Werner Schmidt

[Standing Committee On Industry, November 14th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, the question is an extremely cogent one and one that will require more study than I am prepared to give it in the next two or three minutes. The fact remains that the elimination of the four pillars that I mentioned in my speech where we had a separate and distinct function for trust companies, for insurance companies, for investment dealers and for banks was a useful distinction.

Now that the banks are doing all of these things we have this concentration of power. Somehow there has to be either more competition outside the banking field so this can happen, or the whole idea of concentration within the banks needs to be re-examined. I would suggest the Bank Act has to be reopened, as would certain other legislation. It would be a very useful exercise for the House to get involved in that type of activity.

[Standing Committee On Industry, November 14th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I really appreciate the kind comments from the parliamentary secretary. I guess this becomes a mutual admiration society at certain stages because it was pleasant working together.

With regard to the involvement of government in business, the key point is that government should not do business but should provide the kind of leadership and parameters within which businesses can operate and where they can be in competition with other businesses so that the marketplace can operate and costs can be reduced and that all of us will benefit.

It seems to me that money left in the hands of the entrepreneur, the individual Canadian citizen, will be far more effectively spent than $1 put in the hands of a politician. It is in that sense that we make the point.

Business people are far more effective in making business decisions than government is about making business decisions. Government should provide the legislation, a level playing field that allows the business person to operate. That becomes the key

and I am sure the hon. parliamentary secretary recognizes that is an appropriate role for government and business. They should not be mixed up like this. They should be separate.

[Standing Committee On Industry, November 14th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to participate in the debate this afternoon.

It has been a privilege to work on this committee. It was my first experience as a member to work on a standing committee of the House of Commons. It was an exciting experience and a particularly intense learning experience as we were exposed to procedural matters. The substance of the committee was very significant and required a lot of learning. It was a good experience in terms of co-operation among members as well. It showed beyond doubt that things can be made to happen if people want them to take place.

This afternoon I want to focus on three things. First, why is it necessary to take care of small business? Second, what are some of the major elements affecting small business in the economic and changing social environment that we are going to face? Third, how will some of the recommendations in the report help small business survive today and be prepared to meet the challenges of tomorrow? It is within that context we can well look at the report as setting some pretty good foundational types of statements for the future.

Why is it necessary to take care of small business? Small business creates jobs. Eighty per cent to eight-five per cent of the new jobs created in Canada were created by small business. It is also the engine of economic recovery. I can give some examples from Kelowna. It has been described by many as the best place to live in Canada.

What is the economy of Kelowna? It is small business. I can give some specific examples. Western Star Trucks recently won the Canada export award. In terms of the context of General Motors and Chrysler it is a very small operation. Kelowna Flightcraft recently got the contract for Purolator and is distributing parcels and mail all over the world. Riverside Forest Products supplies plywood and lumber products internationally and nationally. Then there are literally hundreds of small, often mom and pop shop operations that make up the basis of the economy of Kelowna. Some of them are on the cutting edge of new technology.

Take for example Brenda Mines which had to close its mine just up from Peachland and is now using technology that was developed in that mining operation and travelling all around the world, centred in Kelowna. These specialists are going into South American and other countries helping these people to develop their mining operations.

Northern Airborne Technology supplies much of the internal electronics found in helicopters today. The very same small businesses are providing a very interesting transition between the old economy and the new economy. We have a truck that runs on today's highways and yet is using computer technology in terms of the way the trucks communicate with one another and a whole system of record keeping is right on the truck as it moves across the continent.

Let us now look briefly at the environment within which these small businesses today and tomorrow will operate. Our society is in transition. The farmer has become an agribusiness person with specialized knowledge and skill in the agricultural business. Blue collar industrial workers are becoming auxiliary employees in many instances and yet they leave a very significant legacy that affects all of us. With them came unions, with them came middle income salaries without the need for extensive post-secondary education, and with them came strong political power.

Today a new workforce is emerging. That new workforce is the knowledge worker. This workforce will be highly educated and manually skilled. The transition from the predominantly blue collar workforce to the new knowledge worker will require a change of attitude, beliefs and values on the part of every member of society. Education will become the centre of that society. World economic competitiveness will rely on our ability to acquire and apply knowledge. Productivity of the knowledge worker will become the economic challenge of society and productivity of the non-knowledge worker will become the social challenge of the knowledge workforce.

