Dennis Mills

[Canada Petroleum Resources Act, May 9th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin by saying to the member for Regina-Lumsden that we are not running away from our election commitment. We are committed to reviewing this legislation. We are not having second thoughts.

I want to talk about the challenge we are facing to ensure the development of a strong pharmaceutical industry and to make patented drugs available to consumers at reasonable prices in a

manner consistent with our international obligations under GATT and NAFTA.

Multinational pharmaceutical companies have committed to reaching an R and D sales ratio of 10 per cent by 1996. They have also made investment announcements now exceeding $680 million for the 1992 to 1996 period. We want to ensure these commitments are realized.

On the price side, pharmaceutical companies cannot charge any price they want for patented medicines. Prices are regulated by the Patented Medicine Prices Review Board. The increase in prices of existing patented medicines from 1987 to 1992 average 2.9 per cent versus 4.2 per cent for the CPI.

Let me close by saying that the government is committed to both a strong economy and the needs of consumers. We are not running away from our election commitment.

[Westray Coal Mine, May 9th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, all Canadians remember with sorrow the tragic accident that happened in the Westray mine some two years ago. As the member knows, many volunteers risked their lives, albeit unsuccessfully, to try and rescue the lives and later on the bodies of the miners.

Right now the Government of Canada in conjunction with the Government of Nova Scotia has hired an expert who is working on this project. Very soon the results of his study in terms of not only the remaining deposits in Westray but also the access to the remaining bodies will be made known to us.

[Conversion Of Defence Industries, May 9th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I again repeat to the hon. member that we did discuss this issue in debate last week and in fact we do have a strategy.

Mind you, because of the very tight fiscal framework that we are involved with here it is not the old strategy where we just sort of write cheques. Right now we are using very creative approaches. We are giving advice and counsel and marketing assistance. In fact many companies under the previous DIPP program are now converting with assistance and guidance in new marketing techniques. There are many success stories. That will be the way that we will approach it.

[Conversion Of Defence Industries, May 9th, 1994]

I would like to say to the hon. member, through you, Mr. Speaker, that even though the province of Quebec has given partial approval on the Bell Helicopter project there has not been a final and formal position taken by the board of Bell Helicopter right now. There will be no decision forthcoming until we hear that formal presentation.

[Pearson International Airport Agreements Act, May 9th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I would like a ruling from you. Is it appropriate that the member from the opposition could say that there was a payoff involved with the Pearson airport and Liberal Party funds? That is not really appropriate for this type of debate.

[Defence Industries, May 6th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member does not seem to have understood the point I was making in my first answer.

We are working very hard to assist corporations which are in the process of conversion. It is just that the approach and the design of DIPP is going to be different from what it was in the past. Part of that has to do with the fact that we have a very tough fiscal framework within which we are dealing.

The hon. member should also know there are many examples of good solid success stories. People with their own expertise are using other resources like the Export Development Corporation and the banks which have been more progressive in the last little while as well as enhanced marketing. These are all new approaches that help bridge this period of conversion.

As we redesign DIPP eventually this will deal with this issue in a way that will satisfy most of these industries.

[Defence Industries, May 6th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is only quoting part of what the Minister of Industry said yesterday in the debate.

He did say that we would want to look to industry to make sure all of its strategic plans were being redesigned and reinvented in light of a very tough fiscal framework. He also said that in the budget we were redesigning DIPP so there would be less giving of cheques and grants but more of a situation where there would be loans for those industries that qualified and ones that were especially sensitive to conversion to peacetime activity.

[Pearson International Airport Agreements Act, May 6th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, my humble apologies. It must be Friday morning. I think the House is getting to me this week, but I will be going home to my constituency soon.

The problem in the Toronto area is that we have about 600,000 people out of work. It is serious because Toronto has never before been on its economic knees the way it has been in the last two years.

I am speaking on behalf of all members from Toronto at this moment. We talk among ourselves and we rack our brains on how we can get our city going again. Toronto has always been generous to every region in Canada and is happy to do it.

Do not think for a second that a lot of us were not tempted to move ahead with this project because it created a lot of jobs. We knew however that the contract the Conservatives had was not in the best interests of all of Canada. A lot of the money that was made at the Pearson International Airport, unlike other airports in Canada, was used to subsidize the smaller regions of Canada where the little local airports could not stand on their own two feet.

