John Manley

[Crtc, June 20th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is wrong, as she very often is when making comments. We will continue to consult the CRTC about these orders, as we are required to do under the Broadcasting Act.

Furthermore, we already have before us the procedure followed by Senate and House of Commons committees. The order will not be final until cabinet makes a decision following 40 days of consultation with Parliament and the CRTC.

[Small Business Loans Act, June 16th, 1995]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-99, an act to amend the Small Businesses Loans Act.

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

[Aerospace Industry, June 16th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, firstly, I believe that the hon. member is also well aware that the federal government and the Government of Quebec already have an agreement on industrial projects and that we really work well together. Take Bell Helicopter for example. We found a way to stimulate the development of technology in high tech companies in the province of Quebec.

I would also note that today, despite the enthusiasm of my Quebec counterpart, Moody's has stated that it is aware of the problems the Government of Quebec is having with its budget. I think that it might be a good idea for Quebec to find a way to regain the international markets' confidence. To do this, they would have to do two things: one, concentrate on their budget problems, and two, finally reverse the loss of confidence caused by the separatist policy proposed by this party and the Government of Quebec.

[Aerospace Industry, June 16th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I believe that the hon. member is very aware of my reluctance to subsidize private enterprise. I believe that the best economic strategy is to avoid subsidies. This is not only advisable here in Canada, but also for all of the world's governments.

I accept what he said, and I agree with him that indeed there are other countries which subsidize the aerospace industry. This is one of the issues that we have to take into consideration when reviewing DIPP. He will also understand that the government is obliged to take its fiscal framework into consideration. I am ready to work with him and the aerospace industry and other sectors which are developing new technologies to try to find a new way of making them competitive with other countries of the world.

[Highways, June 16th, 1995]

The mayor needs to address the proper level of government, the province of Nova Scotia, where the decision was made in a way that was very transparent and open. If there is disagreement in the province of Nova Scotia with the people responsible at that level then that is the proper place for the debate to occur.

They are not only ethically challenged, but they seem to have difficulty listening as well. I do not understand why the Reform Party has such difficulty focusing on the division of powers between the federal and provincial governments in this matter.

[Highways, June 16th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, the problem the member has is that he has to deal with the framework of law.

There is the strategic highway improvement program agreement between the province of Nova Scotia and the Government of Canada. The determination of issues related to the allocation of resources under that agreement is very clearly provided for.

[Highways, June 16th, 1995]

We have listened to preambles almost three minutes long. Therefore it is appropriate to have a long response.

The issue being debated in this question is one which lies at the provincial level. To try to turn it into an ethical question in the House shows the lack of understanding on the part of the member.

[Highways, June 16th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the Minister of Transport today I think this question demonstrates perhaps as well as any just exactly how ethically challenged the Reform Party is.

The reality is that the issue raised by the hon. member is one in which a decision was made by the responsible level of government in an entirely transparent and open way. To try to suggest that this is an ethical question implies that somebody improperly benefited in a personal or pecuniary way from the awarding of a contract. That is not the case at all.

There was a political issue. It was debated openly in the province of Nova Scotia. The decision was made close to the people affected by it and the political consequences will be faced. That is not an ethical question; that is a political one.

By trying to move political questions into the realm of ethics we can see why the hon. member has a basic misunderstanding of what the process of government is all about. Ethics deal with the propriety, the transparency and the openness of a decision making process. What in fact the member complains about is the decision that was taken at the provincial level close to the people.

[Defence Industry Conversion, June 15th, 1995]

First of all, Mr. Speaker, I may remind the hon. member that Pratt & Whitney is not exactly a Quebec company. It is a multinational that also has plants in Halifax and Lethbridge, Alberta. The issue is one that is important to all regions in Canada.

I would also like to point out that during the past decade, Pratt & Whitney Canada received nearly $525 million from the federal government, and we are committed to giving the company another $91.2 million during the next four years. So we did not exactly forget Pratt & Whitney.

[Defence Industry Conversion, June 15th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, first of all, I want to commend the hon. member on the interest he has shown in the broader issues of technological development here in Canada. I am very much aware of the problem concerning Pratt & Whitney, which has been discussed in the media.

I want to say to the hon. member that in the budget, which of course reduced the funding available for this program, we promised to review it. Cabinet intends to discuss the broader issues of technological development, and I am looking forward to hearing what the hon. member has to say about these programs.