reform Kootenay East, BC
Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36 I have the privilege of presenting three petitions.
The first petition has five pages. The majority of Canadians respect the sanctity of human life and whereas human life at the preborn stage is not protected in Canadian society, therefore your petitioners pray that Parliament act immediately to extend protection to the unborn child by amending the Criminal Code to extend the same protection enjoyed by born human beings to unborn human beings.
Jim Abbott Reform Kootenay East, BC
Mr. Speaker, the second petition reads whereas societal approval including extension of societal privileges would be given to same sex relationships if any amendment to the Canadian Human Rights Act were to include the undefined phrase sexual orientation as a grounds of discrimination, therefore your petitioners pray and request that Parliament not amend the human rights code, the Canadian Human Rights Act, or the Charter of Rights and Freedoms in any way which would tend to indicate societal approval of same sex relationships or homosexuality, including amending the human rights code to include in the prohibited grounds of discrimination the undefined phrase sexual orientation.
Jim Abbott Reform Kootenay East, BC
Mr. Speaker, the third petition reads the majority of Canadians respect the sanctity of human life and whereas the majority of Canadians believe that physicians in Canada should be working to save lives, not end them, therefore your petitioners pray that Parliament ensure that the present provisions of the Criminal Code of Canada prohibiting assisted suicide be enforced vigorously, and that Parliament make no changes in the law which would sanction or allow the aiding or abetting of suicide or active or passive euthanasia.
I would like my constituents to know that I support all three of these petitions.
Ronald J. Duhamel Liberal St. Boniface, MB
Mr. Speaker, my colleagues will know that violence and abuse on radio and television have become major concerns of the Canadian population.
These petitioners want government to ensure that the CRTC regulate the amount of violence and abuse on radio and television. They point out that very often what occurs in terms of violence and abuse counteracts the efforts they make in raising their families.
Lee Morrison Reform Swift Current—Maple Creek—Assiniboia, SK
Mr. Speaker, I have two petitions with a total of 156 signatures, both dealing with the same subject, which I would like to table pursuant to Standing Order 36.
These petitions come from the town of Maple Creek in my riding and from the towns of Burstall and Leader in my riding.
The petitions are very similar: whereas a majority of Canadians believe that privileges which society accords to heterosexual couples should not be extended to same sex relationships, and whereas societal approval including the extension of-
PetitionsRoutine Proceedings
The Deputy Speaker
Order. Perhaps the member would be kind enough to summarize the petition, as we cannot have everybody reading petitions; it would take forever.
Lee Morrison Reform Swift Current—Maple Creek—Assiniboia, SK
Mr. Speaker, the petitioners are praying and requesting that Parliament not amend the human rights code, the Canadian Human Rights Act or the Charter of Rights and Freedoms in any way which would tend to indicate societal approval of same sex relationships.
I would like my constituents to know that I do endorse these petitions.
Darrel Stinson Reform Okanagan—Shuswap, BC
Mr. Speaker, I wish to present a petition to Parliament duly certified by the clerk of petitions and signed by 87 residents of my constituency of Okanagan-Shuswap.
This petition raises the concerns shared by many Canadians of all religious faiths, namely that the government has been rumoured to be considering amendments to various pieces of human rights legislation regarding the undefined phrase sexual orientation.
This petition asks Parliament to take no such action.
Questions Passed As Orders For ReturnsRoutine Proceedings
September 26th, 1994 / 3:15 p.m.
Kingston and the Islands Ontario
Liberal
Peter Milliken LiberalParliamentary Secretary to Leader of the Government in the House of Commons
Mr. Speaker, if Question No. 38, in the name of the hon. member for Mercier, could be made an order for return, that return would be tabled immediately.
I must say that the hon. member showed a great deal of patience, but when she sees the answer which I will table today, she will understand why it took so long.
Questions Passed As Orders For ReturnsRoutine Proceedings
The Deputy Speaker
Is it the pleasure of the House that question No. 38 be deemed to have been made an order for return?
Questions Passed As Orders For ReturnsRoutine Proceedings
Some hon. members
Agreed.
Question No. 38-Mrs. Lalonde:
What organizations and businesses received a grant under the national literacy program or any other literacy program, ( a ) how large were those grants and ( b ) where are these organizations and businesses located?
Return tabled.
Peter Milliken Liberal Kingston and the Islands, ON
Mr. Speaker, I ask that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.
