John Manley

[Patent Drugs, November 15th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, perhaps a brief lesson in constitutional law would be in order.

As the members of the Bloc will understand we have a position as a government. This is unlike the Bloc, which does not seem to have a position at all.

If I understand what the critic for health of the Bloc Quebecois is saying, she wants a change. She is talking about the costs of health care. I would like to understand exactly what her position is on this issue. If she wants to get up and state what it is I will be happy to hear from her on it.

[Patent Drugs, November 15th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, members of the Bloc Quebecois seem to have trouble understanding that in the division of ministerial responsibility some of us take responsibilities where they lie.

In the case of patent legislation it lies with the Department of Industry. If they wish to direct questions to the government concerning patent law they will get answers from me. I hope, as the questioner indicated, I will prove to be as consistent in my answers as she alleges I have been.

[Shipyards, November 15th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to hear from the Bloc Quebecois just exactly what plans the shareholder of MIL Davie has for its shipyards. I can tell him that I have been working both with Mr. Véronneau, president of MIL Davie, as well as with the previous government to find a solution to the problems confronting MIL Davie.

They will not be solved, as I said to the previous questioner, by simply finding one contract to give on one day. If that were the solution for this company's problems they would have been solved long ago because there has been a series of contracts awarded to that company.

The challenge for MIL Davie, as with much of the rest of the Canadian manufacturing sector, is to become competitive in a world in which manufacturing, particularly of ships, is global. The Canadian domestic market is not large enough to support a shipyard by itself and therefore they must be competitive.

If we can address that challenge we will succeed both at MIL Davie and elsewhere. That is the fundamental challenge and it will not be simply solved by awarding a single contract.

[Mil Davie Shipyard, November 15th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I fail to understand the rationale for a member, an elected representative of the House of Commons and thereby shared trustee of the public's moneys, saying that we are hiding behind the requirement of a business plan before investing public money in a private enterprise which is owned by a shareholder, that is the Government of Quebec.

Let us get realistic about where the solutions lie for this company and other companies that face the problems of adjusting to the changes occurring in the world. That company like others will survive because it becomes competitive and because

it produces a product the world is willing to buy, not because somebody hands out a contract to tide it over.

Let us address the real problems and then maybe we can find real solutions.

[Mil Davie Shipyard, November 15th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member again today tries to imply that there is only one aspect to the problems facing the MIL Davie shipyard, that being whether or not it can acquire a contract to construct a ferry.

If the member would do his homework he would realize that contingent upon approval of a business plan by the shareholder of MIL Davie and contingent upon the co-operation of the labour unions at MIL Davie possibly some transition contracts might be helpful but not necessarily so.

To try to focus the future of MIL Davie on one contract demonstrates a very weak understanding of the complexity of the problems facing that shipyard.

[Standing Committee On Industry, November 14th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I know it was previously raised that in his first remarks the member was not on topic. He is likewise off topic now. If there is any time for further-

[Patent Drugs, November 14th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member will be aware that the legislation contains a parliamentary review provision which will come into effect at a stated period of time after the proclamation of the legislation. Undoubtedly the appropriate parliamentary committee will wish to review it at that time.

We have also made it clear that in the process of reviewing the impact of the legislation, as we undertook to do, we are looking at all aspects of its impact. In the context of international commitments we will take the action we think is in the best interest of all Canadians.

[Mil Davie Shipyard, November 14th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Transport has stated repeatedly in the House that no decision has been taken on any possible replacement for the Lucy Maud Montgomery . A number of alternatives are being considered. Taken into account in making that decision will be the needs and the interests of the residents of Îles-de-la-Madeleine who, after all, are ultimately the ones who will be using the service.

With respect to MIL Davie, of course we are very concerned with the future of that shipyard as should be the shareholder, the Government of Quebec.

[Mil Davie Shipyard, November 14th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I am reminded again that sound and fury often signify nothing. I think that is within the rules.

[Mil Davie Shipyard, November 14th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, the assumption that the only basis of MIL Davie's survival would be the acquisition of a ferry is a rather poorly founded assumption.

If the member were to review the proposed business plan, which I must say has yet to be approved by the principal shareholder of MIL Davie, the Government of Quebec, that business plan has yet to be approved. Furthermore, the business plan is based on many more components than the acquisition of a single vessel.