John Manley

[Canada Elections Act, November 22nd, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, while there are continuing discussions on a number of issues, out of an abundance of caution I wish to inform the House that an agreement could not be reached under the provisions of Standing Orders 78(1) or 78(2) with respect to the report stage and the third reading stage of Bill C-63, an act to amend the Canada Elections Act and the Referendum Act.

Under the provisions of Standing Order 78(3), I give notice that a minister of the crown will propose at the next sitting a motion to allot a specific number of days or hours for the consideration and disposal of proceedings at the said stages.

[Telecommunications, November 22nd, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, we tried to give all consumers the information necessary for making judicious decisions.

This equipment is rather expensive. We are concerned with the fact that several consumers paid over $1,000 for equipment that might not be sufficient to receive satellite programming in the future. This equipment is rather specialized, and the changes in the services that will be available to Canadians will, in turn, require technological changes.

[The Film Industry, November 7th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, there is an application under the Investment Canada Act under review.

The provisions of the law prevent us from discussing the contents of that application and I will not do so.

[The Film Industry, November 7th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I have listened to the hon. member's proposal. As soon as the decision is, I will let him know. Right now, a request has been made. According to law I am obliged to keep that information confidential. And I have nothing to say to him about the Polygram case.

[Competition Act, November 7th, 1996]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-67, an act to amend the Competition Act and another act in consequence.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed.)

[Bombardier, November 5th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, if it were that simple then we would not be involved in this project using technology partnerships Canada.

What this program is intended to do is create opportunity by participating in risky projects for research and development that will create products which will sell on the world market. We expect, based on our own projections of sales of the RJ-X, that we will be fully repaid and, in fact, that we will be more than fully repaid by this project. However, it is a risky project. That is why it is important, if we want to create jobs in high risk, high technology areas, for the government to be there.

If we can sell more than projected we will make more money. If we sell less than projected we may not make as much money. That is the way business works. However, the important thing is that jobs are going to be created. Twenty-seven hundred jobs will be created or sustained by this investment. That is the kind of project we are looking to support.

[Bombardier, November 5th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I am not quite sure what his question is intended to show, but if they do not want the money we will not force it on them, I can assure him of that.

[Interprovincial Trade, November 1st, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, of course I support, without reservation, everything the finance minister does. I want him to know that.

I would also say that the issue of interprovincial trade barriers is a very important one. In fact what has been accomplished in Atlantic Canada is a demonstration of what could happen with the kind of co-operation we are trying to achieve. Instead of it being a barrier to interprovincial commerce, that there are rates that differ across these provincial barriers, what we have got there is the opportunity with a harmonized system to give consumers exactly what they want, which is the ability to go to the cash register and know that they are paying the price that they saw ticketed on the counter.

What we face in interprovincial trade barriers, as the hon. member knows, is very often the result of provincial governments exercising their constitutionally valid powers to favour businesses or citizens within their own jurisdiction without having a broader view of what could be done if they were to take down the barriers.

I hope he will join with us in supporting our efforts to encourage the provincial governments to operate on a consensus basis once and for all to create a truly harmonized federal national market in Canada.

[Nuclear Industry, November 1st, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, what astounds me is that, every time the Bloc asks science and technology related questions, they pass themselves off as victims.

The figures, in actual fact, are as follows. They indicate clearly, if the National Capital Region is excluded, as Quebec does for its own figures, that Quebec receives over 27 per cent of science and technology spending. Still more important, moreover, is the efficiency of our spending, since the objective is to create jobs and not just to be theoretically in favour of science. If the objective is to create jobs, we find that 41 per cent of R & D tax credits are claimed by Quebec businesses.

This tells me that our investments in the sectors I have noted: pharmaceuticals, biotechnology, aerospace, are more effective in Quebec, because they have created businesses capable of claiming tax credits. This is a strong sector in Quebec. They need to see themselves as winners, not losers.

[Nuclear Industry, November 1st, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, we made the decision to begin by privatizing CITI some years ago, and we negotiated in good faith with MicroCell the possible purchase of the centre.

We have determined that accepting the proposal they made did not represent a good return for us. It must be understood, however, as I have just stated, that priorities need to be determined. Where does the money come from to help Canadair? Where does the money come from to invest in the Institut de biotechnologie?

Sometimes choices have to be made. We have taken what I consider to be wise decisions. If a good proposal for the privatization of CITI could not be found, perhaps that was the best choice.