The original requirement.
Lost his last election, in 2004, with 41% of the vote.
Supply November 21st, 1995
The original requirement.
Supply November 21st, 1995
Mr. Speaker, I listened attentively to the member's remarks today. He has been very selective in his speech and has forgotten some very important historical realities.
I would like to go back to the period of 1979 to 1981, when the Government of Canada, under the leadership of the Right Hon. Pierre Elliott Trudeau, basically put the foundation in place for the Quebec aerospace industry. The member conveniently did not touch on that period of time; he conveniently overlooked it. This tends to be the basic strategy of the Bloc Quebecois members. They forget the foundation upon which an important industry like the aerospace industry was brought to Quebec.
I remind the member of the government's decision in 1980 when the Government of Canada purchased the F-18A. Almost 80 per cent of the offsets that were part of that contract went to the province of Quebec. In no way, shape or form do I begrudge that because I am a Toronto member, an Ontario member. We celebrated that great purchase under the leadership of Pierre Trudeau.
I also remind the member that it was under the leadership of the present Prime Minister that the decision was taken to get involved with the Canadair Challenger jet. Canadian taxpayers, not Quebec taxpayers, invested almost $1 billion into research and development to lay the foundation that led not only to the Canadair executive jet but also to the Canadair commuter jet, which is now being manufactured in the province of Quebec not just through Canadair-Bombardier but also through various aerospace manufacturers.
I will give a third example. There was a contract given to maintain the F-18As, I believe about four years ago. The actual price submitted by Bristol Aerospace in the province of Manitoba was cheaper than the contract price in Quebec. The government of the Right Hon. Brian Mulroney made sure under his leadership that the maintenance contract for the F-18As, our fighter jet, went to the province of Quebec.
I do not want to suggest that as a Toronto member I resent any of those contracts going to those manufacturers in the aerospace industry in Quebec.
When we talk about what is Quebec's fair share, I can point to a specific example where a Liberal government under the leadership of Pierre Trudeau laid the basic foundation for the aerospace industry, which I recognize is an industry leader in the world.
We have to deal with something that happened during the regime of the last government: the free trade agreement. I campaigned vigorously against the free trade agreement. I campaigned against it for many reasons. One reason was chapter 14 of the free trade agreement, where essentially there was unfettered foreign access to our markets, whether it was for procurement, manufacturing, or investment opportunities. We essentially gave up a big part of our sovereignty under that chapter.
Members of the Bloc voted for, supported and campaigned for the free trade agreement. We must remember that one article in the free trade agreement prohibits us as a nation from dictating Canadian content. So when the member from the Bloc in his speech today talked about the government not dictating Canadian content, the member must realize that his leader campaigned against dictating Canadian content when he supported the free trade agreement. You cannot suck and blow at the same time. The member from the Bloc Quebecois I know is fighting for his people, and I respect that. But we must deal with the truth. The truth of the matter is that we cannot dictate Canadian content.
I believe in the Quebec aerospace industry. When Pierre Trudeau, a great Liberal Prime Minister, laid the foundation to put that industry primarily in the province of Quebec, I believe he made the right decision, not just on behalf of Quebecers but on behalf of all of Canada. The member from the Bloc Quebecois is forgetting a very important factor in any business equation. I want to get to the point about procurement. I have confidence in the Quebec aerospace industry in the sense that it does have the capacity to produce a quality product at a better price.
If we were to promote and support the quality product and competitive price that Quebec aerospace industry operators provide, we could overcome this insecurity the Bloc Quebecois member has about his own industry. Any businessman, if the product is quality and the price is right, will always get the business. Therefore we should not give up on the aerospace industry not having the ability to produce a quality product or service at a quality price. Rather than throw in the towel and give up on the industry, let us rally around it.
I do not believe the member from the Bloc Quebecois has that confidence. Essentially what he is saying today is that we should be dictating that automatically these firms should get the business.
Before the free trade agreement I liked the situation in which we tended to be a little more protectionist. I fought for a more protectionist role. The member's current leader said we do not need that kind of protection. We should be consistent when we are having this debate. If the member would not be so selective and instead would look at all the things in a total equation, I believe he would see that the people of Canada and the Government of Canada have done their absolute best to be fair to Quebec.
Department Of Human Resources Development Act November 20th, 1995
I will not argue with the Speaker because I am afraid of a 10-minute misconduct. That means I will not be able to speak tomorrow.
I want to go back to the essence of the department, human resources. Many of the ideas and decisions taken by the Department of Human Resources Development do not always come out of Ottawa. It is very rare. That is one of the myths, one of the spins we hear from the Reform Party.
I know many of the ideas for human resource development, ideas for job creation or jobs for retraining, actually come from the grassroots, from the local human resource development offices. I bet there is not a member of Parliament who has not had an idea come through the system and get approved where the idea came right from the community.
To all members and to my dear friends from the Bloc Quebecois please, the people of Canada have spoken. They want a strong national government. We must begin by reinforcing the voice of the people to make sure the Department of Human Resources Development is the ground swell for rebuilding this great, strong, national government that once was.
Department Of Human Resources Development Act November 20th, 1995
It is big business. It is a multi-billion business that has created exports, equipment, players, tourism and exposure. Do not underestimate the contribution of hockey as a national sport.
Let me get back to my speech on human resources development. Mr. Speaker, please do not dock me for the diversion that was generated by the Reform Party on the Winnipeg Jets.
