Réal Ménard

[Prince Edward Island Fixed Link, February 15th, 1994]

Madam Speaker, I would have liked the Minister of Industry to be with us. I am sure his parliamentary secretary is very competent, but I would have liked him to be present since I asked him a question on the electronic highway on February 4 and the minister was rather evasive and tight-lipped on this issue. The population is rather concerned about this, as we do not really know where the government is going. We are under the impression that the Minister of Industry is not really in on it and that he has his foot on the brakes.

The information highway is a very important issue, for it is a great adventure that could link all Canadians with national and international networks that could give us access to hospital and school data banks and to all kinds of information.

It is an important issue that needs to be debated. I would have liked to ask the minister because whenever we ask him about it in the House, we get the impression that he leaves everything to the private sector and that he does not intend to spend government funds on this.

When we look at what is happening in the United States, we can see that if Canada, which has a very good track record in the technology, communications and telecommunications sectors, is to enter the information highway, the minister should give clear indications and invest money.

I was concerned to hear that he wanted to set up an advisory committee. My concern is that this issue was examined last year by another committee chaired by Mr. Ostry, the president of TV Ontario, who tabled a report outlining very clearly the legislative and regulatory measures the government must take to build this electronic highway.

I am wondering if the minister, who is acting a little slowly on this issue, is not trying to divert our attention by striking a new advisory committee whose mandate is still unclear. I hope that the parliamentary secretary will be able to tell us exactly what this committee is supposed to do. What are the government's intentions? Will public funds be made available? Will he be able to gather around the same table representatives of the private, institutional and public sectors to finally turn the information highway into a reality?

I would like to give him a warning, Madam Speaker, since this electronic highway could also become a very effective instrument of centralization through its impact on education and training.

I hope that we can rely on the parliamentary secretary to speak on behalf of the minister and promise this House on his honour that, in building the electronic highway, the government will respect areas of provincial jurisdiction and ensure that communications linking us to Internet are also in French. I know that is one of his concerns. Having said that, I will now let him have the floor.

[Prince Edward Island Fixed Link, February 15th, 1994]

Madam Speaker, I have never been so properly told off.

I want to comment on the excellent speech by our colleague. I could not help making the link with the speech of the previous speaker.

I imagine that if we, the Official Opposition, had done any kind of filibustering regarding this motion, which is so important for the quality of life of Prince Edward Island residents, we would have been criticized and accused of being anti-democratic, of not respecting the result of the referendum, and of refusing to promote the democratic process in this country.

Now that we are co-operating with the government, and I think it takes some audacity to rise in this House to say that, because we are co-operating with the government, we are branded as being biased and anti-democratic and as wanting to side-track the debate.

We must be clear, and this is essentially what the previous speaker meant. There cannot be two types of democracies in this country: one which suits English Canada and government members, and one which suits the government.

The support of the Official Opposition is clearly meant to convince the government to make the decision it should make for the population of Prince Edward Island. It goes without saying that we respect the outcome of any referendum. After all, we nationalists accepted the verdict in 1980 when Quebec's National Assembly, which was the first one in the country to pass legislation on such public consultations, held its referendum.

That verdict was not favourable to us, but in a democracy, win or lose, you must accept the decision of a public vote. Consequently, we accept the decision made by the people of Prince Edward Island. In the next few years, when Quebec holds a referendum to democratically decide its future, I hope that the hon. member, as well as all the members opposite, will accept the result of that democratic process.

[Prince Edward Island Fixed Link, February 15th, 1994]

Madam Speaker, I would like to make a comment.

[supply, February 11th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the Reform Party for giving us this opportunity today

and I notice, as the debate wears on, that there is a basic distinction between what the Reform Party is suggesting and the proposal put forward by the Bloc Quebecois. I would like to emphasize this difference based on the minister's speech.

Every time we have brought up the subject of government finance, we have said that it was imperative, capital that a committee composed of representatives of all the official parties in this House be set up to review all expenditure items that make up the government's financial commitments. While the motion that the Reform Party has put before us is interesting, I think that it would not give us a broad enough view, a comprehensive view of where cutbacks should be made.

I wanted to draw a parallel with the department that the Minister of Industry runs, as his committee met for the second time this week. I attended the meeting because I take a keen interest in the issue. I was surprised to learn for one thing that the total budget for his department was nine times smaller than that of National Defence, in spite of the fact that the manufacturing sector is known to create jobs and that commitments need to be made in that area. I would like to submit to you that with respect to cuts, the problem with what the Reform Party is saying is that we get the impression that there should be cuts everywhere, across the board. On the other hand, a parliamentary committee like the one we are suggesting could give us a much more balanced picture. There are indeed areas where cuts can be made, but there are others where additional resources are required.

