Bob Nault

[Supply, June 8th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, that is somewhat of an insult since I am much younger than the member who just spoke.

My family is so young, not even a year old. During the campaign I ran against a Reformer and it was a very enjoyable experience, I might add. One of the things that gentleman said over and over again is that government is wasteful and we have to clean up the government and make sure that we tune it in right.

We know in this place, because we see the expenditures, that total government operations, everything that we do from RCMP to buildings we own across the country, are $20 billion. The fact remains that we could shut the whole government down. The member talks about selling the odd jet and doing this and that.

This government is talking about a fundamental restructuring of the economy, fundamental changes in the right direction, not tinkering around with one jet or a limousine versus a Chrysler, or a Honda versus a Tempo. We do agree that there have to be significant changes and cuts. We are not arguing that.

[Supply, June 8th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I am much better in debate than I am at making speeches. I appreciate that the member would entice me to get involved in the debate.

One of the things that concerns me about the Reform Party's continued approach of the zero in three, which was part of its main plank in its campaign, that it could reduce the deficit in three years, is the fact that Canadians did not believe it.

If in fact they did believe the Reform Party, it would be sitting over here and I would be sitting over there. Let us face it, there are times when members in the opposition, when members of Parliament continue to suggest things that may appear to be a good political tool to get governments to react to certain issues. We lay down the facts and give the numbers as the Reform has done. I am one of those who has read the direction you would like to go as far as reducing the deficit in three years.

For example, if it reduced $20 billion, which is what it suggested roughly during the campaign, if you take the very conservative estimate of a reduction of a billion in an export economy, a billion dollars relates to 15,000 jobs of reduced activity per billion. It does not take a rocket scientist, as has been mentioned on the opposite side, to figure out how many jobs would be lost if we reduced that quickly out of an economy that is used to having $20 billion creating economic activity.

What I am suggesting is that we would not have 11 per cent unemployment, we would probably have somewhere in the neighbourhood of 17, 18 per cent unemployment.

I am a history buff and my colleague who sits on the committee opposite me will know that in the thirties there was a Conservative by the name of Bennett who tried the same thing, who used the approach that the quicker you slash everything the quicker you will get more economic activity. He drove the economy of Canada right into the ground completely within a period of three or four years. He said: "It is an international recession, we cannot do anything about it".

My understanding, and the history books will prove this, is that as soon as the Liberal government came back in after Mr. Bennett and reversed those programs, the economy took off and we started to make money again, people started to pay taxes and we started to pay our debt off.

That is the only issue that I am relating to members on the opposite side. People do not believe that if you were in govern-

ment you could reduce this massive deficit that we inherited in three years. You should stop kidding yourselves about that.

The issue is we believe that a balanced approach is a better approach. We were elected on that platform. We are going to reduce the deficit. We are going to make some very tough choices. I want to suggest to the member from Beaver River, if I am mistaken, and I would hope that my colleagues will back me up, you will be one of those who will be very happy to see the next budget in February of next year when we will be making more severe cuts to make sure that when we get our fiscal house in order it is done in a very balanced and structured way.

That is why you have to negotiate with the provinces and not do as our friend Brian Mulroney did and say to the provinces it really does not matter what they think, this is what we are going to do. We know how many seats the Conservatives have.

The opposition members should stop suggesting to Canadians that the zero in three is the way to go, because it is not. Nobody believes it. As a member I know that it will not work and they should revamp that strategy.

[Supply, June 8th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I suggest to my colleagues across the way that I was not trying to jump in front of them as far as the speaking order of the House.

As my colleague from Beaver River would know, having sat beside her for a number of months in the last Parliament, this member would not at all be interested in doing that sort of thing.

Tonight I would like to talk about issues that are very close to my heart as they relate to the estimates. Those who have had the opportunity to spend some time with the member for Kenora-Rainy River know that my interests are the interests of a very large rural riding. In that large rural riding there are some issues that I think need to be discussed in this place.

Those issues of course are the issues of what northwestern Ontario is all about. That basically is forestry, mining, tourism and a small amount of manufacturing along with the retail sector.

Like the rest of Canada, my riding is dependent on a very small business sector to create and maintain valuable jobs. The small businesses in Kenora-Rainy River can be found servicing, complementing and drawing on the strengths of major resource sectors. The viability of small and medium sized businesses in my riding is typical of the diversity needed to build secondary industries in Canada.

