Dennis Mills

[Budget Implementation Act, 1994, April 11th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I listened attentively to the member opposite from the Reform Party. I feel his analysis of the CBC has been very narrow.

When I look at the CBC I do not see it just as a broadcaster. I see the CBC as an instrument to pull this country together. When we think of the CBC we do not just think about CBC television, but of CBC radio, of CBC Newsworld, probably one of the most efficiently run organizations in the broadcast industry anywhere in North America.

When we see the way it pulls this country together, whether it be in the arts, in current affairs in French and English, I do not know what other galvanizing instrument we have out there that can provide that type of service and support in this country.

There is another aspect of the CBC and we talk about accounting measures. My background is in business and I believe that it is very important to have full accountability of the CBC.

However, I do not think we are putting on the asset side of the sheet the great contribution the CBC has made in terms of training writers, producers, camera operators and technology wizards recognized all over the world. This is training support the private sector has been able to pull from to move into its own private broadcast units without having to fund any of that training and support. That is not just in television, it is also in radio technology, talent and service support.

Look at what the CBC has done in terms of the north. What person in Canada would not agree with the fact that the CBC has made a contribution in the north? What private broadcaster is even going to go there to help pull that part of our country into the mainstream?

I support the approach of the Reform Party to having accountability, but I wish the Reform Party would support our approach. We should look at all assets, all strengths, not just at one or two particular weaknesses. If the Reform Party were to put into its accounting analysis all other contributions the CBC has been

making, is making and hopefully will make in the future, it might think we are getting good value for taxpayers' money.

[Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Suspension Act, March 21st, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I begin by thanking the member for his concern on both of these issues.

First, the information highway will be a cornerstone for future industrial development and economic growth. The development of innovative products and technology will provide Canada and Canadian businesses with the infrastructure and technology necessary to compete successfully in international markets.

On Wednesday, March 16, the Minister of Industry announced that Mr. David Johnston, the vice-chancellor of McGill University, will be the the chairperson for the advisory council for the information highway. The advisory council will assist the Minister of Industry to develop a Canadian strategy for the information highway.

The council will analyse and provide advice on general matters of policy and strategy to ensure that Canada has access to the benefit of advanced communications information services. The council will also be accepting submissions from Canadians in any area of interest to them.

I want to say to the member that in my own community with the assistance of constituents and Mark Cameron and Roman Kowalczuk, members of my support staff, we are beginning to set up a community centre for information access on this very important subject.

I welcome members of the House and all Canadians to write for information on how to set up one of these systems in their community. We will supply them with the information. We are very much concerned that we bring this issue into the public forum. It is moving fast. It is complex and we want to make sure that public participation is involved all the way along.

Getting back to the advisory council, it is not being established to review the proposed merger of Rogers Communications and Maclean Hunter. Issues concerning the merger will be addressed by regulatory bodies under existing legislation.

Pursuant to the Broadcasting Act which Parliament passed in 1991 a change in ownership of cable companies greater than 30 per cent requires the approval of the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission. The CRTC has broad powers and a fact finding mandate that will explore and examine the issues in this takeover to ensure it is in the public interest.

Once the CRTC has received the application from Rogers Communications, it will make plans to schedule public hearings for the takeover of Maclean Hunter. Any group or organization that has an interest can request to be heard by the CRTC at those hearings.

Furthermore the takeover will also be reviewed by the director of investigation and research pursuant to the powers vested in him by the Competition Act. It is also important to allow these officials to proceed as currently planned.

Though the hon. member suggests that the Commons committee on heritage-

[Borrowing Authority Act, 1994-95, March 18th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I say to the member that I welcome his spirit in debate. I always have.

First, I cannot speak to the specific example the member has given. I am not aware of it. The member can send me the details on it and we can study it.

Second, I cannot make a commitment, which sounds strange because of our commitment and our special sensitivity to the city of Montreal.

The third point concerns the information highway. Two days ago the Minister of Industry announced the new chairman of the national advisory committee on the information highway would be the former vice-chancellor of McGill in Montreal. The member should know the whole process of studying the information highway will be contrary to what we read in the newspaper. It is going to be one that is very open. We will be listening to experts from every region of the country. These meetings will be in public. Naturally when we have committees some of them have to be private but there will be an extensive consultation process and this government and our Minister of Industry have made the information highway a priority.

As the Prime Minister said earlier this week in the House, our commitment to this sector of the economy is most important in terms of job creation and I think the member will see in time that in no way, shape or form will we feel shy or cut short our participation in that very important sector of the economy.

