Dennis Mills

[Department Of Industry Act, December 1st, 1994]

You do not understand that?

[Department Of Industry Act, December 1st, 1994]

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I do this with respect. The member knows of my affection for him. However, I am having a difficult time linking the relevance of what he is saying to the actual amendment. I would ask for clarification on that.

[Department Of Industry Act, December 1st, 1994]

We wonder where you got that tie, Randy.

[Department Of Industry Act, December 1st, 1994]

We don't take any blame either for anything.

[Department Of Industry Act, December 1st, 1994]

We could get unanimous consent.

[Department Of Industry Act, December 1st, 1994]

Madam Speaker, as I was listening to the member for Abitibi I imagined that this member could actually be giving this speech from any region of the country. He talked about the importance of tourism, education, enough capital coming to a region, proper and efficient utilization of our natural resources-

[Department Of Industry Act, December 1st, 1994]

I am going to tell you who pays.

The essence of this country is those communities that are stronger, that are richer-I come from a city which is strong and rich but right now it is in economic difficulty. It is the city of Toronto. I know that my community, my city is having a very difficult time-believe that we must make sure that communities that are more disadvantaged are looked after properly and effectively by the national government.

I believe that ACOA and the western diversification fund are doing a very good job. For those reasons we will not support the Reform Party's amendments.

[Department Of Industry Act, December 1st, 1994]

Madam Speaker, I am trying to make my point. I think-

[Department Of Industry Act, December 1st, 1994]

Madam Speaker, I would like to begin by addressing the remarks that were presented earlier by my colleague from Richmond-Wolfe.

His remark that the federal government has no jurisdiction in Quebec represents a difference that I have with him, one that probably represents the single biggest reason why I decided to run for public office.

I had the privilege and pleasure of working for the man who I think was the greatest Prime Minister this country every had, Pierre Elliot Trudeau. I believe that Pierre Trudeau and his vision of this country, his feeling about making sure we had a strong national government that would make sure we had national programs that would allow us to develop a national spirit, a national will that would pull us together. He also wanted a government that was designed to make sure that when regional disadvantages occurred, the national government had the capacity and the instruments to help those people in regionally disadvantaged areas.

My colleague from Richmond-Wolfe says that the federal government has no jurisdiction in Quebec. Let us imagine that every provincial premier or every provincial political party took that position. That was the essence of the Meech Lake accord which is why I opposed it.

For the Bloc Quebecois to expect the government to support an amendment which essentially states that the federal government has no jurisdiction in Quebec is just not on. I believe that a majority of Quebecers would not support it either.

I accept the constructive remarks of the hon. member for Richmond-Wolfe about the fact that we have to be more efficient. We have to reduce some of the overlapping that goes on between the federal-provincial programs so we can better provide services for the people of his community, his province, as we want to do for the people in northern Ontario or Atlantic Canada or western Canada. I agree with him on that. The purpose of this bill is to redesign this department so it can become more efficient and address those concerns.

However, to go to a position where the federal government has no jurisdiction in Quebec, no jurisdiction when it comes to looking out for small and medium sized businessmen and women, no jurisdiction on retraining, no jurisdiction in special projects is not my position. From time to time we may need to use extraordinary powers to assist and promote special projects in Quebec and that is what this bill allows the government to do.

I am in this Chamber because I believe more than ever we need a strong national government. We do not need a government that is gutted. We do not need a government that is decentralized to the point where we no longer have the capacity to handle a difficult economic environment. Therefore I say respectfully there is no way we can accept this amendment from the Bloc Quebecois.

I turn now to my colleagues in the Reform Party, who I should add are in accordance with our view of making sure that we have a strong national government. They have recognized that. This is not in any way, shape or form isolating Quebec. I get very concerned when the Bloc all of a sudden thinks that we are trying to isolate them. We are trying to do the exact opposite. We are trying to make sure that all Quebecers, all Canadians, interact and exchange with each other on the total resources of this country, not just part of it.

Reform members have a very difficult time with some of our regional instruments like the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency and the western diversification instrument of government. In every high risk situation it is normal and historical, whether in business or in government, that from time to time mistakes are made and there are failures. It happens in business-

[Department Of Industry Act, December 1st, 1994]

Madam Speaker, as I listened to the member from Quebec City I must say I share all of her concerns. Coming from a riding where the cultural community for people who are employed in cultural industries represents the greatest number of people employed I am extremely sensitive to this issue. I do not want you to think, Madam Speaker, that this is a community that I do not care for or am insensitive to. I depend a lot on the views and feelings they provide me in the direction I take.

The member for Québec said that the fundamental rights of the artistic community were being threatened by the positioning in the Department of Industry.

Historically copyright was with the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs which is now part of Industry Canada. From a historical sense we are being fairly consistent but I think the member for Quebec mentioned a more important thing, the strengthening of the role of the creator. I believe that we are doing that. First of all, we have to realize that this is a joint relationship between Heritage Canada and Industry Canada.

Copyright does not deal exclusively with cultural aspects. On the international level, it is a business issue that impacts on revenues, investment, job creation, innovation, piracy, theft, non-tariff barrier concerns, many of the things that the member talked about in her remarks.

As a government we believe that the Department of Industry, especially with all the new technologies, with the information highway, the concerns that we have for protection, is best equipped to meet those concerns and those needs of the artists.

In light of all of that and the balancing of the concerns, we cannot accept this amendment.