To many of us these are new ideas with significant consequences. Small business will play a significant role in the new economy because small business represents the creativity and ideas of the entrepreneur.

Let us take the establishment and growth of Microsoft as an example. In the beginning it was an idea. Today it is a multimillion dollar corporation that remains on the leading edge of technology. It is particularly significant that Bill Gates, the man who pursued the idea of the Microsoft company, is rumoured to have recently purchased the ideas of Leonardo da Vinci. That is very interesting: greatness then, greatness now; two men, two big ideas, each in their own way changed the world they lived in, the world we live in and the world that is going to be facing our children and grandchildren.

Once farmers ploughed with horses, and today farmers drive tractors with electronic sensors to monitor temperature bearings, they talk to their home base via electronic telephone from pressurized cabs, listening to quadraphonic music played on CDs. Internal combustion engines have computerized fuel injection systems. Making things is often now the function of robots that do not get tired and seldom vary in terms of quality; all ideas, all knowledge, all had their roots in small business.

Ideas are the key. Some of the characteristics of the new economy will require new ideas if our economy, our society and our small businesses are to benefit. We must recognize that the new economy is knowledge based and that means that production will be the application of knowledge and that requires not one time learning but continuous learning. It relies on highly specialized people.

That new economy is also global in scope. Knowledge knows no boundaries. It is portable and can be applied almost anywhere that people live. It is independent of race, age, sex, culture and religion.

The new economy also affects and impacts the old economy. Whether we live in the new economy or the old economy we will still need food, clothing and shelter. This new economy also requires its own infrastructure, for example satellites, fibre optic cable communication systems and so on.

It will significantly affect our workforce. Training and education will become central. Increasingly we will rely on a voucher system of financing education by individuals. Private and public institutions will be proliferating. Industry will take a far larger role in the training and education of its people and continuous learning will be the hallmark. That learning will often be modular in terms of programming and in terms of times when it is delivered or partaken of. Productivity and quality will both be measured in terms of the availability and efficiency of the application of knowledge.

Another point that needs to be put in here is that the ownership of the means of production will shift and will be redefined. It will gradually move into the hands of the workers.

For many of us we know that this has already happened and is happening right now. Pensions, for example, own increasingly large proportions of the equity of businesses and through deferred income very many workers are now owning significant sections of the means of production.

There has also been a shift in sectoral development. Sectors that were once the driving force of our economy are no longer as important as they once were. Auto, steel, petroleum and housing industries are still important. We still need them but they have

been replaced as significant sectors by semiconductors and computers.

Health and medicare, communications and telecommunications and instrumentations are the new sectors that drive the economy. They are the new engines of today's economy. Today Canada's electronic industry is larger than its pulp and paper industry.

The computer service industry in Canada employs more people than the auto industry. More people in British Columbia work in communications and in telecommunications than in the entire forest industry. More people in Ontario are employed in business services than in the construction industry.

More Quebecois work in health and medical care than in construction, textiles, clothing, furniture, auto, forest and mining industries combined. We are in the midst of significant industrial changes and whether by sheer will or by circumstance, we are making the transition from the old economy to the new and small business is the key.

Why is it necessary to take care of small business? Knowledge workers are the ones who will establish small businesses. Small businesses will provide the flexibility for knowledge workers to develop their ideas.

Adaptation to the new economy will require change. Small businesses are much more likely to change than are large ones. Why? There are fewer people involved. There are not as many interrelated parts. Co-ordination and planning are much easier. Learning can take part at one's own speed rather than having to wait for someone else to catch up.

Change can be much faster. The concept stage to the idea stage to the planning stage to the implementation stage can happen with one person. There is no board of directors to persuade. There is no senior manager to convince. There is no petty company politics and there are no petty jealousies. Change is easier and faster.

The rate of change will become a major factor in order to maintain our competitive advantage if that is the situation in the future and it will be. The small business person also owns the knowledge. Take for instance a software company and the means of production, the computer.

The farmer knows how to farm. He owns the land and the machines. The small businessman needs money to get established in the first place and then to do the operation that is necessary in terms of hiring the right people and in building the buildings that are necessary in a manufacturing operation. They need money for expansion.

