John Manley

[Hyundai Plant In Bromont, February 14th, 1997]

He is indeed a very good member. He understands something Bloc members do not understand. It is not Hyundai that will save the plant it used to operate. Hyundai has made its decision.

There may be other possibilities for that plant, but the solution will not come from Hyundai.

[Hyundai Plant In Bromont, February 14th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I hear a lot more about Bromont from the member for Brome-Missisquoi than I do from Bloc members.

[Hyundai Plant In Bromont, February 14th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, it seems that all the Bloc members who are here will ask questions. As regards the Hyundai plant, the hon. member knows full well that we co-operated with other levels of government to find a way to revive this plant.

Hyundai decided to close that plant. The company repaid the money that had been invested by the governments, pursuant to the agreement signed by the government and Hyundai. As for us, and I believe it is also the case for the Quebec government, these amounts were paid back under the bilateral agreement between the federal and Quebec governments.

We will try, together, to find a way to bring jobs back to Bromont.

[Aéroports De Montréal, February 14th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I think that even the hon. member understands there is a problem in a number of airports in Canada. Does he think a central government should make all these decisions? Or can a local authority resolve the problems of a given region? Is it not better placed to make these decisions?

[Aéroports De Montréal, February 14th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is well aware that the policy on the airports gives local authorities the opportunity to reach important

decisions regarding airports specifically and the regions where they are located.

Yesterday, the Minister of Transport said, in response to a question, that the intent of his policy was to enable local authorities to make these decisions. The court expressed a different opinion, and the authority is the one before the courts.

[Interest Rates, February 10th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I would be happy if that question went to the Chair.

I am sure my colleague shares the concern that I have expressed about the fact that the rate of interest charged on consumer credit cards has tended to drift higher in relation to the Bank of Canada prime rate than it was historically. The concern the government has is that those rates should be tracking one another.

On the positive side of the ledger, may I point out to him that what we have undertaken to do in Industry Canada is ensure that consumers are well informed about the variety of choices available to them in credit cards and of the interest rates available. I point out to him that the availability of a low interest card has become much better known by Canadians in recent months. According to an Angus Reid survey, as recently as last April only 30 per cent of Canadians were aware of these cards. More recently that number is up to 57 per cent.

I am sure the member will agree with me that an informed consumer who is interested in ensuring that they get the best value for their money is the best way to make sure that a market system works.

[Excise Tax, February 5th, 1997]

moved:

Motion No. 4

That Bill C-70, in Clause 150, be amended by a ) adding, in the French version, after line 32 on page 165 the following:

"«activité extracôtière» a ) En ce qui concerne une activité exercée dans la zone extracôtière de la Nouvelle-Écosse, activité relativement à laquelle un impôt serait institué sous le régime de l'article 212 de la Loi de mise en oeuvre de l'Accord Canada-Nouvelle-Écosse sur les hydrocarbures extracôtiers si la présente partie comptait parmi les lois sur l'impôt indirect, au sens de l'article 211 de cette loi; b ) en ce qui concerne une activité exercée dans la zone extracôtière de Terre-Neuve, activité relativement à laquelle un impôt serait institué sous le régime de l'article 207 de la Loi de mise en oeuvre de l'Accord atlantique Canada-Terre-Neuve si la présente partie comptait parmi les lois sur l'impôt indirect, au sens de l'article 206 de cette loi.'' b ) adding, in the French version, after line 36 on page 165 the following:

"«province» Y sont assimilées les provinces participantes." c ) replacing, in the French version, lines 1 and 2 on page 166 with the following:

"«province participante» Province ou zone figurant à l'annexe VIII. La zone extracôtière de la Nouvelle-Écosse et la zone extracôtière de Terre-Neuve ne sont des provinces participantes que dans la mesure où des activités extracôtières y sont exercées." d ) adding, in the English version, after line 17 on page 172 the following:

""Newfoundland offshore area" means the offshore area as defined in section 2 of the Canada-Newfoundland Atlantic Accord Implementation Act;" e ) adding, in the English version, after line 22 on page 172 the following:

