John Manley

[Regional Economic Development, June 10th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I can understand that perhaps the hon. member does not understand that much about interprovincial trade. The point I was trying to make was that clearly if the Bloc Quebecois favours international trading agreements then it must be prepared to see a liberalization of trade within Canada. If that is not the case then perhaps the Bloc should make that clear.

With respect to the specific response that was given, I understand the question that is being put. I will try to put this as clearly and as simply as possible. The federal government is not endeavouring to dictate measures to anybody. The federal government is approaching this internal trade agreement from the point of view that we wish to find a negotiated agreement among all parties voluntarily.

The federal government is quite entitled to take a position at the bargaining table, as are other parties to the discussion. That, in simple terms, is what a negotiation is all about. We are trying to facilitate, but we are also there with a negotiating position which is that we want the most trade liberalizing agreement that we can get.

The measures which the hon. member first raised-and I take time because I believe this is very important-we have agreed on an exception for regional economic development. It will apply to the federal government and to the provincial governments.

Mr. Tremblay of Quebec asked for the time and is assuring himself that the measures he takes by way of industrial policy within his province will not be unduly hampered by the internal trade agreement based on reliance upon this exception.

[Regional Economic Development, June 10th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I regret to inform the hon. member that the negotiations are not yet completed with respect to an internal trade agreement.

As I always understood the position of the Bloc Quebecois, it favoured trade liberalizing agreements. Apparently it favours them with other countries but not with other provinces. This is a difficult thing for me to comprehend.

With respect to the specific question on regional economic development, let me say that we have conducted discussions throughout the process as a multilateral negotiation. The federal government is at the table with a position. Provincial governments of various political colours are at the table and they have different positions.

Our position from the point of view of the federal government is we want the maximum possible trade liberalizing measures within the internal trade agreement. We believe that is essential in order to enable Canadian firms to develop the domestic market to make them competitive in the international trading arenas in which they find themselves, whether we talk of NAFTA or whether we talk of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, the Uruguay round which was concluded recently. That is our objective.

At the end of the day, the provinces and the federal government are going to have to look at the deal that has been negotiated. The provinces are entitled to put forward what they want. Collectively we will have to decide whether we have an agreement which makes a measurable improvement both in economic terms as well as in the structured terms over the existing conditions.

[Regional Economic Development, June 10th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I took note of what Mr. Parizeau said in the National Assembly in reference to an article in the June 9 issue of the Globe and Mail ; however, he did not indicate where the quotation marks were in the quote attributed to me. I can tell the hon. member that the internal trade agreement will indeed provide for an exception for regional economic development. The same clause applies to all the governments that will sign the agreement, including the federal government and all the provinces.

[Ultramar Canada, June 2nd, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member knows, Ultramar acquired the assets of Texaco in 1990 pursuant to a consent order of the competition tribunal and subject to the agreement of the director of investigations and research under the Competition Act on the basis of undertakings given by Ultramar to keep the refinery in Dartmouth open for seven years, unless there was a material adverse change in circumstances.

Ultramar is now saying that there is such a material adverse change in circumstances and endeavouring to either sell or, failing to sell, to close the refinery.

The director of investigations and research is investigating to assure himself of the facts that are the basis of the claim of an adverse change in circumstances. Once he is satisfied as to whether such a change has occurred he will then be in a position to take the appropriate action either to enforce the undertakings or to permit Ultramar to proceed with its actions.

I can assure the hon. member that we are very concerned, with him, about the jobs that are at risk in Dartmouth as a result of this decision and we want to make sure that the right thing is done.

[Aerospace, June 1st, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I will be able to provide the member with details respecting some of those concerns later this week.

I assure him that in our preparation of the long term space plan and our negotiations with the United States over Canada's role in the space station we have endeavoured to a very great extent to protect the key interests of Canadian companies in their participation in the space program.

We expect to see the ability of Canada to continue to participate in the space program enhanced by a more general program which emphasizes our important interests in satellite communications, earth observation and remote sensing.

[Aerospace, June 1st, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I am very happy to see that the hon. member is interested in the Canadian Space Agency because it is a very important part of our general science program. We have completed our negotiations with the United States on the space station and later this week I will announce the details not only of the space station but also of the long-term space plan.

[Small Businesses, May 30th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, it is an easy call to make.

I am not sure what methodology was used in that report which was widely published last week. It was prepared for the previous government.

My view is, and I have heard the views of business people from across Canada as has the industry committee, that in fact there is a problem getting adequate financing for small business.

The government has identified the small and medium sized business community as the key factor in creating jobs. We have been discussing with the banks a code of conduct for lending practices which we hope we can agree to with them. A number of banks admitted to the committee and other places that in fact they were not doing as much as they could have done for the small business community. We are looking to the banks to respond to the challenge, particularly for knowledge based

industry, particularly for the needs of small business to get adequate funds to grow and expand. Those are the initiatives we are pursuing.

Export oriented, knowledge based small business is the key to Canada's future. We need the banks to be partners in ensuring that is what happens.

[Conversion Of Defence Industries, May 30th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I can only believe that the Bloc keeps repeating the same ridiculous allegations in the hope that sooner or later people will start to believe them.

What we have made clear is that there is a program of defence conversion. Yes, DIPP needs to be expanded and yes, we need to create a revolving fund, but fundamentally we made a key promise when we went to the polls last October which was in part to cut subsidies to business.

The Bloc keeps wanting us to write cheques to companies which somehow or other were not aware that the Berlin wall came down in 1989 and their shareholders are not willing to invest enough now to give them a plan for the future. If that is the kind of company the member wants us to give money to, I am sorry I do not agree with him and the government does not agree with him.

We are prepared to work on strategies for companies. We are prepared to help them identify markets. We are prepared to work with their managers and their shareholders. However it has to be

a co-operative effort including all of the stakeholders in each case, in each company.

[Conversion Of Defence Industries, May 30th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I thought the answers I provided to other Bloc Quebecois members on that issue were quite clear. As mentioned in the red book, DIPP will indeed be the basis of our conversion program for military industries. Also, as I indicated, since we were elected, 39 out of 41 proposals accepted by this government concerned civilian projects or both military and civilian production, and had nothing to do with DIPP.

I do not understand why the Bloc objects to the fact that, even with a program such as DIPP, we can choose proposals related to civilian purposes, and also objects to the commitment we made to the effect that we could change some aspects of that program to stop the wasting of money, by setting up a system which would benefit from contributions made by companies. This is a program for the conversion of military industries.

[Credit Cards, May 27th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I should draw to the attention of the hon. member the fact that a private member's bill on this matter is before the House. I think it is coming up for debate shortly and I am sure he will want to participate in that debate.

On the matter of the level of the rates and whether there is action to be considered by the director of investigations and research under the Competition Act, this is a matter on which I would be prepared to seek the advice of the director. If there are facts that warrant an investigation, I am sure he will take that appropriate action and we will be pleased to advise the member accordingly.