Department Of Human Resources Development Act November 20th, 1995
The member asked whether giving money to the Winnipeg Jets is a good decision? He is taking me off the subject matter of my speech but I will talk about the Winnipeg Jets. I declare conflict of interest with the Winnipeg Jets. As members know, my son played his nine games with the Winnipeg Jets. He is only a 19-year old kid.
I support the commitment of the Government of Canada to try to maintain another National Hockey League franchise in this country. I come from Toronto where we do not have any problems maintaining a franchise. This is not a country that has looked out only for those provinces that have. We should be looking out for provinces that do not have the same resources as downtown Toronto.
It does not bother me if some of the cashflow from Ontario is distributed to Winnipeg or other places if it means we can maintain our national sport. It does not bother me.
Department Of Human Resources Development Act November 20th, 1995
Mr. Speaker, when I try to talk in a constructive way about the issue here, the Reform Party does not let me finish. There may be a day when those gentlemen might be given the trust by the people of Canada. If they have been given the trust of the people of Canada, they are not supposed to get the trust and then simply say hand it over to the province.
The Chamber is meant to be a counterbalance to those regional and provincial forces. When one is in the Chamber, one does not speak only for one's own riding and one's own province. When in the Chamber, one is supposed to speak for all of Canada. We are here to speak for all of Canada.
Ontario has a shortsighted vision evolving in which we do not have investment dollars going into human resource development. We should be thanking God that we have a minister who will not be pushed around by the bureaucrats in the Department of Finance when they are trying to offload this place. He will maintain his presence for a strong national human resources development department.
To the members of the Reform, there are many I have had good constructive debate with-
Department Of Human Resources Development Act November 20th, 1995
A member from the Reform Party said not according to the people.
I have to take a minute to talk about the people and why the provincial government is so popular in Ontario. We have in the country now an emerging culture. A book written by John Kenneth Galbraith was called The Culture of the Content . What we have now is a culture in which there are people who have work, who have a job, who have everything going for them, who might have a lot of RRSPs, whose business may be in good shape, who are essentially content. They represent about 70 per cent.
The 70 per cent who are basically content, who have their paycheque secure, or who have enough investment income that they can look after themselves are essentially comfortable with this right wing agenda. Those people are not being as sensitive as they used to be toward those in our community who do not have, who do not have work, who do not have the opportunity to get retrained. We must as governments invest in some people to be retrained.
We have in our province a Conservative government catering to the contented culture. It is forgetting the 30 per cent who are having a very difficult time. The Ontario government's vision is very much like a business vision. It is like earnings per share per quarter.
When building a country we cannot run it like a business. We have to think of the investment in human capital for the long term. It is essential that we have a counterbalance at the national level.
Department Of Human Resources Development Act November 20th, 1995
Mr. Speaker. I appreciate the opportunity to participate in this debate.
Human Resources Development Canada I believe, from my longstanding commitment to the Liberal tradition, is central to the government's maintaining its credibility with the people of Canada. Of all government departments Human Resources Development Canada is the one at this time that should get the most support and the most encouragement from all members of the House.
As we are going through a period of restructuring we have these incredible forces from the right that say cut, eliminate, offload, decentralize. When we are doing that for the purpose of eliminating waste I am sympathetic.
I believe human resources development has to be one of the departments of the national government that remain strong and intact. It must be the counterbalance to provincial forces that quite often are shortsighted and think in a parochial way rather than in the interest of the whole of Canada. I maintain that unless we have national programs with national standards it will be very difficult for us to maintain a sense of national will.
I am totally opposed to offloading any more of the decision making process in an area like human resources development to the province of Quebec or to any other provinces. All of a sudden we will have that parochial thought process emerge. We will become a country in which essentially we have about five or six different standards, thought processes emerging. When we are trying to develop national standards it is virtually impossible when we go that route.
I will give an example in terms of my own province, Ontario. We have a Conservative government which is being very shortsighted in the way it is treating its human resources development opportunities.
Department Of Human Resources Development Act November 20th, 1995
Derivatives.
Department Of Human Resources Development Act November 20th, 1995
Mr. Speaker, I should like to pursue this thought with the member because I obviously do not see it the way he does.
I have a difficult time understanding the derivatives section of the Royal Bank of Canada. I use the expression its private casino where they play with derivatives and sometimes even bet against the Canadian dollar. I have a difficult time understanding how the derivatives section of a bank can find an average of $30 billion a day to play with and make money. That is one bank. It is said that the derivatives game in the world now involves a trillion dollars a day. This money is being pushed. It is paper pushing all over the world. There is no production related to that trillion dollars a day.
I find it difficult to accept that our largest bank can find $30 billion a day to gamble in pushing paper alone. Yet the small business float for a whole year for the entire small business sector is only $28 billion. And I am only talking about one bank.
The issue is not that we must eliminate waste and watch our spending. When we talk about debt we should not avoid talking about the tremendous assets in the country: our resources, our water, our infrastructure and our educated people. We are talking about human resources. Our human resources are recognized as the best on the planet. We have to measure that into the economic equation.
Would the member not agree that when we talk about getting at root causes we must talk about who is controlling all the capital, who is pushing all this capital around the world and preventing a sufficient amount of it from being distributed into the economy where there is true production in the manufacture of goods and services? Does the member not think that is a debate we should have in the House?