Dennis Mills

[Canadian Heritage, October 3rd, 1994]

The member is absolutely right. The Reform Party says that it will be my grandchildren's money. I don't have any yet, but hopefully.

There will not be anything for our grandchildren if we do not rebuild the national presence, the Government of Canada presence, and the symbols of Canada in the province of Quebec.

This is what I cannot understand from the Reform Party. For 10 years we had a Prime Minister, Mr. Mulroney, who basically retreated from building, exposing or showing what the Government of Canada did in Quebec. He was quite happy to shovel off and devolve responsibility to the operating province of Quebec.

One of the reasons we have such a strong separatist feeling in Quebec right now is that the Government of Canada presence, the services, the programs, the symbols and the things that all Canadians pay for, is not realized by Quebecers. It is in the billions. In no other province in Canada do we have a situation like that.

When government programs, government services and government activities happen in all the other provinces and in the Northwest Territories, they are plainly and clearly identified. However, in the province of Quebec we basically dismantle the federal presence. That of course is the reason as I said earlier why the Bloc Quebecois does not like this legislation. With this legislation we are going to once again try to rebuild that presence.

If we go to Quebecers and ask: "Do you want to continue to be a part of Canada?", let us at least let Quebecers know what we are doing.

It has nothing to do with the heritage department. It has to do with all those symbols, services and programs that right now are not known as Government of Canada services and projects. Once again I stand here and say we in this Chamber are trying to rebuild the spirit of this country. We are trying to make sure there is a national feeling shared by all Canadians right across the country. I hope that one day a large majority of Quebecers will see that the best opportunity for their language and culture is by being a part of the whole nation.

[Canadian Heritage, October 3rd, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to speak on this legislation. I begin by saying that as I sit and listen to the Bloc Quebecois I continue to wonder whether we have lost our minds.

We are looking back over the last 25 years. I had the great privilege and opportunity to work for the greatest Prime Minister this country ever had, Pierre Trudeau. I think of what this one Quebecer did to make sure that the presence of the francophone culture permeated every region of this country. I think of the fights and the battles and the commitment that he led to move and expand opportunities for Quebecers right across this country, not just in the public service.

By his example and by his presence, he created an environment where Quebec business leaders are now running companies in every part of our country. I think of the Public Service of Canada right across this country. Maybe it is not a majority but a very high percentage, very close to 50 per cent of the public service positions right now are managed by francophones. In fact most of these senior positions are bilingual imperative.

I know that the system is not perfect, but there are signs regarding the great experiment, the great drive to respect so much of what the members in the Bloc are fighting for, respect for their culture and respect for their language. I cannot believe that they do not really believe in their heart of hearts that it has moved forward tremendously.

Could one imagine 10 or 15 years ago that in the province of Alberta today, as we now have, there are lineups to get into French immersion schools? If 15 years ago someone stood up in Alberta and predicted that in 1990 there would be lineups to get into French immersion schools, the person making that statement would have been thought out of his or her mind. But that is the reality of Canada today. There are lineups to get into French immersion schools in nearly every part of this country, including my own community.

I do not want to suggest that the system is perfect, but we have moved a long way. I will tell this House what bothers my constituents. We are trying to build this country, trying to develop national programs and a national spirit. We have tried to move the French language into radio, television and into senior positions in the public service. Now, all of a sudden, we have a small group here from the province of Quebec who would say to all of Canada: "Well, it was a nice try". In spite of the billions and billions of dollars that all Canadians have paid to make this great experiment work, we now have a small group of people

here who want to say: "We quit. We quit this great experiment". It is more than an experiment; it is working.

I am very excited about this bill because I have always believed in the Government of Canada presence being promoted right across this country. One of the reasons why I ran to be a member of Parliament in downtown Toronto was because I opposed the Meech Lake accord.

I opposed the Meech Lake accord because I do not believe in dismantling national programs and national institutions. I do not believe in giving any group preferential status in this country. I believe in a multicultural society. A multicultural society means to me that no culture is less than or greater than another culture.