Questions Passed As Orders For ReturnsRoutine Proceedings
The Deputy Speaker
Shall the remaining questions be allowed to stand?
The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-46, an act to establish the Department of Industry and to amend and repeal certain other acts, be read the second time and referred to a committee; and of the amendment.
Beryl Gaffney Liberal Nepean, ON
Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to stand in the House to speak to Bill C-46 respecting the Department of Industry Act.
In the past few years the world economy has been undergoing tremendous change. This has resulted in tumultuous conditions for the Canadian economy and for Canadian workers. For too long Canadians have watched the industries that have underpinned our economy eroding while nothing has been growing in their place.
Today 1.5 million Canadian workers are without jobs, 46 per cent of our citizens fear for the security of the jobs they hold, and for the first time in memory parents believe their children will have a lower standard of living than they themselves have enjoyed.
Over the last six years I have met with far too many of my constituents from Nepean concerned about their future. They call me desperately seeking advice on where to find jobs and what to do to retrain themselves for the evolving information based economy.
I have also received calls from entrepreneurs of small and medium sized businesses complaining about the lack of willingness on the part of banks to provide them with access to the capital they require to finance their enterprises. Let us not forget that small and medium sized businesses are the engines of growth in our economy.
One key to success in the changing world economy will be our emphasis on research and development. The track records of previous governments in this regard have been dismal and we must reverse that trend.
Nepean is the high tech capital of Canada. Research and development are particularly important to my Nepean riding which represents more than 100 high tech industries. Nepean is the home of Canada's largest research and development organization called Bell Northern Research. Others such as Northern Telecom, Computing Devices Canada and Gandalf are only four of a hundred companies working in the technological field and employing over 6,000 people.
Co-operation and assistance from the federal government have been integral parts of their success. The continuation of their growth and the birth of innovative enterprises in the high tech field will hinge on the continuation and improvement of the assistance offered by the government.
Canadians are looking to our government, not as a place to fall back on when they hit hard times but for leadership and direction, leadership predicated on development policies to lead Canadian workers, small and medium sized business and the high tech sector through these tough and changing times.
This means getting our house in order and getting expenditures and deficits under control. It means seeking consensus from Canadians on our economic and social goals and aspirations. More important, it means the ability to encourage partnerships in a spirit of co-operation among industrialists, entrepreneurs, educators, scientists and all levels of government to meet those goals and aspirations.
Bill C-46 is one of several steps taken by the government to chart a clear vision toward a renewed economy capable of providing wealth and prosperity for all Canadians into the 21st century. It recognizes that to achieve the goal of economic renewal the appropriate resources and energies of government must be marshalled in a coherent, efficient and effective way.
The bill places in one organization under one minister the key functions necessary for economic renewal. The Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, the Department of Communications, Investment Canada and the Department of Industry, Science and Technology now become the Ministry of Industry.
This will establish one minister, one deputy minister and one departmental team, all dedicated to the achievement of an innovative economy in Canada. At the same time it will provide a single forum, a single listening post and a single gathering place to collect all expressed interests and ideas from all parties concerned with creating a strong, vibrant economy.
There is much greater opportunity under the organization provided by the bill to take the interests of various groups into account during the policy development stage. For example, by placing the responsibility for consumer and corporate affairs in the Department of Industry we have guaranteed that consumer voices will have a place around the table when policies are established affecting the Canadian marketplace. This way consumer protection efforts can be focused on preventing problems rather than correcting them after the fact.
As with consumer interests so it is with science and technology, with regional development and with small and medium sized business. All necessary voices will be heard as policies are being developed, as agreements are being negotiated and as decisions are being taken.
This organization not only brings effectiveness and cohesion to government operations. It also seeks to bring about cost efficiency to government departments. In this era where every attempt must be made to reduce costs and maximize the efficiency of our resource utilization we cannot afford the waste that accompanies duplication and overlap in government functions.
Bill C-46 reduces the numbers of teams from four to one. Overhead and support costs are reduced by eliminating the duplication involved in running four separate organizations. Internal communications are simplified. Direction and supervision are made more effective. Finally fewer committees are necessary.
These kinds of streamlining and cost savings are what Canadians have been asking for. Under Bill C-46 small and medium sized business remain at the focal point of policy development. For example, with the Canadian Chamber of Commerce the government is exploring 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 sized firms with common interests.
