Debates of March 22nd, 1994

Supply

[The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu)]

I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member. It is almost five o'clock.

It is my duty pursuant to Standing Order 38, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Hochelaga-Maisonneuve-Canada Labour Code; the hon. member for Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead-Federal Deficit.

[Mike Scott, Reform, Skeena, BC]

Madam Speaker, in concluding my remarks I was saying that there is an opportunity for government to show some leadership, to change policies and develop a vision for business and industry in Canada by being partners in the sense that we get out of the way and allow small business the opportunity to do what it can do very well if given the opportunity.

[John Bryden, Liberal, Hamilton—Wentworth, ON]

Madam Speaker, I really did appreciate the remarks of the hon. member for Skeena, particularly the matter of direct grants to business.

A lot of us would agree that often this does not work very effectively but I wish he would give credit to this budget where credit is due. I point out to him that the government has cancelled the $608 million KAON accelerator project which is a classic example of the type of thing that he is talking about.

I would like him to comment on that and tell me whether he agrees that the government was wise to cancel KAON.

[Mike Scott, Reform, Skeena, BC]

Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his intervention.

I would remind him that KAON was not a regional development initiative. It was a science initiative. Having said that, the member asked to give credit where credit is due in the budget.

We have subsequent to the new government being elected not only development incentives and grants taking place within Canada but it was only recently announced that the federal government was going to provide a $100 million Canadian export credit to a new aluminum smelter in South Africa. That tells the whole story. The government has not yet accepted the fact that you cannot do it that way.

[John Harvard, Liberal, Winnipeg—St. James, MB]

Madam Speaker, the hon. member for Skeena talked about small business in a way as though Liberals in the country had never heard of small business. I can assure the gentleman that thousands of Liberals are business people and that thousands of businesses support the Liberal Party.

We know some of the problems faced by small business. If the gentleman from Skeena would have read the budget a little more closely, he would have noticed that small business plays a big part in the budget. We are attempting to do many things to make its life a little easier.

For example, we will be developing what we call a lending code for banks, because small businesses have been complaining vociferously for years about the way they are treated by banks. We will be establishing a venture capital fund. We are expanding information centres across the country because we know how important information is to small businesses that are not wealthy, as he pointed out, and do not have the resources to get information on their own hook.

We will be expanding the technology network because technology is important to small business. We will be expanding the parameters of the Export Development Corporation because exports are important to the country and important to small business. Small business can do a lot more in the way of exports. Right now only 8 per cent of our business community exports.

We have recognized some of the problems facing the small business community. It is recognized in the budget. I think the Reform Party does not do a service to this institution when it, it appears, deliberately ignores what was stated in the budget.

[Mike Scott, Reform, Skeena, BC]

Madam Speaker, I point out that we live in a democracy. Those business people who support Liberals are allowed to be wrong.

I touch on what the hon. member said about the expansion of the Export Development Corporation. This is exactly what I am talking about. The Export Development Corporation announced the $100 million Canadian loan credit to build the new South African aluminium smelter. If this is what the hon. member is talking about, I rest my case.

[Ronald J. Duhamel, Liberal, St. Boniface, MB]

Madam Speaker, I want to ask a very brief question. In his initial remarks, if I heard them correctly, my colleague indicated that governments do not make jobs. I think I understand what he was getting at. Normally there are conditions under which businesses operate. If they do well their profits create jobs for Canadians or wherever they happen to be.

I would like my colleague's reaction to the following. While I accept that-and I am assuming I have interpreted his comments correctly-would he not agree that government involvement, for example in student employment as will be occurring this summer and as has occurred during the last few summers particularly during periods of study, is a noble and supportive enterprise on the part of government?

Would my colleague agree, for example, that the program we want to initiate, the youth corps, is a noble and worthy initiative that should be supported by all parties?

What about the apprenticeship program the government wants under way, particularly in areas of high tech and where jobs will be required in future growth areas?

What about those kinds of initiatives? Is the Reform Party's policy against those kinds of initiatives? I understand the basic philosophy is that if we reduce taxes more jobs will be created. However does that exclude those kinds of initiatives for youth, the new apprenticeship programs and the like that I have mentioned?

[Mike Scott, Reform, Skeena, BC]

Madam Speaker, in the area of educational assistance such as apprenticeship programs, provided there is a cost benefit and the benefit outweighs the cost, certainly our party is in favour of it. We believe we have to make a stronger effort to educate and train our people so that they are ready to go into the workforce.

As far as the youth corps and the youth development program are concerned and as far as I am personally concerned, we are really looking at a handout. We are not looking at a hand up. We are not looking at preparing people and getting people into positions where they will be entering the workforce. What we are really doing is handing out taxpayers' assistance to youth.

I am sure the hon. member disagrees with me, but that is the way I see it.

Committees Of The House

[Peter Milliken, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Madam Speaker, I believe you will find there is unanimous consent for the following motion:

That, pursuant to Standing Order 108(2) concerning the replacement programs for the Northern Cod Adjustment and Recovery Program and the Atlantic Ground Fish Adjustment Program, the House authorize the required personnel of the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans to travel from place to place for the purpose of preparing and holding video-teleconference Committee sittings during the week of March 28-31, 1994, in the following cities: Rimouski, Sydney, Yarmouth, Moncton and St. John's, Newfoundland.