There are some serious difficulties with access to capital. One of these is excessive taxation both in terms of payroll taxes and in particular capital gains taxes. Financial institutions, especially banks, stand in the way because they are so large and slow to change.

Remember, one of the big things we are going to have to do is change quickly and to do so successfully. They are often untrained in personnel and not knowledgeable about the knowledge based industries. There are some notable exceptions but by and large they understand only hard assets. They do not know how to value what is between the specialist's ears.

Concentration of financial powers in the banking community in particular is also a resister, a very serious one. In Canada we have eliminated the four financial pillars. We used to have banks, trust companies, insurance companies, brokerage or investment dealers, four distinct financial pillars. Banks now function in all four areas. It has reduced competition among these sectors. It has reduced the efficiency because the size problem makes change difficult and slow.

Of even more significance is that because of their concentration these institutions now determine policy, a policy that is first of all in their best interest and not necessarily in the interest of the general public. Governments are unduly influenced by that. It is a very serious consideration that has to be examined.

The report does not deal with this thing but it is one thing that is very significant and the omission should be recognized. It is really significant that we look at some of the key recommendations now and how they will tie in and help small businesses and clear the way for them to do the things that have to be done.

I would like to pay particular attention here to the community based venture capital companies that exist in some areas. There are a number of people who had advocated these. Larry Zepf is the chairman of Canada's technology triangle alliance, Kitchener-Waterloo, Guelph and Cambridge. This is a pilot project that looks like it is going to do a lot of good things in getting venture capital going. Mr. Doyle cited Austin, Texas, as a good example of how local venture capital companies can work.

In that city which is about the same size as Ottawa technology jobs since 1981 increased from 10,000 to 30,000, a 300 per cent increase since 1981. During that same period in Ottawa the number of technology workers increased from 22,000 to 25,000, a 13.6 per cent increase. That is all. Who is running the show here? Who is at the leading edge?

There are some interesting things happening in Quebec. Let me quote the senior executive vice-president of the national bank: "With regard to start-up capital the route we prefer is to channel our resources through the many regional or sectorial

risk capital corporations that exist in Quebec". We would do well to listen to these community establishments.

Gordon Sharwood, referring to a study by the Canadian Chamber of Commerce, states community investment banks to assist local entrepreneurs to assess risk and capital and apply that capital are the things that we should be advocating in the future.

Another recommendation that comes out of the report has to do with the reporting of statistics to make sure that we get a reflection of how well the banks are serving the needs of the small business person. The new statistics should be reported quarterly and indicate the size, type of loan, the nature of the borrower, including gender and employment, the number of people in the business, their sales volume, major sector of operation and so on. One or more of these banks should report quarterly to the industry committee.

Another key recommendation is code of conduct. I do not know whether we have ever had of such a thing as a code of conduct for the banks. They tell us that they have one. When it comes to calling them to account, we wonder where that code of conduct went. The recommendation says clearly that a code of conduct shall be developed and that there should be an independent, self-financing position of ombudsman to make sure that the banks do live up to the code of conduct that has been set.

In order for Canadians, business workers, citizens, all of us, to receive the maximum benefit from the present economy and to be prepared for the new economy we will require a new attitude for government. First, the government should get out of the way of entrepreneurs; second, set clear guidelines that establish level playing fields for every one; and, third, prevent the concentration of power by preventing the establishment of huge combines and abuses of trust.

Another is the development of a new culture and attitude on the part of each Canadian saying that government does government and business does business. Neither one should try to do what the other one should be doing.

Specifically I would suggest that the role of government is to establish and maintain a culture that rewards entrepreneurship, innovation and research, and ensures a level, competitive and honest marketplace. To do so it should emphasize achieving first an attitude of spending by government that does not exceed revenues and results in a balanced budget over a three-year period beginning now; second, less interference in the marketplace by getting out of business; third, by repositioning and renewing government resources to maximize efficiency at reduced costs; and, fourth, a commitment to no further tax increases for Canadians.