It is very important when we look at Toronto that we do not compare it to the local airport authority in Vancouver. This is a national airport. The profits and the cash flow from this airport service the country.

There was a lot of temptation for us to say: "Wow, this is about a job creation project for 2,000 people", but in the interests of Canada we said no. The Prime Minister, the caucus and the cabinet said we are not striking this deal.

What do we have to do now? We have to revitalize that airport. It invites tourists here, trade shows, people that want to invest not just in Toronto but in every region of our country and we must revitalize it. We have to get it going, but we have to get it going in the interests not just of a handful of developers, and not just in the interests of a few lobbyists.

By the way, I have a lot of friends who are in the lobby business. Yes, I do. I can tell you there have been many times when we have had tough debates on this, but I have always been consistent. I believe in a strong national government.

We have to put this piece of legislation to bed. We have to finish it off. Then we can put people who look at the macro picture of Canada in place to start revitalizing this airport.

I appeal to all members. If you want a good discussion on lobbyists then stand by and wait for the lobbyists registration act. It is going to be coming before this House in the not too distant future. It will be in committee and we can have a good solid constructive debate.

Do not think for a second that we on this side of the House do not share a lot of your views on the way the lobby industry went up by 10,000 per cent in the last 10 years. Many of us who were MPs in the last government felt that the lobbyists around this town had more influence and more power than even the cabinet. If you think for a second that all of a sudden we are going to look the other way, we are going to have a very transparent constructive piece of lobbyists registration legislation.

Everyone knows I have always been emphatic about the fact that tourism is one of the greatest job creators in this country. Linked to tourism is the fact that our transportation instruments must be healthy and must represent the type of community and country we have. Nowhere is Pearson more important than in the tourism industry. Therefore I am asking members from all regions to put this bill through the next phases quickly so we can get on with the business of revitalizing the Toronto market.

[Pearson International Airport Agreements Act, May 6th, 1994]

No lobbyists for the Reform Party. Okay.

[Pearson International Airport Agreements Act, May 6th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, this morning I would like to begin by giving a short preamble to our viewers who are watching and wondering why we are working on this amendment. I think it is appropriate to read from Hansard the opposition amendment.

The Bloc amendment effectively states that this House should decline to give second reading to Bill C-22, an act respecting certain agreements concerning the redevelopment and operation of terminals 1 and 2 at Lester B. Pearson International Airport, because the principle of the bill is flawed due to the fact that it contains no provisions aimed at making the work done by lobbyists more transparent.

I will go right to clauses 9 and 10 of Bill C-22. Under the heading "No Compensation", clause 9 states:

No one is entitled to any compensation from Her Majesty in connection with the coming into force of this act.

Clause 10(2)(a) and (b) states:

No amount is payable under an agreement entered into under this section in relation to

(a) any loss of profit, or

(b) any fee paid for the purpose of lobbying a public office holder, within the meaning of subsection 2(1) of the Lobbyists Registration Act.

I do not think it could have been stated any more clearly that any activity related to the lobbying on the Pearson airport contract will not have any remuneration at all.

The Bloc motion also calls for an inquiry which is a delay tactic. It is not going to put this file to rest and will not allow us to deal with the real problems at the airport in Toronto.

First, Canadians clearly know that we in the government, we in the Liberal Party did not support the Pearson development contract. It was cancelled immediately. However because we cancelled that contract, it does not mean we are opposed to redeveloping and reworking the Pearson International Airport.

Going back over the last 10 years, we were dealing with a Conservative government that had this ideological thrust to dismantle everything around here. It offloaded to the provinces; it offloaded to the private sector. The last 10 years was like fire sale city. This was that government's last attempt to have a fire sale of the most profitable organization in the Government of Canada, the Pearson International Airport.

Much of the good work the management of Pearson airport accomplished over the years was tainted by this whole exercise. We want to put this file to rest now so that we can come back at it from square one. Does that mean we are going to go out and do the same deal over again with a different set of lobbyists? No.

In fact there are Bloc members over there who have suggested from time to time that there were Liberal lobbyists involved in this transaction. That is a fact.

It is a well known fact that all the lobby firms in Ottawa do not have just Conservative lobbyists. They have Conservatives, Liberals and NDP. In fact they even have a couple of lobbyists who work on the Reform Party, but I do not know about the Bloc.