This is good news for aspiring entrepreneurs in Canada and in my riding of Nepean. Underpinning our economic renewal efforts the government has recognized the importance of science and technology. This is good news for the city of Nepean and the high tech industry in Nepean.
A major science and technology review is under way. This will ensure the $6 billion we spend in this area every year is producing maximum value in our efforts to institute an innovative economy.
The government is listening to Canadians. It is prepared to take tough decisions to reduce or cut funding in programs that are not essential to economic renewal. We are interested in setting our house in order and reducing the burden of debt on Canadian taxpayers.
The government will not try to force economic growth by fertilizing it with massive sums of money we do not have. Instead Canadians can expect leadership and co-operation among the federal government and all interested groups necessary for the achievement of our reachable objective: the development of sustained growth and prosperity for all Canadians.
Bill C-46 is merely one of many steps being proposed and followed by the government in achieving its number one goal of job creation. I commend the Minister of Industry for taking these steps. I support his steps. I wish him well and offer him my assistance in this and all future economic endeavours for this wonderful country of Canada.
Ian McClelland Reform Edmonton Southwest, AB
Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for Nepean for her reasoned discourse this afternoon.
I have a question concerning the program reviews currently under way. Why would we have the reorganization and the consolidation and then have a program review? Would it not make more sense to do the program review first and then consolidate on the basis of the review?
Beryl Gaffney Liberal Nepean, ON
Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his question.
That is probably a method that could be used, but I believe it was the government's and the Prime Minister's plan that when he formed the new Government of Canada it would be much easier for him to carry on with the reduction. It had already been put under way by the previous government and a lot of it was already in place. It was much easier for him to carry on with that reduction to the degree he has.
Is it much easier for a government to continue on a plan of reduction if it starts out the term of its mandate not up here with 40-some cabinet ministers but down here with 22 cabinet ministers and 22 government departments? Then if the need is there to build upon it, is it not a bit easier to build upon it if the need is there rather than start at the top and then have to start chopping back? The chopping back had already started before we ever took office as the Government of Canada.
I believe it was the appropriate way to do it and I guess only time will tell.
Pat O'Brien Liberal London—Middlesex, ON
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to join in the debate on the reorganization of the department of industry, Bill C-46.
I would like to take a moment to reflect on the nature of my riding of London-Middlesex and illustrate just how important the activities of the department are to my constituents.
This area of small and medium sized business is a part of Ontario which is a leader in southwestern Ontario in that economic activity. Whether it is a business that is a spinoff of the automotive industry or whether it is the agri-food industry, London-Middlesex is one of the busiest areas of southwestern Ontario. It is a satellite of the agri-food industry in Middlesex county, one of the most productive agricultural counties in our part of Canada.
There is a very wide variety of small and medium size business activities in the riding of London-Middlesex so the constituents are very interested in the proposed reorganization.
As well I am pleased to represent a number of major corporations of national and international repute: General Motors Diesel of Canada, 3M Corporation and Cuddy Foods, to mention only three. In mentioning these three corporations one can easily recognize the scope of activities which take place in the riding of London-Middlesex. I say again it is with great interest my constituents hear of the proposed changes and await the reorganization of the department of industry.
It is all too obvious that we have had an erosion of the Canadian economy. We know that on all sides of the House. We hear it daily. As well we should, because Canadians have a right to expect these important issues will be aired.
The so-called corporate downsizing that has been taking place as part of global reorganization has caused a job crisis of major proportions in the country. Frankly my constituents feel the previous government was the government of the big corporations. It put all its eggs in that basket and now Canadians have paid the price in the last few years for that foolish approach to government.
All too often small and medium sized businesses were ignored. This is simply the wrong way to go if we are going to pull out of this economic crisis.
People well know the unemployment numbers and all too often we can disregard them as statistics. Day after day in my riding office like hon. members in all parts of the House I have seen the human face of unemployment, men and women young and old alike, highly educated and well trained, and those untrained and unskilled. Day after day the human face of unemployment has come into my riding office crying for some kind of help from the government. As a member of Parliament you wish you had a magic phone that you could pick up and instantly produce a job.
This contact has served to reinforce the real need to concentrate on small and medium sized business. That is how we will get Canadians working again, not by following the agenda of the previous Tory government which all too often ignored these sectors of the economy and simply focused on corporate Canada.
