John Harvard

[Supply, June 7th, 1994]

Madam Speaker, I think I will start over again.

This member from the Bloc can huff and puff and fume and point his finger and get as red faced as he wants. However Canadians will see him for what he is. He is a political grandstander and there is not a shred of credibility in anything he says.

Unfortunately the leader of the Reform Party has to take major responsibility for the spectacle in the House this afternoon. The leader of the Reform Party has built this trap, a trap that only the Bloc Quebecois could build.

What does the Bloc want? The Bloc wants us squabbling over the Constitution. The Bloc wants us squabbling over federalism. The Bloc wants us squabbling over Canada and that is exactly what we have had all afternoon. We have had this wrangle over our country, the greatest country in the world. The leader of the Reform Party has to take full responsibility for this spectacle.

I want to say this about the Bloc. It takes advantage of Canada's democracy. It takes advantage of our generosity. Where else in the world would we allow the Leader of the Opposition to go around the country spreading separatism and doing his level best to destroy the country?

I tell the member of the Bloc who just spoke that if he were a citizen of another country he would be behind bars. He would be in jail. However this is the kind of country that we have because we allow through his democratic rights to spread this vile separatism.

Do you know what, Madam Speaker, I will support his right to say these things, but by golly we will fight him wherever we find him. We are going to beat him at his own game because ultimately this democracy is going to succeed. We are going to defeat separatism. We are going to beat the Bloc. We are going to beat all of them, all 54 of them because this is a great country

and all Canadians realize that, as do Quebecers. So they can go all they want. We are going to win this battle.

[Supply, June 7th, 1994]

Madam Speaker, this member from the Bloc can huff and puff and shout and make a lot of noise and it really will not matter-

[Petitions, June 1st, 1994]

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I believe there is a certain protocol and procedure followed in presenting petitions. I would submit that this hon. member is not doing that.

What we have heard for two minutes is a pure, unadulterated political speech and I would ask him to follow the rules of the House.

[Budget Implementation Act, May 31st, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I have a couple of short comments and then a question for the hon. member.

I listened to his comments quite closely with respect to the CBC. It brings a lot of things home to me because I spent many years at the corporation.

Implicit in his remarks is the privatization of the CBC. In suggesting that, the hon. member really does not understand what public broadcasting is all about. The private networks are not interested in a lot of the things done by the CBC. The CBC carries programs like "Man Alive", "Marketplace", "The Fifth Estate" and "Meeting Place" which is the religious broadcast on television on Sundays. There is also its entire radio service.

Private broadcasters are not interested in programs of that kind for two reasons. One is that they are not that cost effective for commercial organizations. They do not draw the kinds of audiences that programs with all the violence and sex do. It is not fair to public broadcasting or Canadians to lump public broadcasting in with commercial broadcasting. They are very, very different. It is like comparing a bakery with a farm machinery company; they just do not match.

It is unfair to CBC employees when the hon. member suggests there is no bottom line at the CBC. If the hon. member had made those remarks in 1970, the year I joined the CBC, I think he would have been pretty well right. The CBC could be accused of some very serious profligate spending in 1970 but that is not the case now. Sure, you are going to find some fat, but there is no comparison to 20 or 25 years ago. Therefore, to suggest there is no bottom line is just not true.

My question has to do with the borrowing aspect of Bill C-17. Maybe $25 million is a lot of money, maybe it is not. But as long as the borrowing is consistent with the means, that is the budget the CBC has, I do not see the concern, as long as it fits in with the budget. Why is that concern there? It is not adding to the budget; it is just one more expense item with respect to the budget.

[Air Safety, May 27th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport. It has to do with the sudden and totally unexpected absence from work of air traffic controllers at the Winnipeg International Airport located in my riding.

Apparently as many as 38 air traffic controllers called in sick en masse this morning, leaving behind a small staff to serve an area all the way from Thunder Bay, Ontario, to Saskatoon, Saskatchewan.

What is the government doing to assure the safety of air travellers in that area?

[Gun Control, May 27th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, the debate over gun control in this country continues to heat up. There has been a lot of speculation lately over what exactly the government might be planning and there are some misconceptions.

Some have said that the Prime Minister and the Minister of Justice have draconian measures in mind. They fear the government might want to penalize hunters, sportsmen and other law abiding gun owners.