[Borrowing Authority Act, 1994-95, March 18th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I am splitting my time equally with another member. I understand I cannot question the previous speaker, but I will begin my remarks by making a comment.

I listened to the hon. member talk about all of the budget cuts the Reform Party would wish for and the cuts in terms of grants to business.

The hon. member even went so far as to suggest that the Chamber of Commerce might be willing to return to the treasury the $400,000 it received for doing its study on what business recommends in terms of fiscal reform. First I want to say that I in no way, shape or form have anything other than respect for the work the chamber does, but I am not sure that it would return the $400,000.

I wonder sometimes if the Reform Party realizes that the real challenge for fiscal reform is in the tax act. When the time comes to tackle that problem I wonder whether the Reform Party will remain steadfast to its principle of a single tax system.

With the $40 billion or $50 billion worth of tax grants to business, mostly foreign and multinationals, a lot of them in the energy sector, I am wondering whether the Reform Party will remain as committed to the cuts. When I asked this question of the leader of the Reform Party he began to shy off on cutting those tax expenditures. In due course we will really test the Reform Party's commitment to comprehensive tax reform.

I listened to members opposite today talk one after the other about gloom and doom and how there was not anything in the budget that would inspire some hope for Canadians. I could not help but think that a lot of the members had deserted their earlier commitment to try to be constructive in this House. We have only been here a couple of months and it amazes me that members opposite could not acknowledge anything positive in the budget.

I would like to raise something I believe is most meaningful to the small business sector. We heard from members opposite today that we must support small and medium sized businesses. We heard members opposite agree that our greatest hope for putting people back to work rests with the small business community. We all know, because we have all knocked on the same doors and we have all heard from many small business people across the country, that the greatest problem they face today is access to capital.

On pages 4 and 5 of the budget the Minister of Finance announced that for the first time ever we would have a committee of Parliament take on a study of access to capital by small business. This is not a study that includes only government members. This is a study that includes members of the Bloc Quebecois and members of the Reform Party.

Members opposite should have told Canadian people that the government should be applauded for the way in which it has acted so speedily in setting up this study in the industry committee. We have been studying the matter for four weeks. We have heard over a dozen intelligent business people from many regions of the country confirm what all of us have heard about the difficulties of small business. We are already beginning to see signs that the bankers are responding to this very difficult problem that exists in our country today.

It is important that we as members of Parliament not criticize just for the sake of criticizing. By the way I accept constructive criticism. There are some areas in the budget that are tough for all of us. We have never had a perfect budget. It is tough. We have a tough fiscal situation. At the same time we have to acknowledge the fact that we are starting to see some movement in access to capital for small business. All members of Parliament should be delivering that message of hope to their constituents.

We can be tough on the banks in the House of Commons, but at the same time we should acknowledge when banks and bank managers begin to respond. I am not saying the process is complete. Last week the Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce announced the appointment of an ombudsman for its bank. Small and medium sized business people who are having difficulty at the branch level could go to the ombudsman to seek fairer treatment. Today the Toronto-Dominion Bank set up a three-person ombudsman system. It is almost like a court of appeal for people who are having difficulty.

These are only beginnings but I believe they are important beginnings. As members opposite have said repeatedly, small business represents our greatest hope. We must support small business. The biggest thing it has asked for is help in changing the attitude of banks and financial institutions and help in finding new sources of capital so entrepreneurial spirit can flow again. We have begun the process.

I must also say that the members of the Bloc and the Reform parties on the committee are working hard and are working co-operatively. By the end of June we will be able to bring solid, constructive recommendations to Parliament and to the Minister of Finance, recommendations for amendment in terms of regulation and recommendations for banks to change their process and attitude. I believe we will be able to bring in new sources of capital through mutual funds, pension funds.

Even though the process is not complete today, I believe it is incumbent upon all of us as members of Parliament to tell our constituents that it is under way, that we have only been at it for a month but in another two months they should see even more dramatic results.

I do not believe that when we go back to our ridings we should only bring bad news. I listened to a Bloc member this morning refer to our party as a party of darkness, as if members of the Bloc were the only ones who feel the pain of students, fathers or mothers who do not have work. We feel that same pain. We are trying just as hard and are just as concerned as members opposite to get the country back to work.

When something in the budget is constructive and hopeful-and I believe changing the attitudes of banks is a very meaningful exercise for all of us in the Chamber-we should not be shy in acknowledging it or in saying that in that particular area the government is moving forward and the government is on the right path.

It is not that we are looking for an accolade. That is not the point. The point is that we have a responsibility in the House to inspire and show some hope for the 1.3 million small business men and women out there who are having a very difficult time right now.