At that committee meeting where all the deputy ministers had come to tell us about their financing activities, every one was amazed to hear for instance that as little as $15 million was earmarked in the department's budget for the very important sector of tourism, a sector that is expected to gain more and more importance toward the year 2000. So, both the government members and the opposition members present were surprised at how meagre their resources were, considering how much needs to be done in Canada in that area.

Just think that the Quebec Ministry of Tourism alone has about the same budget. I picked that particular example because it is in the magnificent riding of Hochelaga-Maisonneuve -where the hon. minister is always welcome- that you find the Olympic Stadium, the Botanical Garden and the Biodome.

This is a case where, if a parliamentary committee carried out a qualitative study of each budget item related to governmental activity, as the Bloc Quebecois is proposing, we could make a quantitative determination and realize, for one thing, that there should be more resources allocated to the Department of Industry, particularly for tourism, and we would be able to make nuances. I do not know whether the hon. minister agrees with me on this, but I think that this is a basic distinction between what the Reform Party and the Bloc Quebec are proposing.

[Petitions, February 11th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, I would like to present a petition on behalf of 1,000 citizens who are asking the government not to proceed with potential rent increases in low-income housing and in the OSBL. I support this petition and hope that the government will respond to it favourably.

[Research And Development, February 11th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, like every Friday morning, I am pleased to put a question to the Minister of Industry.

Research and development support programs are in a real mess. In its February 4 edition, the Financial Post reported that, according to some people, it is impossible for businesses, and especially small and medium-sized businesses, to make sense of these programs without the help of experts in that field. The fact that we have lapsed votes every year just goes to prove my point.

Will the minister undertake to act immediately and to make considerable efforts in order to improve the accessibility and efficiency of these research support programs and to help small businesses to make full use of them?

[Pavillon D'Éducation Communautaire, February 10th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to pay tribute to a community organization in my constituency, known as the Pavillon d'éducation communautaire.

The PEC, whose members and users are now present in the gallery, has been in existence for 20 years.

From the very beginning, this organization has focused its action on public education.

Public education is that great instrument by which we teach people that they themselves can bring the changes needed to create a more equitable and compassionate society.

The PEC is the place where several hundreds of my fellow citizens learned about commitment and fulfilment.

I want all volunteers, the board of directors and the management of the PEC to know that their daily efforts and sustained commitment to Hochelaga-Maisonneuve have helped to make their community a dynamic place to live. On behalf of my fellow citizens, I want to tell them today how very grateful we are for their excellent work.

[Electronic Highway, February 4th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, the fact that the minister will not confirm that will not prevent me from asking a supplementary question.

Given that the minister already has recommendations contained in the Ostry report on the electronic highway, could he explain why we would need a second committee to study the matter?

[Electronic Highway, February 4th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I would not want to end the week without asking a question to the Minister of Industry.

During a conference in Toronto on the electronic highway, the secretary of state for science announced the creation of an advisory council. The name of the former president of TV Ontario, Mr. Bernard Ostry, was mentioned as the chairman of this committee.

Can the minister confirm that, indeed, Mr. Ostry will be chairing that committee?

[Social Security System, February 3rd, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, if we all thought alike in this House, your task would be much easier, but also less interesting.

What we have here is a good example of a fundamental difference of opinion. Of course, some expenditures could be reviewed; it is a premise and I understand that. But it does not seem to be the real problem. When I speak about reviewing taxation, I am not saying to my hon. colleague we should review personal taxes. I think there is a good enough consensus on this, except maybe in the case of the very rich, because Canada is the only OECD country not to tax wealth. I am sure the hon. member is aware of that.

What I am saying to him is that we will have to strive to find additional revenues because the pressure on social programs will not disappear, because our population is getting older and because there are social evils inherent to the type of society we have in Canada in 1994. And that type of society is one where 50 per cent of the people have part-time jobs. When you hold a part-time job, you have 7 chances out of 10 of becoming poor at one point or another in your lifetime. These jobs are precarious and poorly paid and they offer no security whatsoever. Since this is our reality, since this is what we have to deal with, there is no magic formula, there is no way we can close our eyes and just hope the situation will change.

There are a few possibilities though if we want to find additional revenues. Would my hon. colleague agree with me that, if we look at tax rates in the industrialized countries with which we usually compare ourselves, Canada has not yet tapped every source of revenue it would be entitled to? Would he not agree that there are sectors where, if the government wanted to act, it could put money back into circulation, it could leave more money so that people could take care of themselves and would not have to turn to social services? This would seem to be an interesting approach.