When one wants to talk about a distinct society that has special status, do not count on me to support that kind of thrust where one gives a special status to any particular culture in this country. Respect for bilingualism? It is the law of the land. I support that fully. However, to give special status to one culture over another, no way. That is not on.

One of the reasons the Bloc Quebecois does not like this legislation is that it will once again reinvigorate the department that is so important in our rebuilding the Government of Canada presence in the province of Quebec.

We talk in this bill about making sure that our parks and all of our Canadian symbols, our broadcasting and our cultural policy reflect the fact that we are a country from coast to coast. We do not just go from the west coast and jump over Quebec to Atlantic Canada. This is a country from coast to coast.

Nothing should please Canadians more than making sure that the federal presence is reinvigorated in the province of Quebec. I believe, and this is where I come apart from my friends in the Reform Party, that if we want to keep this country together, we have to spend some money.

[Federal Business Development Bank, September 30th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, 50 years ago today Parliament officially proclaimed the creation of the Industrial Development Bank, the forerunner of today's Federal Business Development Bank. This was to assist in the smooth transition from a wartime to a peacetime economy with particular consideration to the financing problems of small business.

Throughout the years the FBDB has addressed the evolving needs of small business by introducing innovative financial and management services. Not only was the bank the first to introduce term loans to the Canadian small business sector but it was among the first to offer small business management assistance through counselling and training courses. In addition, it became the first national source of venture capital.

The bank has proven to be instrumental in building successful businesses while at the same time not being a drain on the government. In fact over the past five years it has received no funds from the government for its lending activities and has loaned out some $3.4 billion to small and medium size entrepreneurs.

With its unique array of services, the bank continues to be ideally positioned to help businesses grow and create jobs. In fact approximately one in every five businesses in Canada has at some point turned to the FBDB for assistance.

On behalf of the House and the small business sector, I would like to congratulate the FBDB as it celebrates its anniversary. I support the continuing efforts of the FBDB.

[Department Of Industry Act, September 26th, 1994]

You would abolish all tax credits.

[Department Of Industry Act, September 26th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, the member for Edmonton Southwest talked specifically about the grants that were processed through the department of industry and mentioned a few names. Most Canadians would realize that even though three or four names were mentioned, thousands of small and medium sized businesses across the country benefit from support from Industry Canada.

I have a question for the member. He seems to have the point of view that the notion of grants should be phased out or eliminated. In the tax act of Canada there are tax expenditures in the billions of dollars to the oil and gas sector of the country that are the same as tax grants. Is the member suggesting that all tax grants in the tax act of Canada be abolished?

[Department Of Industry Act, September 26th, 1994]

How did you get elected?

[Department Of Industry Act, September 26th, 1994]

Tourism?

[Department Of Industry Act, September 26th, 1994]

I listened carefully to the member for Simcoe Centre. I appreciate the member has recognized this bill as a step in the right direction. He has also recognized the work which had to be done to date on interprovincial trade barriers as being a step in the right direction. What puzzles me about the hon. member's remarks is his failure to recognize the very special emphasis the government has given to small business and the tourism sector.

The member comes from one of the most beautiful communities in all of Canada. I know that riding depends heavily on a tourism thrust and attention to that sector. Is the member suggesting that area as one where we would further diminish our participation, or would he suggest that we reinvigorate that sector? I am trying to understand what the member is saying in the sense that we have gone in the right direction but not far enough. I happen to believe that we should reinvigorate an area like tourism because that is a way we can get people back to work right away.

[Lobbyists, September 26th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, we have taken all of the recommendations that the previous parliamentary committee put forward during the last session of Parliament.

As I stated earlier in my answer, it is before committee right now and work is just beginning. Our second session is this afternoon. We fully expect that members of the opposition will bring ideas forward. We will debate these. If they are in the best interests of making the bill better then we are prepared to amend the bill.

[Lobbyists, September 26th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to bring to the member's attention that this bill is before the parliamentary committee right now. We will be listening to all recommendations.

At this point there is opportunity for amendments. If those amendments make sense then the government will look at them.