Other projects were announced in the budget on behalf of small business. The officials in all departments are interacting with small business in terms of the paper burden. They are all but locked up in a room right now trying to simplify the forms and consolidate the paper small business has to deal with when it comes to interacting with government: all the various forms in Revenue Canada and in Consumer and Corporate Affairs. There is an intense effort by officials and people from business. They are working together to try to reduce the paper burden. It is important for our constituents to know we are working vigorously on that. That is another result of the budget.

I also mention the fact that the finance committee working on comprehensive tax reform is another hopeful signal or hopeful sign for small business. It is very important to challenge the path we are taking the country down at this moment. We accept their challenge on any issue.

It is Friday afternoon. Hon. members will be going back to their ridings. I tell them not to be shy in telling their constituents about some of the good things the government is doing.

[Borrowing Authority Act, 1994-95, March 18th, 1994]

Ask it to give back the grant it got to do that study.

[Supply, March 16th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I want to begin by saying through you to the hon. member that in no way, shape or form are we defending the previous government's Baie Comeau book publishing policy. I believe the parliamentary secretary to the minister of heritage stated that quite clearly in her previous remarks.

The difficulty that we have in this particular transaction is the fact that in 1986 when Gulf and Western committed to sell 51 per cent of Ginn within two years, it could not find a Canadian buyer. At that time the government directed the CDIC to offer to buy the 51 per cent. We are talking now in 1986. This is not three weeks before an election date, like when you compare it to the helicopter transaction where we had taken a public policy

position during the campaign. It is not like Pearson International Airport where the deal was done two weeks before the final vote and we declared our position. This was a transaction that emanated in 1986.

We inherited this completed transaction. Does the member think that when a transaction went back that far that there is some responsibility on us or is the member suggesting that we just ignore all of these contracts, some of them going back three, four and five years?

[Supply, March 16th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin by picking up on my colleague's remarks.

For a moment it sounded hopeful when we heard the Leader of the Opposition speak about Canada's interests. I know that this member who has fought for Canada and has a deep feeling for Canada must have moments of doubt, especially when we are dealing with an issue like this one today. Maybe eventually he will convert back to his Canada-first policy, which he once had. I say that sincerely and hopefully. I hope it is a temporary difference we are having.

My question has to do with the actual transaction. The original transaction on this Ginn Publishing deal stemmed from when Gulf and Western had to offload it. When there was no

Canadian purchaser, the CDIC purchased it for $10.2 million. However there was a condition attached to that transaction and it was that if the policy of the government changed, if the Baie Comeau policy changed, then Paramount had the option to buy back Ginn Publishing.

Can the leader not see that there was a sale and agreement that was consummated in 1986? This was really a conclusion to that deal because of the policy shift. As a government, in effect, we were boxed in.

[Supply, March 16th, 1994]

The previous government.

[Information Highway, March 15th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his question.

As we have stated in this House and in the speech from the throne, this is a very important issue. It is a priority of this government. We will be discussing this in committee and as time goes on.

[The Budget, March 10th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to say to the member opposite that I was quite surprised when he was delivering his budget remarks that he did not mention the two initiatives he talked about in his prebudget speech. He asked the government to make sure these were included in the budget speech.

I refer to the speech the member gave on the budget day consultation when he talked passionately and convincingly about the necessity to maintain the homebuyers permanent plan, allowing first time homeowners to buy homes out of their RRSP funds.

I remember saying to the member that he made a compelling argument.

We listened to the member and as he knows that is in the budget and I thought it very strange that the member did not acknowledge that we on this side of the House had listened to him for that idea he put forward.

That was a good idea and is part of the comprehensive package that this budget is putting forward in trying to put people back to work. As the member knows, with low interest rates right now this is a period in which young people with families could have a chance to get into first time homes. That will create jobs for people in trades.

That is the thrust we are putting all of our energy into, putting people back to work. The member had a very good idea. We listened to it and I am surprised he did not acknowledge that the Minister of Finance had listened to him.

To simply focus on some of the problems with the budget in terms of the unemployed, just to talk about that, is a bit unreasonable. All of us in the House realize this has been a tough budget, particularly for those who are unemployed, but we are trying to get them back to work.

It is very important also that the member should have acknowledged some of the things we are doing in this budget for small business, particularly the study in the industry committee, the study on access to capital for small business. Many of the Bloc members are participating constructively.

My point is that although there may be room for some constructive criticism on this budget, it is also important that the opposition recognize some of the good things in this budget.

Our responsibility in this House is to deal in hope for the people who are trying to get this economy going. I am wondering if the member could maybe acknowledge that.