Canadians well know that we have been living beyond our means and that certainly includes government. Government has been part of the problem and it is high time we became part of the solution.
No party in the House has a monopoly on knowing that the debt and deficit are major preoccupations of the citizens of Canada. If anyone listens even a little bit to the concerns of Canadians he or she knows it is right at the top of the list of
concerns. Indeed it dominated, as well it should, much of the debate in the last federal election a year ago.
One problem that needs to be addressed is the fact that so much of our debt is in the hands of foreigners. I was amazed in the campaign to not have this recognized by some of the opposition candidates. They simply felt debt was debt and that was all there was to it. Would that it were that simple, but it simply is not. It is a grave concern that so much of our indebtedness as a nation is to foreign nationals.
The Liberal commitment in the red book and during the election campaign, endorsed from coast to coast to coast by Canadians, was a sensible, gradual approach to the reduction of the deficit to no more than 3 per cent of GDP by the end of our first term and then total elimination is the ultimate goal of the government.
I heard a member opposite-I do not recall exactly who now-propose that somehow the government was going to lock in 3 per cent as its overall target and that simply is incorrect. My colleagues and I have heard time and again the hon. Minister of Finance speak to the fact that this is the interim goal of the Liberal government and that the ultimate goal would be to completely pull out of an indebtedness situation.
How will we achieve such a goal? Obviously the first step is to reduce government spending. The right hon. Prime Minister has shown outstanding leadership in that regard in the few short months he has been the Prime Minister. He started with the size of the cabinet and scaled it away back from what was the situation previously. He also scaled back the size of ministerial offices.
Perhaps huge amounts of money have not been saved but they are not insignificant millions either. However they set a tone that the government is prepared to lead by example in reducing spending.
Concomitant with that is the need to encourage new jobs. If we are really going to pull out of the economic problems we face as a country we must get Canadians back to work. We must get them off the tax rolls and change them into taxpayers because they now have a meaningful and well-paying job.
This two-pronged approach of the Liberal government was endorsed nationally in the last federal election campaign. I am proud to be a member who is helping to advance that agenda.
It was no mean consideration recently when London, Ontario was awarded the Institute of Advanced Manufacturing Technology. This will be a very important organization to London and to southwestern Ontario. It will help co-ordinate the activities of the private sector, of the University of Western Ontario in London, of the city council and indeed of the surrounding areas of southwestern Ontario with the federal government. This is the kind of partnership that is necessary if we are to move forward into the new economy and start to get Canadians working again.
The question needs to be posed: What is the proper role of government in this new economy? One only needs to reflect to know that there are several shades of opinion on this question. From some parts of the House we hear the socialist point of view that the government should do everything. The government should run the economy, it should own it, and there is no place for the private sector because all it will do is hoard the profits. I reject that view. Liberals reject that view.
Equally we have the view at the far right which says that governments should do nothing, that there is no place for government. It is the other extreme. I equally and even more forcefully reject that view. One might say that in this House today we have perhaps the most conservative of the conservatives with the view that there really is no role to be played by government.
I hope that no one party embraces that philosophy but I hear that view from certain members opposite so often I have become concerned. Surely they cannot feel there is no role for government in running the economy of this nation. To the contrary the Liberal view is that there must be a balanced approach.
There must be and there is a role for government to play in partnership with the private sector. The private sector is the engine, as it must be, but there will be a positive role for government to play in creating the proper environment for the private sector to succeed. Only a balanced common sense approach best enunciated by the Liberal Party throughout the history of this country will ensure fair and equitable treatment in our economy.
I see that my time is coming to an end. I would simply say that as a member of the Liberal Party it will be my pleasure to do everything possible to help advance a balanced approach to this economic situation.
Jim Abbott Reform Kootenay East, BC
Mr. Speaker, when I spoke last week on the criminal justice Bill C-41, I suggested that perhaps some of the Liberal members of the frontbench required some Q-tips because they were having a little difficulty hearing. I can see that the problem extends past the front bench.
I would like to know when the member ever heard somebody from my party suggest that the government should do nothing? That is a very gross misunderstanding of what seemed to be a very clear way of expressing ourselves.
Because social spending in Canada currently consumes $53 billion a year which is over 50 per cent of our current expenditures, would he agree that the direction the Reform Party wants to go, which is to focus social spending on those who are most in need to make sure that those in our society who are the most
dependent on that kind of support, are in fact expounding the correct way to go which is to focus social spending?