We also need a new relationship among businesses, business networking where businesses learn to work together in new ways to help one another while maintaining a competitive edge and a co-operation among businesses to help assess risk in terms of getting new capital and negotiating interest rates with banks and other financial institutions. This report is called taking care of small business. The truth is small business is creativity. Small business is ideas and if government gets out of the way small business will take care of itself and us. I urge the minister to act immediately to implement the recommendations in the report.

[Department Of Canadian Heritage Act, November 3rd, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I am both proud and sad to address this bill at this time. What has happened within the last 10 days or so has given me concern about what is happening to the heritage of Canadians.

I am a proud Canadian. My parents are proud Canadians. My parents came to this country as children. My father met my mother when they were teenagers in southern Alberta. They were married and raised a family during the depression. They have told me many, many stories about what happened in this country. My grandparents told me of some things that happened in other countries. They talked about heritage and culture. They told us about our culture, about our parents and our background. I am proud of both of those heritages, but the one I really understand and the one I am a part of is the Canadian heritage.

One thing I want Canadians to be known for is their integrity, their honesty and their fairness and treatment of each other with justice. I am not that young any more, but my children are young. It seems to me that we as seniors in this country of ours need to present an example to the upcoming generation.

The real heritage we have as Canadians is our children for whom we are building this country. I ask myself and I ask this House, what kind of legacy are we leaving to our children when they see the kinds of things that have happened in this House over the last 10 days?

There have been allegations and almost accusations and statements made against and about the leader of our country and one of his key ministers. We have to ask ourselves: Is this the kind of thing we want our children to emulate? Do we want our children to think that the Prime Minister would defend a minister of the crown who would intercede or take action that could be interpreted as interceding on behalf of someone so that unfair or special advantage is given to one person over another? We do not want that.

The Prime Minister has said: "The buck stops here". I admire him for saying that. It is responsible of him to say: "I am accountable. I am responsible for the things that happen in my government", which includes every minister on the front bench and all the parliamentarians he leads.

But he is a leader beyond that. He is our Prime Minister. He is my Prime Minister. Even though I am not a member of his party he is still my Prime Minister. I want to be able to respect him. I want to look to him for leadership, as an example of the kinds of things that ought to be happening not only in this House but in this whole country. That is what we are looking for.

Generally the position has been clear. The Prime Minister has indicated that he is a man of the people. He listens and he tries to do what is best. But there is now a question. Did he do what was best in this particular instance? The record is clear. I am not going to review the record now. But I ask the Prime Minister, the minister and every parliamentarian here, including myself: Is this the kind of behaviour we want our children to emulate when they become this country's parliamentarians?

I am not proud. I do not think I could say yes to that question. I think I would have to answer no. I want my children and those who will follow us to have another example, a standard which says we will not interfere in the administration of justice. We will not interfere in a quasi-judicial body to get it to make a decision that is different from the one that is apparently independent and considers all the facts before a decision is made. That is what I want.

I think there is a position here that can be salvaged but let us make clear that what ought to be said is said and that where a mistake has been made let the appropriate action be taken.

At this time the Prime Minister must take action. He has decided not to. That is a decision. It is his opportunity to do that but I would encourage him to take at least some action. We are in a crisis situation and if we ever needed integrity in leadership it is today.

Next year in 1995 this country will be faced with a major refinancing. A major amount of money is going to have to be borrowed in the world market. The question I want to ask is this: Will the lenders that loaned us money before continue to lend us money if they have any question as to whether we will do what we said we would do? We need confidence in the financial management of this country. We need to know that the Minister of Finance and the Prime Minister are serious about getting this budget under control and balancing the budget.

Beyond that, we need something else and that is justice. This morning, in fact I am wearing the button which says "Justice for Joshua", right beside me was a group of high school students that said "No, not just for Joshua, for all of us". That is exactly what we want. We want justice for every person, young persons, middle aged persons, seniors, every person in Canada. We want justice for them, we want fairness for them and we want them to live in a way that they are treated equally as individuals and as provinces.

That is the heritage we want. That is the heritage we can have. It is we together as a group, and as individuals, as the opposition, who will fight for that. We will build a country that we can be indeed proud of and we can then say to our children: "Follow our example. It is a good one".

[World Trade Organization Agreement Implementation Act, November 1st, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to enter the debate on Bill C-57.

