Madam Speaker, I listened attentively to the member for Trois-Rivières. Quite frankly, there are some points the member makes that are quite valid. I would like to dwell on the first point for a couple of minutes, and that has to do with the reduction in the government's liability from 90 per cent on the small business loan guarantee to 85 per cent.
Last year the government liability for the Small Business Loans Act float was approximately $100 million. That is what it cost. Effectively, what we are doing with this amendment to the bill, which the Bloc does not support, is reducing the liability from $100 million to $95 million. In other words, by lowering the exposure of the government we are going to save $5 million.
The member for Trois-Rivières makes a very interesting point. Will that five per cent threshold cause banks to not look as hard or take as much of a chance with those smaller, more innovative, knowledge based firms? I am not sure that it will not.
Two weeks ago we heard in the industry committee that the small business float for all banks in Canada was $28 billion, a one per cent increase in the float over the year before. The banks of Canada that make loans under the Small Business Loans Act were guaranteed, prior to this legislation, 90 per cent of that loan by the crown. The float right now is around $4 billion to $5 billion. If we deduct that Government of Canada guarantee to the banks on those loans, then effectively we have not had a real increase in the small business loan activity in this country in the last two years.
We have to be very careful. I am not going to support the member's motion to reduce the crown's exposure. The member from Trois-Rivières wants the government to go on the hook for another $5 million. I am not going to support that. Because of the pressure from the Reform Party, our government is on a fiscal obsession with the deficit and the debt. I hope this path will head to a quicker economic recovery. But I share the view of the Bloc member for Trois-Rivières that we are going to have to be vigilant, because if we lower the government guarantee to the banks we may see a lot of good opportunities go by the wayside. The banks might not come to the party. We need small business going full throttle in the country.
I think the member's motion gives us an interesting concern, which we register. But we must at the same time balance our responsibility with reducing the cost of managing the program to the taxpayer. We will try it, and if we see that the activity on the Small Business Loans Act does not continue at the same rate or if there is not the same action on the Small Business Loans Act, then as a committee and as a government we can ask the minister to reopen the file. But we must give it a chance in the interest of fiscal restraint and make sure that the bill is focused on cost recovery.
I must say that the member for Trois-Rivières has done a fabulous job in the industry committee in the last two years. Instead of his party being called the Bloc Quebecois, I wish they were called the Bloc Canadien. If they were called the Bloc Canadien, then imagine the thrust we could get going in the House and the stimulation to the economy.
Who knows, once the current leader of the Bloc Quebecois moves to Quebec City perhaps we will get a conversion going and the Bloc can become the Bloc Canadien. I sense there are a lot of members in the Bloc who really do by and large share some of the values and some of the things we all aspire to in the House for all of Canada.
The second part of the member's point is about giving the industry committee the authority to amend this bill. That would be equivalent to changing the whole system of government. We all know our system of government gives the Prime Minister and his cabinet the executive responsibility to put legislation forward. We members of Parliament have the ability and the opportunity to provide input and to amend, as we are doing here today.
The reason we do not have any motions being put forward today by the Reform Party is because the motions and ideas of the Reform critic for industry were accepted in committee and have become part of the bill. It is not as if members of Parliament do not have the-