John Manley

[Government Of Canada, December 5th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I assure the hon. member that it was out of a desire to present the next paper in our series of papers on the economy that I decided to make the presentation in the House of Commons this afternoon, which I will be doing immediately following question period.

For that matter, I want the hon. member to know that there is no obligation either under the rules of the House or otherwise to make such a presentation in the House. I want to assure him that we will be very interested in hearing his support for a plan which should help build a more innovative economy.

[Mil Davie Shipyard, December 5th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, maybe using statistics for demagogic purposes is a good strategy. In fact, Quebec's share of shipyard rationalization is 30 per cent. Please, Mr. Speaker, let us stick to the facts.

Second, I wish to say to the hon. member that it is not a matter of hiding. I think it is essential for a company seeking help from the taxpayers in Canada and Quebec to have a good corporate plan that has been approved by shareholders and workers alike. At that point, we can make a move with MIL Davie.

I cannot understand why the member is not willing to say that we have to find a long term solution. If he would look at the business plan that has been presented, he would understand the business plan does not claim that the long term solution to MIL Davie is one contract turned over from anybody. The long term solution involves fundamental readjustment of that company to a new marketplace.

[Mil Davie Shipyard, December 5th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the hon. member is big enough to admit, first of all, that MIL Davie's shareholder is responsible for announcing its position on the MIL Davie corporate plan submitted by the former Quebec government. That is first and foremost the shareholder's responsibility. That is what I said several times.

Yes, there was a report. That is no secret. The Financial Post obtained it on request. That is normal. That is the position of someone who was a consultant. That is not necessarily my position or the government's. Moreover, if MIL Davie wants to succeed, it must do so on global markets. That is what I said several times here.

For any company to succeed in the modern marketplace it must produce goods at a price the world is willing to pay to acquire them. That is first and foremost for any company the responsibility of its management and its shareholders to determine.

When we hear the point of view of the Quebec government on the MIL Davie business plan, when we know whether its unions are willing to support it, perhaps then we can respond accordingly to any further request we have on their behalf.

[National Defence, December 2nd, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, as always, it is very hard to figure out what the Bloc wants.

First, one member tells us not to buy military equipment because it is a waste, and then one of his colleagues says that we must save the defence industry.

It is always a little hard for me to understand quite where this party is coming from. Its two wings do not always beat at the same pace.

The fundamental issue that we need to deal with is the use of the existing program DIPP as a defence conversion program. As the hon. member knows, of the 41 applications approved by this government under DIPP so far 39 have been for civilian or dual use purposes. Clearly that has been the key tool in assisting industries in their defence conversion.

More important, and I have said this repeatedly and I hope other members understand how important this is, the government's strategy in helping the Canadian industries in all sectors is not to throw money at them. It is to provide them with the strategic advice and assistance that will enable them to be competitive in the world markets. That is the key to their success.

[Telecommunications, December 1st, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, it is perhaps difficult for the opposition sometimes to understand but responsibility for the telecommunications sector does fall within my domain.

Therefore it will be a recommendation brought forward by me to cabinet which will be dealt with in the course of determining the government's position on the appeal and on the determination made by the CRTC decision 94-19.

[Telecommunications, December 1st, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, we received the request to which the hon. member referred just now. I am examining this request, and I think I will submit a recommendation to cabinet before the end of the year to determine the outcome of this case.

[Crtc, November 29th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, the member has made a very strong statement concerning three people, all of whom are former deputy ministers in the Government of Canada who have demonstrated their good judgment, their integrity and their intelligence over many years.

I want to assure her that I have endeavoured to the best of my ability to determine whether there was any possible conflict of interest for any of these individuals. It is my view that there is no such conflict of interest. If the hon. member is aware of a conflict of interest, I would like her to make specific allegations as to the nature of that conflict and make them in a forum where she is accountable for those allegations.

In the meantime I suggest to her that it is improper to impugn the integrity of people who are operating on the basis of a request from the Government of Canada.

[Crtc, November 29th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Canadian Heritage and myself today announced the panel that will be reviewing the submissions from the public in our reference under the Canada Gazette on the direct to home policy.

I want the hon. member to understand very clearly a couple of things. First, this is in no way an overruling or a setting aside of the CRTC decision with respect to the exemption order that was issued. That order stands and the CRTC has enunciated its views on how it would issue such orders in the future.

Let me also make clear this point. We are dealing with the articulation of government policy. That is the responsibility of the government and not of a regulatory body. That is what this party was elected to do last October. That is the responsibility we bear and that is the responsibility we will carry forward when this policy is announced.

[Small Business Loans, November 28th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, if I understand the member's suggestion we should eliminate the obligation to post personal bonds in order to get loans under this program.

I want him to understand that we are going to look, with the assistance of himself as well, at the mechanisms underlying this program and try to find the best possible way to make the program most effective to the largest number of small businesses.

He will understand the cost incurred in doing that is one that has to be recovered. This is clearly the principal program we have for dealing with the borrowing needs of small business. In designing the program we will have to make sure we do it in the most effective way possible to benefit the largest possible number of small businesses.

[Small Business Loans, November 28th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, the member perhaps will know that when the supplementary estimates were tabled an increase in the ceiling on the limits under the Small Businesses Loans Act was included. We will be continuing our consultation with the groups affected by the Small Businesses Loans Act in order to endeavour to make adjustments to the program which will be acceptable to them and which will render the program more fully cost recoverable.