This bill supports the conclusions of the latest round of GATT, an agreement that provides a framework in which Canada and the rest of the free trading world can share in prosperity and put the world economy on a sound footing as it heads toward the 21st century.

For Canada, a country heavily dependent on trade, the GATT represents the world's commitment to a strong international trading system. GATT shows us that the world has the courage to co-operate, not hide behind destructive, protective measures and that it is able to find a trade dispute mechanism which can be agreed on, not only in principle but in the real world.

The GATT has created the World Trading Organization, a strong, effective, permanent institution which will oversee world trade policy and settle disputes between nations on a multilateral basis.

The GATT has strengthened trade rules on subsidies and countervailing duties. The GATT has achieved commitment from 120 participating countries to lower or eliminate tariffs or other barriers to trade. The GATT is multilateral. One hundred and forty-one partners in 21 countries came to these agreements. It is progress. It is prosperity.

But the GATT does something else, succinctly, clearly, loudly. It points out a glaring deficiency. It is easier for Canadians to trade with the world than it is for Canadians to trade with Canadians. While the world creates its own window of opportunity, the federal government and the provinces are still unable to make any real progress toward achieving the same.

Emphasis is put on the fact that one in five jobs are dependent on international trade and that 30 per cent of Canada's GDP is reliant on international trade. But what about the four jobs that rely on internal trade within Canada and the 70 per cent of GDP that still relies on a sound fiscal and monetary climate right here within our own boundaries?

It is like throwing salt in a wound to know that the textile industry can find more support in the GATT than it can at home. Canada's textile market is about to gain improved access to major developed trading partners including the European union and Japan. It is what the textile industry pushed for and it is what they got. But not here in Canada.

The same is true for 11 other sectors from wood to steel to agriculture. Everywhere in the world, but not here. This must change.

More than an avenue of tacit trade globally, the GATT has provided Canada the blueprint for success in breaking down internal trade barriers. Like the GATT, we must acknowledge that it takes the development of a strong, central body like the World Trade Organization to ensure a well engineered program.

In Canada we need a strong central federal government able to direct the provinces toward initiation of a multilateral, equally beneficial agreement among the provinces like the GATT. It is important to acknowledge that in large part the success of Canada in the GATT negotiations has been inspired by an industry driven agenda.

Industry knows what it needs to increase production and provide more jobs. The federal government must listen to it, as the world has, for industry's drive and confidence will give the provinces the incentive to want to trade with other provinces.

Like the GATT, we must seek to find a level playing field. We must encourage the internal trade market to expand so that the trading system does not operate solely for the benefit of a powerful few. We must create an environment in which all provinces will be encouraged to become key players. Each province must have the opportunity to access the Canadian market without fearing counter-protective measures or costly compromise.

The Minister of Industry has said again and again that we must ensure Canada's prosperity, that trade barriers are a question of economics, that we must liberalize trade in Canada. The minister says we are making progress in this direction, but I cannot agree. The urgency of this matter seems apparent to only a few. Otherwise the government and the provinces would be trying harder to come to an agreement.

The GATT agreement should give Canadians the confidence to reach an interim trade agreement and prove that the advantage lies in being less protective of our home markets, not more. Industry knows it, but government is slow to respond. Industry is anxious to develop a strong market inside the country, but it is being forced to rely more and more on what is outside. Why? Because the provinces have become so adept at their political agendas they have forgotten the initial agenda.

We do not act like a country. We act like jealous neighbours whose sole interest is to protect ourselves. By doing so we fail to see that we are divesting, not investing, in ourselves and creating limits to the markets we could access. Internal trade is about economic unity. Without it we do not progress, but are mired down on issues like sovereignty which only serve to divert our focus.

While we struggle with these secondary battles the rest of the world moves on and takes advantage of the global marketplace. While we bicker about organization and administration, we fail to consider strategy. We do not present ourselves to the world as Team Canada, but 12 small and separate countries.

The irony is that while we work so hard at being separate, we all bear the cost of those Canadians who are not given the opportunity to succeed. It is a sad commentary that we define ourselves as Canadians through our failures more than our successes.

We have failed at internal trade. Canadians are not good at it and it is an attitude that reflects much too often on the way we trade internationally. For all that Canada's international trade represents 30 per cent of our GDP, only 100 companies or so really represent that volume of trade. Perhaps industry would trade better and would take advantage of international opportunities if the governments of the country provided them with a safe environment in which to practice their trading abilities.

