John Manley

[Gasoline Additives, October 23rd, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I am sure the hon. member has a relatively recent model of motor vehicle. Mine is rather old. He should know that all the motor vehicle manufacturers, North American as well as Japanese have told us that the diagnostic systems in the new vehicles are put at risk by MMT. Consequently, warranties will not be respected by the manufacturers where MMT is used in the fuel.

This is the purpose of the gasoline. That is why it is made. That is what it is used for. Surely to goodness the hon. member would like to ensure that the industry has the opportunity to respond if indeed the determination in the U.S. continues to hold. In fact, at this time MMT is not available in fuel in the United States.

[Referendum Campaign, October 19th, 1995]

They do not want to say so, but it is true. An uncertain climate creates problems for businesses and in this case the uncertainty stems from the fact that separatists cannot answer questions on the interprovincial trade agreement and on NAFTA, they cannot give answers to the thousands of Quebecers who depend on foreign trade.

They also understand this when business people go outside Canada. I saw this when I was in Geneva two weeks ago: there were several small and medium size telecommunication businesses from Quebec there. All those people were proud to be Canadians. They all support the maple leaf. They understand that it is a very valuable trademark on world markets. That is what they understand.

[Referendum Campaign, October 19th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, it is not at all surprising that small and medium size businesses are against the separation of Quebec.

[Pharmaceuticals, October 18th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, first let me help the hon. member with some of his statistics because I think he would want to get them right.

First, 15.1 per cent of national health expenditures in the last year for which we have full statistics were for pharmaceuticals. Patented drugs only account for 40 per cent of the pharmaceuticals purchased in those expenditures. In addition, with respect to patented medicines, and this is determined by an independent board, the price increase from 1987 to 1994 was 2.1 per cent per year.

If the hon. member begins to take those statistics into account he might phrase his question a little differently. As he knows, and I have assured the House several times, we are reviewing Canada's drug patent policy. In addition, under Bill C-91 there is a parliamentary review process that will be invoked in 1997.

[Census, September 29th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, unfortunately the Reform Party has repeatedly both in the House and elsewhere failed to recognize that the face of Canada is one of many colours and many languages. In looking at Canada it sees it only through its own eyes and is not able to understand how varied and diverse a mosaic we have created here. This is one of the strengths of Canada. It is unfortunate it has taken this approach to what is a very simple gathering of information for very useful purposes.

[Census, September 29th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member will know that the purpose of conducting a periodic census is to determine the composition of Canadian society. This is useful for a wide range of purposes.

On the issue of race, in the past people have made calculations based on language rather than a specific question on racial origin. This time we think the provision of fuller information will give us a much better understanding of the make-up of Canadian society. That should be beneficial for a wide range of purposes.

[Pearson Airport, September 22nd, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I think the best advice I can give the hon. member is to heed the comments of the Conservative chairman of the committee that is examining Bill C-22, who said yesterday, and I quote: "You can carry this as far as you want, but it has got nothing to do with this committee. If you think I am trying to protect the Prime Minister's reputation, my credentials as a Conservative are one hell of a lot stronger and of a longer term than any other member here". The Conservative chairman of the committee says that the Prime Minister's reputation is not the issue here. We know the issue here is getting on with the work at Pearson airport.

Why is it that the Reform Party continues to support a transaction that was entered into by a Conservative government lacking the responsibility and authority to do it? I do not understand that. Maybe he can explain it one day.

[Pearson Airport, September 22nd, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, there is a mess here, and it started 10 days before the last election.

I can recall very clearly how explicit it was during the election campaign that a government days before an election did not have the moral authority or parliamentary authority to commit the Government of Canada to a transaction of the magnitude and importance of this one. This was not in any doubt whatsoever.

The fact that the government of the day went ahead and signed this transaction is the exact and only cause of the mess that surrounds Pearson airport today.

If the hon. member would tell his friends in the Senate to get on with completing Bill C-22, we could get on with the work at Pearson airport.

[Pearson Airport, September 22nd, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member knows from his experience with the transport committee how important the policy of local airport authority and privatization of local airports is to the government. He knows that many communities other than Toronto are also engaged in a process of negotiation with the federal government to follow on the example of other cities that have taken local control of their own airports. This is a policy that enables local communities not only to improve their own airports but to take responsibility for ensuring that they use them as economic development tools. That is something that will benefit the travellers, the businesses of the

Toronto area, as it will, I hope, Ottawa, Winnipeg, Halifax, and the other airport cities that are engaged in these negotiations.

[Direct Satellite Broadcasting, June 22nd, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I think what all Canadians need to understand is how vital this part of the information highway infrastructure is going to be to Canadians. It is for that reason that we have been very concerned and very careful about ensuring that we see the creation of a framework within which we would have a competitive and open system.

The hon. member, who makes quite bizarre allegations on this issue, is trapped in her own rhetoric. The very groups that say the most about supporting Canadian culture have supported the approach the panel of experts recommended on this case.

What is clear to all Canadians is that we favour a system in which there will be licensing, competition, better choice and lower prices for consumers. The Bloc Quebecois favours monopoly. It is as simple as that.