John Manley

[Conflict Of Interest Code, March 18th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member has of course inflated that number beyond previous questions because he is including amounts that were loaned on a commercial basis by the Business Development Bank of Canada.

I point out to the hon. member that not only was there nobody in attendance but that decision was made by the regional office in Montreal, by a vice-president of the Business Development Bank, on a commercial basis.

Not only that but our private sector lenders were also involved in the same loan, including le Fonds de solidarité, which contributed money on a commercial basis. Charges were taken. Security was given. Everything in that loan was quite normal.

[The Economy, March 18th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I would be delighted to find someone else to write speeches for me, I can assure you.

Sometimes I think that H. L. Mencken had the Reform Party in mind when he said years ago before they had even thought of it that for every problem there is a simple neat solution that is wrong.

[The Economy, March 18th, 1999]

No, Mr. Speaker. In fact that is exactly what I said. Had productivity grown 1.2% per year faster over 25 years, then the GDP per capita would be $7,000 higher. But that is simple. Productivity leads to economic growth. That in turn relates to output. Output per capita would be higher if we produced more. That is not complicated.

What is complicated is to determine what the factors are that contribute to productivity growth and how can we improve Canada's standing relative to other countries. That is what I was talking about.

[The Economy, March 18th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I stand by the speech and I deny categorically that it says anything of the sort. It is astonishing.

Certainly I compared productivity rates and productivity growth but everybody knows that only leads to standards of living in the future. Again last year, for the fifth time in a row, Canada topped the United Nations human development index. That is where we measure the quality of life in this country.

If the country does not address the issue of productivity, we will face problems with standard of living, but to this point we have met the real challenges that have been impeding our productivity growth for years.

[The Economy, March 18th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, of course I was telling the truth in the speech I gave. I was saying exactly the point that the productivity challenge is a real one for Canadians to face.

In the simplistic world in which members of the Reform Party live the solutions are never complicated. They recognize that productivity is part of the solution, but if we promote a program to support research and development in the private sector they are prepared to ignore the fact that it is an important component of productivity. They vote against it. In fact, they do their best to undermine programs that support research and development in the private sector.

[The Economy, March 18th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, in the bizarre, simplistic world in which members of the Reform Party live things are never complicated. I understand that. In this case they need to understand that meeting the Canadian productivity challenge is a long term investment. It means action on the part of government, action like bringing down the deficit, action like bringing down the debt, action like keeping interest rates low, action like giving confidence to our international investors.

At the same time it requires the private sector to invest. It requires the private sector to invest in research and development and in labour market training. These are the components of productivity. That is where success lies for Canada.

[The Economy, March 18th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, it saddens me to hear a serious topic like the issue of Canada's productivity challenge distorted by the Leader of the Opposition in this way.

I wish he would read the speech. I wish he would quote a few other parts of it. For example, the federal deficit stood at $42 billion in 1993 and now it is the first budgetary surplus in 28 years. Our inflation rate has been the lowest in more than a generation. In 1998, 453,000 jobs were created. Canada experienced a bounce back in productivity in 1997. In 1994 we ranked twentieth in the world economic forum's competitiveness rankings and now we rank fifth.

[Internship Program, March 16th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, the program was initiated in April 1997 and was intended to give work experience to young graduates, by twinning them with SMBs in Canada or abroad to support export development.

The alliance of manufacturers managed the implementation of the program. It was cancelled in June 1998 following an independent evaluation and audit, which concluded that the low level of business participation did not justify the continuation of the program. It was a necessary but difficult decision.

[The Economy, March 16th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I really must apologize to the hon. member for attempting to raise the debate on productivity to an intellectual level. It seems to have been above him.

What we do have from the KPMG study that was released a couple of days ago is an indication that in factor after factor Canada leads in the G-7. Whether we are talking about the cost of road, sea or air freight, electricity, leases, telecommunications, interest costs, depreciation, property taxes, advantage after advantage is on the side of Canada.

I do not know why the opposition parties feel that they have to run down this country in order to score some political points.

[The Economy, March 16th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday the hon. member from the Reform Party claimed that Canada's productivity had declined, which was patently wrong.

It is true that we have a productivity challenge and the answer comes, in part, from the investment in research and development, and the investment in science and engineering that we have been making, which those parties tend to vote against.

The biggest burden that lies on the back of Canada's productivity is the burden of debt that was built up by over nine years of Progressive Conservative government.