We must ask ourselves whether Canada can take advantage of the opportunity provided by this round of GATT. Can we provide a world market? Can we survive a world market and fully participate in it if we do not bind together and pull together as a whole? Can we find a way to work together so that issues of sovereignty do not jeopardize us in the eyes of the world monetary culture? Will we have the luxury of fighting our cultural battles if we do not establish a strong economic foundation first? Can we take full advantage of trade opportunities if we insist on being the sum of our parts and not the whole?

Some have suggested that the new era of global trade is making the necessity for internal trade barriers obsolete. Soon industry, they say, will lobby Geneva not Ottawa. Soon, they say also, nation states will gradually delegate their sovereignty to world trade organizations; but 70 per cent of our GDP says otherwise. Four out of five jobs say otherwise. It may be the future but we will not survive there in the future if we do not survive and master the present.

We require the federal government to pursue the breakdown of internal barriers with the same commitment it did in the GATT negotiations. It must do more to ensure Canadians work better together and enhance the opportunities of our internal trade market. If it does not, the government will be guilty of negligence both to the people and to the unity of this country. It is true that the divided are more vulnerable to failure but we have all the makings of a true economic union. It is time we saw the necessity to achieve it. We cannot drift on the premise that failure is far round the corner. It is not.

We need freer trade within the country. We need an agreement that will reflect all the valuable lessons that have been achieved in the GATT. We need to emphasize co-operation to create jobs and balance the budget. We need to bypass the political agendas for an industry driven agenda that will give all parts of the country equal access to opportunity. We need to respect that trade barriers are a question of economics and not issues of cultural protectionism. We need to lay more than a foundation, we have to break through the barriers and take advantage of a potentially profitable internal trade market. We need Canada to succeed at home as well as abroad.

One hundred and forty-one partners in 21 countries found a way. Surely 13 partners in one country can do the same.

[Supply, October 25th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the question. The simple short answer to the question is yes, we need a strong central government. We also need strong decentralization so that the decisions that affect the people directly and immediately are as close to the people affected as possible. In many instances it requires that the local government and the provincial government play a very significant role.

We must remember it is the central government which creates the environment for the marketplace to operate, for industry to find its way, and for the lower levels of government to do their jobs more effectively so that there is not this duplication that exists at the present time and where there is not this predetermination to "fight for my turf and to get out of my turf". We need to co-ordinate these things and that would be my answer to the hon. member.

[Supply, October 25th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I think you are doing a fine job. I am also a rookie. You are an experienced parliamentarian. I appreciate this opportunity to address the House this afternoon.

The resolution before the House requests the government to table a clear, detailed plan to show how and when it intends to balance the budget, including a clear statement of its vision of the role of the government in the economy in order for the people of Canada to debate the plan and vision.

We need that plan if we are to change the present course from government overspending to working within our means. To effect that change or any other change three things are required.

First, we must recognize the problem. As Andrew Coyne said so clearly in the Globe and Mail yesterday, the deficit is not the problem anymore. It is the debt. It was fine to aim for a balanced budget ten years ago, but $300 billion in debt later is simply inadequate. That is the problem, the debt and not the deficit.

The second thing that needs to be done to effect change is understand the implications of what will happen if we do nothing to solve the problem. Third is accepting responsibility to do what is necessary.

These are sound principles that all people who have anything to do with the change agree on and all sides of this House agree on. The grey book is full of sound principles but it falls short by failing to provide a means by which principles can be made practical. It is time that the government took control of accepting its own principles and put them into action, not just talking about them but showing the courage to act upon them. The key lies in knowing which principles are crucial, which principles will meet the challenge of reducing spending and create a dynamic economy.

First, knowledge and technology are the new natural resource. Second, translating knowledge and technology into practical, revenue generating services will provide jobs. Third, Canadians will require training and to continue to learn throughout their lives the skills necessary to harness the new natural resource. Fourth, regional development will be redefined and by doing so will redefine government relationships with industry where industry determines its requirements and is self-funding and lessens the reliance on government resources. Fifth, we need to

incorporate the global world into our marketplace and develop our exporting capabilities.