""Nova Scotia offshore area" means the offshore area as defined in section 2 of the Canada-Nova Scotia Offshore Petroleum Resources Accord Implementation Act;"

"offshore activity" means a ) when used in connection with an activity carried on in the Nova Scotia offshore area, an activity in respect of which tax would be imposed under section 212 of the Canada-Nova Scotia Offshore Petroleum Resources Accord Implementation Act if this Part were one of the Nova Scotia Consumption Tax Acts (as defined in section 211 of that Act); and b ) when used in connection with an activity carried on in the Newfoundland offshore area, an activity in respect of which tax would be imposed under section 207 of the Canada-Newfoundland Atlantic Accord Implementation Act if this Part were one of the Newfoundland Consumption Tax Acts (as defined in section 206 of that Act);'' f ) replacing, in the English version, line 24 on page 172 with the following:

""or area referred to in Schedule VIII, but does not include the Nova Scotia offshore area or the Newfoundland offshore area except to the extent that offshore activities are carried on in that area;

"province" includes a participating province;" g ) adding, in the French version, after line 5 on page 173 the following:

"«zone extracôtière de la Nouvelle-Écosse» Zone extracôtière au sens de l'article 2 de la Loi de mise en oeuvre de l'Accord Canada-Nouvelle-Écosse sur les hydrocarbures extracôtiers.

«zone extracôtière de Terre-Neuve » Zone extracôtière au sens de l'article 2 de la Loi de mise en oeuvre de l'Accord atlantique Canada-Terre-Neuve."

Motion No. 5

That Bill C-70, in Clause 150, be amended by a ) replacing lines 6 to 8 on page 166 with the following:

"(iii) the tax under section 165 that would have been payable by the person, in" b ) replacing line 14 on page 166 with the following:

"ported by the person, but for subsection 153(4), section 167 or the fact that the property or improvements were acquired by the person for consumption, use or supply exclusively in commercial activities," c ) replacing lines 27 to 29 on page 169 with the following:

"(iv) the tax under section 165 that would have been payable by the person, in" d ) replacing line 33 on page 169 with the following:

"the participating province, but for subsection 153(4), section 167 or the fact that the improvements were acquired by the person for consumption, use or supply exclusively in commercial activities,"

[Kenworth Corporation, December 13th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, we are dealing quickly with this issue, but some things are still under discussion.

Since November 26, when the solidarity fund and PACCAR came to an agreement, we have acted rapidly. Right now, we are still waiting for the company to submit its business plan. We will see what has to be done as soon as we get it.

[Canadian Space Agency, December 13th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, let us understand what the Bloc is asking here.

As I recall over a number of days of questions, it has asked for a public inquiry on three issues. Bloc members complain that a secretary tore up hand written notes after she had transcribed them on a typewriter.

They complain that Mr. Evans submitted a travel expense claim of $116 when he travelled by automobile from Saint-Hubert to Ottawa, although the amount was never paid to him.

They complain of an amount of just over $500 which was paid to a former employee of the space agency who later became employed as a political assistant in my office. When the issue was raised it was debatable. Therefore, the individual in question, out of an abundance of caution, repaid the money without any pressure other than the question having been raised.

These are the issues on which they wish to have a public inquiry. What is really happening here is that these people are using the House of Commons as a place in which to prosecute a claim which ought to be dealt with by the civil courts.

I do not know why they think an issue that could be raised in the courts is a one-sided issue. For my part I am quite anxious to hear the evidence presented in court and to see what the courts decide. However, in terms of the allegations that have been brought forward, there is no substance based on which I could take any other action than let the courts decide. I would encourage them to do likewise.

[Canadian Space Agency, December 13th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, the question is based on false allegations. In any case, public servants throughout the Government of Canada have lost their jobs because of budget cuts.

Some of them, no doubt, consider it unfair that they lost their jobs. Some, including Mr. Rinaldi, have lodged a complaint against the government. The court will decide if he is right or not. I am not prepared to meet with every public servant who wants to make a complaint.