Putting people out of business is not the Liberal approach. The Liberal approach is a balanced one. It is the only way fair and just improvements can be found. Without a doubt gun control is an issue which divides Canadians but misunderstanding only adds fuel to the fire.

We need a rational debate and a sense of mutual trust. We need to strike a balance that ensures fairness for gun owners and at the same time increases gun safety for all Canadian citizens.

[Unemployment Insurance Act, May 11th, 1994]

Madam Speaker, first I want to say how pleased I am to take part in this debate and to give my wholehearted support to this private member's bill, C-216. I congratulate its sponsor, the hon. member for Restigouche-Chaleur, for bringing in the bill because I believe it to be an important one. I also congratulate him on his tenacity. He brought in a bill in the 34th Parliament on this subject and he is back at it again. It is encouraging to see a member stick to a principle and stick to a cause.

The sponsor of the bill indicated in his remarks earlier that he does not have a legal background. Nor do I, but I think I have been around long enough and have enough experience to evaluate what is justice and fairness.

I truly believe this bill is about fairness and justice. It is about stopping government hypocrisy and all of us know government can be quite famous for hypocrisy. The bill is about attempting to stop at least some of this hypocrisy. The bill is about encouraging people to tell the truth. It is about asking and encouraging the citizens of this country to participate in the public process and to take their civic responsibilities seriously.

On the matter of fairness and justice, these people who are required under the law of the land to serve as jurors do not have a choice. They are required by law to meet their obligations. They are not unavailable for work as a result of their own choosing. This is not a matter of sloth. This is not a matter of indifference. They are required by the law of the land to serve on a jury when summoned.

However when they meet their legal obligations and serve on a jury for more than two days another government department comes along and says: "You are not available for work and as a result of that you are not going to get your UI benefits". If that is not a denial of fairness and justice, I do not know what is.

On the matter of government hypocrisy, government should not be allowed to speak out of both sides of its mouth. The government cannot say: "It is your responsibility and we are going to make it mandatory under the law. It is mandatory for you to serve on a jury, but by golly if you do serve on a jury for more than two days you are not going to get your UI benefits". That is a classic example of hypocrisy. It is a classic example of government speaking out of both sides of its mouth. Government cannot be allowed to do that. It cannot have it both ways.

The matter of encouraging people to tell the truth, my Lord, have we not all been encouraged from the cradle to tell the truth? Yet the situation here is that if you tell the truth it is going to cost you. It is going to cost the loss of UI benefits.

Therefore it does not surprise me that the hon. member for Restigouche-Chaleur tells a story about a woman who is tempted to come up with little white lies so she can avoid this unemployment insurance ruling and receive her benefits. In that particular letter cited by the hon. member the woman talked about faking illness or coming up with some other trumped up story, some cock and bull story so she would not miss her benefits.

I do not think we want that. We want laws of the land, policies and regulations of government that promote telling the truth. Certainly we do not want policies promoting lies, even little white lies.

It is the same thing about encouraging people to take their civic responsibilities seriously. We want that. We want people to get involved in democracy and in their communities. We should not be putting blocks and impediments in their way. We should be making it easier for them to take part, but this silly regulation does exactly the opposite.

A constituent in my riding of Winnipeg St. James by the name of Jamie Murray has gone through this. Last February she found herself summoned to jury duty. She served only three days. She was not in the situation of some jurors in which they have had to serve not days, but weeks and perhaps months.

I was speaking to a colleague of mine from the London, Ontario area today. She told me about one of her constituents who was on UI and got involved in a trial that lasted not eight days and not eight weeks, but eight months. That is a pretty extreme case but it can happen as well.

Getting back to Jamie Murray, she served on a jury for three days. She told the truth and the unemployment insurance people said: "Sorry, you are not going to get your benefits for those three days". She pointed out: "If I had served only two days I would not have been denied my benefits. So why not strike a deal? Give me the benefits for two days"-she is a very reasonable woman-"Give me the benefits for the first two days because that is what you would have done if the trial had lasted only two days and I will absorb the expenses for the third day". The civil service being what it is and how it is charged in its duties could not do that and she was denied all three days of benefits.

This regulation is wrong. We as parliamentarians and politicians simply have to show Canadians more understanding. It is not just a case of compassion. It is a matter of showing some understanding of the situation they find themselves in. They are following their obligations by serving on juries and then they are smacked, not because of their choosing but because of their unavailability for work.