Pat O'Brien Liberal London—Middlesex, ON
Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to receive a question from the hon. member. I would say in response to his first comment that I am reminded of the statement that if the shoe fits, wear it. I challenge my friend to find in Hansard or even in the ``blues'' which will be out shortly that I named the Reform Party as saying that governments should do nothing.
What I said was that some hon. members opposite-there are at least four political philosophies opposite-quite often espouse the idea that government must get out of the way, that it has no role to play. However, if my friend finds that my comments were appropriate to the philosophy of the Reform Party, I will not disagree with him.
On his question of the focus of spending and social services, I agree that we need to focus spending on social services. Where I differ with my friend and his party, as I understand their philosophy, is we will never eliminate the universality of our programs. The minute you start to say that targeting means we will eliminate universality we will start to fool with the other underpinnings of our social security system and the whole thing is in risk of collapsing. We have to focus it and keep it fair and available to all Canadians who need it without going to the far extreme.
Gilbert Fillion Bloc Chicoutimi, QC
Mr. Speaker, I did not hear the hon. member responsible for regional development in Ontario and Quebec. I would have liked to hear him, because this is a section where, in my opinion, we could have avoided some overlapping.
Regarding subclause 8(a) in Part II, I would like to ask the hon. member why the government did not give exclusive authority, either in Quebec or in Ontario, over regional economic development to already existing structures such as the FORD?
Pat O'Brien Liberal London—Middlesex, ON
Mr. Speaker, I was not elected to come to this House to speak exclusively for the views of Ontario, let alone the views of the province of Quebec. That may be the agenda of my friend and his colleagues in the Bloc Quebecois but it is not the agenda of the only truly national party in the House of Commons.
While I understand my colleague's concerns for the people of Quebec and while I understand his preoccupation with manpower training, I can only assure him that the government is equally concerned in making sure that all Quebecers understand. We did not get to be the best country in the world by not addressing all the concerns of Canadians. We will continue to do that, including all the people of Quebec.
Department Of Industry ActGovernment Orders
The Deputy Speaker
Time is up. Resuming debate. It is one of the hon. member's own members who is going to speak on debate. I am sure he does not want to deprive him of that opportunity.
Ed Harper Reform Simcoe Centre, ON
Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to speak on this bill to create the Department of Industry.
I would like to open with a brief outline of Reform's position on economic reform, industrial development and diversification, and how this bill measures up to our vision of the role to be played by the government as well as to comment on the potential for reducing government size and increasing efficiency.
Dealing first with the objective of reduced cost in improved efficiency, if these were objectives, I do not see any significant measures to support any meaningful move in this direction.
When one looks at the figures quoted to us at the briefing for this bill, from a budget of some $3 billion and a staff of some 6,000, the government is only able to save some 230 jobs and $26 million. When one looks at these figures against the potential, it shows very clearly that efficiency and cost reduction were not achieved.
With the bringing together of four departments with some overlap in duties and responsibilities, the potential was there to reduce the payroll by a greater number and certainly save considerably more tax dollars.
When one compares this to what is going on in the private sector in the name of survival, nothing has been done. The message that the private sector heard three years ago about lowering costs and improving efficiency still apparently has not reached the federal government. I do not think that message will be lost on industry when this bill goes forward.
Let us look at the Reform vision of economic reform using some bold brush strokes. We believe an environment to encourage enterprise and initiative should be created by government. There should be productive jobs and prosperity. It is best achieved by a responsible, broadly based, free enterprise economy in which private property, freedom of contract and the operating of free markets are encouraged and respected.
We want to minimize politics in economic decision making by the phasing out of grants, subsidies and lending programs. Let us break down the barriers designed to insulate our businesses and industry from domestic and foreign competition. Competition is healthy and should be encouraged. Of course, we should
come down hard on enforcement of competition and anti-combines legislation with severe penalties for price fixing, certainly the removal of interprovincial trade barriers so that we can maximize the benefits of free trade and NAFTA.
In examining this bill I decided to look at the Liberal red book and determine whether or not the act meets red book promises. One of the first statements made in the red book section on the economy is that the former Conservative government "failed to understand that government has an important role to play in setting the stage and enabling the private sector to adjust to changing circumstances. For this reason our competitive position and our standard of living have declined and jobs are lost".