As associate industry critic for the Reform Party, I believe much of this responsibility will fall to the Minister of Industry. The Department of Industry will be integral in the development and implementation of the new natural resource. However the department has not yet adequately set its focus to accomplish that. It must do so before it will be able to set a responsible budget, and it will need to do that in consultation with the Minister of Finance.

We hope the program review currently under way will result in some answers. A noble start has been made in the recent science and technology review across Canada. If the Minister of Industry and the Minister of Finance truly recognize that knowledge and technology are the new natural resources of the country then we can reasonably expect to find answers to creating jobs and to reduce spending.

Industry must take the lead in job creation. The beauty of knowledge and technology based industry is that they are globally capable, prompting an expanded marketplace and a demand for a greater workforce. Industry in this way will generate employment.

Better implementation of research will foster development and Canada will begin to find practical ways of translating good ideas into revenue generation. With an increase in production and the revenue to support it, Canadians will be employed. Best of all, government will be able to reduce its expenditures.

With the creation of this new natural resource there will be no requirement for government to prop up industries and regions which have lost their economic livelihood through the depreciation of traditional resources. The new natural resource and knowledge and technology based workforce will no longer be indigenous to a particular part of the country. The have not status of some of the provinces will no longer exist. St. John's as well as Vancouver will be able to participate and benefit from the ability to farm the resource of knowledgeable people.

Costs to the government of $803 million in regional spending could be eliminated. Regional support which was created to lessen a reliance on traditional resources will no longer be required except on the very smallest of levels to assist industry through transition. In fact, the very notion of regions may well disappear and the restriction of provincial boundaries will be transcended out of necessity.

Industry will assume responsibility and take its rightful place as the generator of jobs and the patron of a sound fiscal environment. It is but one solution but a very important one. It will signal change, but a change that is essential and necessary. It will help government meet its main objective of reducing spending, creating employment, and ultimately fighting the debt. Only government can set the wheels moving in this direction but it must commit to these objectives and it must provide a plan.

As members in an employed society, Canadians will enthusiastically help to make that change. It can be done. I know it can be done. But we need the conviction of the government to do it, and we need it now.

[Small Businesses, October 24th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Industry.

After six months of co-operation and hard work by all members of the standing committee including all parties in the House, the report was tabled last week. Many of the recommendations will be of great benefit to small businesses across Canada.

Will the minister commit to the House when he will implement the recommendations in the report?

[Social Security Programs, October 20th, 1994]

Madam Speaker, I found the member's speech very interesting, especially one phrase. The phrase was trust the government. I would like to be able to do that. To many degrees we must trust the government and in many instances we can trust the government.

I was particularly impressed with an earlier member opposite who seemed to be more in line with what the Reform Party was thinking about, taking a position that was consistent with the constituents rather than with the party position at that time. For a while I was wondering whether he was going to walk across the floor or whether he was going to stay where he was. I appreciated that.

I really want to come back to this member's statement when he asked us to trust the government and understand that the purpose of the bill was to protect services to make sure that the pensioners get their pensions and things of that sort. I certainly commend him for doing that.

I am very concerned about the future of the pensions that will be available for our seniors. Of course we do not want to cut their benefits. How does the member opposite intend to make an efficient system distribute money that is not there? How is he going to guarantee that there will be adequate money for the pensions to be paid out? We could have the most efficient system in the world. We could build the best car around, but if there is no gas for it the car will not go any where.

Therefore I ask the member opposite where is the money coming from that he says will be available? He says that they will not touch the seniors' pensions that are there, particularly not those who are getting the benefits now. Does he not realize the benefits that are currently being received by pensioners are coming out of the contributions that are currently being provided? How will he guarantee that will be the case later when

there will be more people taking benefits than those who are contributing to the plan?

There is no actuarially significant foundation for the Canada pension plan as it is at the present time. Could the hon. member explain in a little more detail how he intends to make sure that we can trust with confidence the government?

[Petitions, October 20th, 1994]

The second petition, Mr. Speaker, is from petitioners who 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 of homosexuality, including amending the human rights code to include in the prohibitive grounds of discrimination the undefined phrase sexual orientation.

It is an honour for me to present these petitions on behalf of my constituents.