I understand that ministers, especially the Minister for Human Resources Development, are in favour of this. I hope this goes to committee. When unanimous consent is asked for I hope members on both sides of the House will find it in their hearts to at least allow this bill to go to committee so that more questions can be asked and more information can be garnered. Surely this issue is compelling enough that we should allow it to be examined in detail in committee.

[Crime, May 11th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, it is time to bring some sanity to the debate on crime in Canada.

It is fashionable right now to let loose our passions and demand more laws and more punishment as the means of attacking crime in our communities. That response is entirely understandable. Violence and killings have no place in a civilized society.

We on this side of the House are deeply concerned about these issues. However we must all understand that more laws and more punishment alone, and I emphasize alone, will not solve our crime problems. The U.S. would be paradise if that were the case.

No, crime is not that simple. We must also look at what causes crime and anti-social behaviour in the first place: poverty, lack of opportunity, racism and family breakdown.

When we begin to address crime in its full context we will also begin to truly understand the problem and how we might solve it.

Our justice minister knows the complexities of the problems. He deserves our support as he tackles some of the serious issues.

[Bosnian Children Relief, May 6th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, for several years now we have seen unrelenting images of destruction from the former Yugoslavia. Canadian peacekeepers have been deployed to protect innocent civilians. Parliament has debated our role there and even the possibility of air strikes. But the war continues and so does the suffering of innocent children.

This morning a press conference was held in honour of some very special children who have been brought to Parliament Hill by the Basic family of St. Catharines, Ontario. Saban and Fatima Basic established Bosnian Children Relief in 1992 to aid the most helpless victims of the Bosnian war, the young.

The Basics have travelled to Bosnian refugee camps several times to help provide food and shelter to orphans of the war regardless of their ethnic origin.

These children remind us of the bloodshed and terror they have endured in their homeland, but they also bear a message of hope. Let us congratulate their courage. Let us support their mission and let us all pray for peace on Bosnia.

[Supply, May 5th, 1994]

Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to take part in this debate because major aerospace firms and Canadian Forces Base Winnipeg are located in my riding of Winnipeg St. James.

In the red book this government identified the world-wide restructuring of the defence industry as a major issue for maintaining high technology jobs in Canada.

In speaking to the government's commitment to defence conversion, I must first be clear that it is not a passing fancy or for that matter a platform for simplistic grandstanding. The global market for the defence industry is already in the process of restructuring. This government will encourage a sound and structured response that will hold up for the long run, that will meet the needs of industry and the highly skilled workers in that industry.

The need to change is being driven by global markets for Canada's defence industry is particularly vulnerable to change. This cannot be otherwise when 50 per cent of the Canadian defence industry is foreign owned, mostly by U.S. companies. That has already been pointed out in this debate. The majority of Canadian defence firms supply subsystems and components and carry out subcontracted manufacturing for prime U.S. contractors. Indeed, most Canadian exports go to the United States.

The global giants, the American prime contractors, have been rationalizing their organizations and just as important for Canadian suppliers, their manufacturing processes. They are starting to drive this process down their supply chain, down to the suppliers of subsystems and components where Canada has developed its edge.

Furthermore the giants are diversifying into commercially advanced technology markets, squeezing our smaller and more diversified companies. The aerospace and advanced electronics industries in Canada could be vulnerable and they must be ready to adapt. This government is preparing to assist positively and in concert with industry.

I can assure members of this House and in particular the member for Nanaimo-Cowichan who suggested this morning that the government should talk to the industry leaders in the west that this government has been doing just that.

On March 3 of this year the hon. Minister of Western Economic Diversification, the parliamentary secretary for finance and I all met with the chief executive officers of 10 leading western aerospace and defence companies. We discussed the sector's views on defence conversion in the context of science and technology policy and the new long term space plan.

This broad focus is part of the western economic diversification's new direction to work with industry and the provinces through strategic initiatives, that is to deal with structural economic issues at their root and on a co-operative basis rather than treating the symptoms as they appear in individual companies.

The March meeting was the first of what will be a series of meetings on the subject and which will include an expanded list of companies right across the west. The next meeting will be later this spring at which time the private sector will present a broad strategy along with recommendations for specific activities required to facilitate defence conversion in western Canada.