Of course if this statement is true, then this Liberal government is doomed to fail as well because this act which sets the stage for the Liberal attempt at industrial central planning enshrines in law exactly the same department the Conservatives introduced under Kim Campbell. There is no excuse at this time for the government not to have come up with an act creating a smaller, leaner and more efficient department which would have set the economy on a new course. This government is almost a quarter of the way through its mandate, yet it is still relying on the failed Conservative policies of the past.
What else did the Liberals say in their red book? They said: "Any strategy to foster the growth of a small and medium sized business sector will fail if it does not recognize the negative impacts of excessive government debt, interprovincial trade barriers, and taxation". I agree 100 per cent, but I fail to see how this act to enshrine the industry department created by the former Conservative regime will help to achieve that goal.
It is clear the rationalization of the four agencies and departments into one should have achieved some efficiencies but it appears this did not happen. Staff levels fell less than 4 per cent and spending was cut less than 3 per cent.
As I said, I agree with the red book assertion that debt, trade barriers, and taxation are big negatives in our economy. The minister achieved some gains in his recent attempts to reduce interprovincial trade barriers but I would remind him that much work needs to be done to remove more barriers that are still remaining.
In a widely quoted study done by the Canadian Manufacturers' Association, those interprovincial provincial trade barriers are costing us approximately $6.5 billion. The Macdonald commission of the mid-1980s estimated that Canadian incomes would rise some 1.5 per cent permanently if barriers were removed.
In my own riding of Simcoe Centre there is a brewery which can freely export to 50 American states yet cannot send its products to the provinces next door.
There is another major consideration that this government has failed to deal with. We have unprecedented deficit and debt levels yet this act, which reorganizes the department according to a Conservative plan, fails to achieve any meaningful saving of tax dollars.
Certainly taxes are too high. They discourage new domestic and foreign investment and they drive Canadian businesses to more reasonable tax jurisdictions. I realize that tax relief for Canadian businesses is still a long way off because of a deficit based on excessive government spending but I believe that long term tax relief should be a stated goal of any federal government industrial strategy.
Where could these efficiencies have been obtained? Are there areas of spending and staffing which are of no consequence in our new global economy?
Investment Canada is an organization whose consequence I would question as its mandate seems to have been to protect Canadian businesses from foreign control. What that threat from foreign control was, nobody seems to know. Foreign investment is clearly not perceived as a threat any more because even Investment Canada seems to approve every investment made. I question whether we need to continue to rubber stamp this rubber stamping body any further.
We need to encourage competition in our banking industry. Too much power is held by too few banks.
The defence industry productivity program is another area of spending which we should question. In the government's bid to centrally plan the economy this is an obvious attempt to favour one industry over others. To be clearer on this point it must be recognized that the funding for DIPP came from taxes imposed on other businesses and industries. I question whether the $158 million given away in 1994 under this program would have been better left in the pockets of the taxpayers who are currently financing this scheme.
I question the consequence of spending tax dollars to improve the image of high technology firms. Surely we are misguided if we believe that image is what sells Canadian high technology to Asia-Pacific countries. I believe the quality of our products is our greatest selling point. This is based on such fundamentals as research and development.
I also question why in 1994 the Department of Industry is still treating one group of Canadians as though it were different from all other Canadians. Why does this government continue to single out one group of Canadians for special treatment? This patronizing action should be reversed.
I question the consequences of the complicated university research granting process. Why do we need so many different granting councils with their different regulations and the attendant bureaucracy behind each one? Surely this is an area where
rationalization can occur and efficiencies indeed can result. This is an obvious area for the government to find savings of tax dollars.
We should examine the whole grants and contributions program. What real benefit does the Canadian economy derive from the $63,000 given to the Shoe Manufacturers Association? In favouring de Havilland by $10 million over McDonnell Douglas are we creating inequities in the aerospace industry? Is it not now time to embark on a new direction where we will treat all peoples, regions and industries equally?
Our starting point in making changes should be to place our top priority on reducing government spending while increasing government efficiency. When industries are asked what government can do to help them the response I have heard most often is: "Get off our backs and out of our pockets".
Bill C-46 is a small step, too small, on the road to reducing government spending so that taxes can be lowered, which will improve the ability of our industries to compete and grow in this global economy.