(Motion moved and agreed to.)

Business Of The House

[Peter Milliken, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Madam Speaker, I would also propose the following motion:

That, at the conclusion of the time allotted for the consideration of government business on Wednesday, March 23, 1994, the Speaker shall put all questions necessary to dispose of the third reading stage of Bill C-14, an act to provide borrowing authority.

(Motion moved and agreed to.)

The House resumed consideration of the motion.

Supply

[Paul Mercier, Bloc, Blainville—Deux-Montagnes, QC]

Madam Speaker, how much time do I have remaining?

[The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu)]

You have until 5.15 p.m.

[Paul Mercier, Bloc, Blainville—Deux-Montagnes, QC]

Madam Speaker, to emerge from its economic doldrums, our country needs a large-scale collective project, one which will generate our enthusiasm and mobilize us. Such a project exists, but an act of government good will is needed to get it off the ground. I am referring to the project to build a high-speed train to service the Quebec City-Montreal-Laval-Ottawa-Toronto-Windsor corridor. Several studies have already concluded that this project would be economically viable.

The minister is waiting for a new report to be released this summer. However, based on the information he already has, he should be able today to say, without jeopardizing the terms of the venture: "Yes, we will proceed with the high-speed rail project". If the minister were to make this statement now, he would not be hurting the authors of the expected report in any way.

This kind of statement would pleasantly surprise us and would show that our government can at least boast of the three things that my hon. colleague for Laurentides criticized it earlier for not having, namely vision, vision and more vision to create "jobs, jobs, jobs", as promised in the red book.

There are so many reasons to support what could become the major project of this decade that I hardly know where to start, or should I say, I hardly know what I should leave out, to finish my speech on time. In any case, first of all, studies have shown that the market is large enough to ensure the project's economic viability. According to information released by Bombardier, the

company's pre-feasibility study has shown that this railway service would serve a population of eight million and attract nearly 5,300,000 travellers annually, an increase of 3,700,000 over the current ridership.

We now have information that emphasizes the benefits of HST connections for travellers in terms of security, travelling time and cost. According to the study, travelling time from station to station, calculated with a top operating speed of 300 kilometres per hour, would be 1 hour and 35 minutes between Quebec City and Montreal, 1 hour and 5 minutes between Montreal and Ottawa, and so forth. The time saved, even compared with flying, is considerable.

Furthermore, as is the case in Lyon, the HST could provide a very efficient way to solve the problem of transportation to and from Mirabel and Dorval and could also provide a quick connection between these airports by adding a loop where the train would run only at certain times.

Another reason to support the HST is, of course, the environment. Per passenger, the HST consumes half as much energy as the automobile and one-quarter as much as a jet aircraft.

If the line could be fully electrified, as is the case all over Europe, there would be even less impact on the environment, because there would be no emissions and the train would consume energy that is abundant in Ontario as well as Quebec, a province that is trying to export surplus energy.

I will now discuss job creation, since that is the purpose of this debate. The HST would create a total of nearly 120,000 jobs annually. This initiative would reduce government spending under the Unemployment Insurance Program. I say this in connection with the expected loss of hundreds of jobs as a result of the merger between CN and CP. Ideally, the HST would absorb these workers.

Without a plan for the future, Quebec's railway industry is doomed. The HST would give VIA Rail a second lease on life and a chance to finance railway lines operating at a loss, as the SNCF does in France.

The cost, and I have not had much of time to discuss this aspect, is evaluated at $7.5 billion, but there would be revenues-

[The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu)]

It being 5.15 p.m., pursuant to Standing Order 81(17), the proceedings on the motion have expired.

Accordingly it is my duty to put forthwith every question necessary to dispose of the business of supply now before the House.

[Art Eggleton, Liberal, President of the Treasury Board]

moved:

That Supplementary Estimates (B), 1993-94, laid upon the table Tuesday, March 8, 1994, be concurred in.

[The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu)]

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Some hon. members]

On division.

(Motion agreed to.)

[Art Eggleton, Liberal, York Centre, ON]

moved that the Bill C-19, an act for granting to Her Majesty certain sums of money for the public service of Canada for the financial year ending March 31, 1994, be read the first time.

(Motion deemed adopted and bill read the first time.)

[Art Eggleton, Liberal, York Centre, ON]

moved that the bill be read the second time and referred to committee of the whole.

(Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and the House went into committee thereon, Mrs. Maheu in the chair.)

(Clauses 2 to 7 inclusive agreed to.)

(Schedule agreed to.)

(Clause 1 agreed to.)

(Preamble agreed to.)

(Title agreed to.)

[Michel Gauthier, Bloc, Roberval, QC]

On a point of order, Madam Speaker.

[The Deputy Speaker]

The hon. member for Roberval on a point of order.

[Michel Gauthier, Bloc, Roberval, QC]

Madam Speaker, since I am not familiar with these proceedings, I was wondering whether the President of the Treasury Board could give this House the assurance that the content of the bill before us is presented in the usual format.

[Art Eggleton, Liberal, York Centre, ON]

Madam Chairman, this bill is in the same form as passed in previous years.

(Bill reported.)