We are listening to the leaders of industry and working closely with them as part of a broad concern for the health of the aerospace and electronics industries in the west. For instance we are fully sensitive to the immediate impact that can be felt from the defence cuts. We have worked closely with industry to ensure a smooth transition to new requirements.

This has been done with specific companies such as Bristol Aerospace which is located in my riding. We have also worked with Bristol and other companies in the west to help as they pursue opportunities in international markets.

All of this is part of the national issue of restructuring the Canadian defence industry. It is done to safeguard the positive contributions the industry has made and continues to make to Canada's economic well-being, while building something viable and sustainable for the long term future without side-swiping in the process the advanced technology companies that have already diversified and have already taken action for the future.

The blueprint for defence conversion contained in the red book sets out a program to pursue strategic and fiscally sound alternatives for high tech job creation. The program is to focus on alternative military requirements, dual use products and sustaining research and development.

Two major objectives were set, namely conversion of military bases to alternative uses, and economic conversion and diversification of the defence industry toward alternative military and civilian goods, including the development of peacekeeping technologies.

This government has already started down the defence conversion road. Those base closures that were long overdue have been announced as part of the recent budget. An example of the concrete conversion action being taken as a result of the base closures is the activity surrounding Defence Research Establishment Pacific in Victoria, sometimes referred to as DREP.

Defence Research Establishment Pacific is to close on March 31, 1995 as part of the reduction of defence infrastructure. However, there is tremendous potential here to build upon the critical mass of ocean industry and science which is resident in Victoria and centred at DREP.

For example, there are many companies both large, such as MacDonald Dettwiler and Associates, and small, such as Barrodale Computing with just 10 employees, which have transformed the science contracts they have undertaken with DREP in the past into major commercial opportunities.

To maintain this flow from research into a commercial business, western economic diversification in the next few days will commission a study of the opportunities open to the ocean industry based upon the critical mass existing in both the private and public sectors in Victoria. Science does exist at Defence Research Establishment Pacific. Highly competitive, high technology companies, world-class firms are already in place.

The Department of National Defence wishes to see the technology transferred to industry and the academic community, such as the University of Victoria, and is anxious to build further momentum. What better ingredients could be found for converting a defence establishment into a sound commercial enterprise than this one which is focused upon a growing, vital ocean industry?

Our defence conversion blueprint also set out the objective of diversification toward alternative military and civilian goods. This too is already getting under way with a number of alternate use concepts being actively examined by industry itself and government. This goes beyond program and policy responses on a broad sectoral front to the specific activities of individual companies which are right now pursuing the opportunities that are presenting themselves.

An example of government support to a winning defence conversion strategy is EDO Canada Ltd. of Calgary. This company has been manufacturing fuel tanks for the CF-18 fighter jets using composite materials.

In January of this year it won its first major commercial contract by which it will supply lightweight natural gas fuel tanks for General Motors 1994 Chevrolet Caprice and Corsica models. This contract will be worth $2.5 million to $5 million annually. To quote company president Doug Moore from a Calgary Herald article of January 12, 1994: ``The contract is the result of the commercialization of our aerospace technology''. It is also the result of this government's application of the industrial and regional benefits policy to defence conversion.

General Motors as part of its contractual commitment to the federal government for the sale of light armoured vehicles has agreed to undertake millions of dollars of industrial benefits in Canada.

The agreement of the government to allow IRB credit for GM or to GM for the EDO sale helped to cement for EDO a strategic alliance that it had been working on for some time. This is part of an ongoing government program with continuing discussions which could lead to a similar kind of contract for another growing western high technology manufacturer. Again IRB credits from the light armoured vehicle purchase could be an incentive to solidify the deal.

I want to conclude by saying that this government knows what defence conversion does not mean. It is not moving defence companies into mature commercial markets. It is not intended to be done in isolation from other economic activity and it cannot happen instantly. It most certainly cannot mean wiping out the existing defence industrial base.

I have described what defence conversion is or is not. This government has an equally clear understanding of what it should be and can be with a carefully planned program. Defence conversion can help defence dependent companies reduce their dependency on limited products and customers. It can be a co-operative effort between industry, labour and government to foster strategic alliances for pursuing international markets.

It can be an opportunity to work with our counterparts in the U.S. especially in fostering the development of dual use technologies. I assure members that it will broaden the industrial base for overall economic growth.