There is no doubt that main estimates' spending in 1994-95 in the federal budget is geared to reinforcing a solid small business sector to create jobs and spark the economy. It is because of the dependence on small business that I am pleased to see the initiatives in the 1994-95 budget addressing stability and growth for small business.

As I have said before, as a member of the opposition in this House in the previous Parliament, one of the major concerns that I focused on was the lack of initiative for small business, the lack of help that we as parliamentarians gave to the small business sector.

In Canada we must ensure sustainable and viable resource based industries are supported. But in order to build an economic foundation for the long term we must diversify our economy to take advantage of our raw materials and our technological development. Perhaps nowhere in Canada is that more evident than in northwestern Ontario where diversification and secondary industry development are the keys to opening tomorrow's doors.

The small business working groups recently established by this government are examining the initiatives needed to foster an environment for growth and give business the tools to expand.

I am happy to see that the government is making access to capital and appropriate training a priority for the small business sector. I have risen in this House on previous occasions and lamented on the sad state of the relationship between small businesses and the financial institutions.

I sincerely hope a new code of conduct between small businesses and banks provides a more fruitful relationship than we have seen in the past. Entrepreneurs need capital investment in order to expand and start up new ventures which provide the jobs this country is looking for. Expansion of the Small Businesses Loans Act will also enhance the flow of capital to legitimate business operations in Canada.

Small business also needs the expertise to explore export markets and utilize new technology. The budget speaks well to these concerns. The Canada investment fund for example will help companies access leading edge technology. As well, the business centres will help make information on government programs and services more readily available as well as providing insight into strategies for exploiting export markets.

The remote locations of many businesses in Canada have historically made it difficult to access pertinent information. Federal government spending on information services will give these businesses the knowledge they need to explore new technology and make inroads into international markets.

I am anxious to work with the business community in developing this government's objectives. Believe me, we have many ambitious and capable entrepreneurs in Kenora-Rainy River if only given half a chance simply by doing very key and very elementary things.

Let me give a couple of examples of those. One of those of course is replacing the GST. Reducing red tape and the burden that is on small business as it relates to red tape and harmonizing federal and provincial regulations are just some of the things that I find to be extremely important to creating the right environment for our business sector to flourish.

Such federal initiatives are a breath of fresh air to our small business community and something that I wait anxiously for in order that we can start creating the jobs. The small business sector is the key and what we as parliamentarians should not lose sight of if we are to see this economy start to grow.

Other measures such as changes to the social security system and new job training strategies for young people are essential to changing the fundamental structures in this country that will help lead the way to practical training for people entering our workforce. An expanding small and medium sized business sector needs a talented and appropriately trained workforce.

I am confident federal spending on innovative training programs will help accommodate this objective.

Realistic job oriented training, better financial, technological and information resources for small business are essential to building a strong economy in my region and across the country. However, to take advantage of these enhanced resources for small business my region in particular needs the very basic of infrastructure networks.

I feel we are on the right track with spending on the infrastructure projects. Not only are we creating jobs to jump-start the economy, small that it is, we are also providing the basic foundation for a competitive national economy. Basic infrastructure involves roads, buildings, transportation and water and sewer services.

I invite the members of this House to come and visit northwestern Ontario. Members will truly be impressed with the beauty of our natural surroundings, our forests, lakes and our famous sunsets. I am sure they will enjoy their visit. I am also sure that discerning individuals with attention to economic development will witness certain inadequacies in infrastructure.

They will see that our highways still need improvements. Some members will be dissatisfied that they cannot travel to certain areas simply because there are no roads at all. Some members will see and be surprised that growing municipalities do not have adequate sewer and water treatment facilities. One or two visits to First Nations communities will likely leave members disenchanted with current conditions.

The federal infrastructure works program speaks to these conditions. But I emphasize that northwestern Ontario and other regions in Canada need improved infrastructure. The north, remote areas of my riding such as First Nations communities, require basic infrastructure such as roads to open up economic opportunities. A road network where there is currently nothing will create the opportunities for trade within the region as a starting block.

Further road links such as the highway I have talked about in this House on many occasions from Red Lake in my riding to Winnipeg, which I have been requesting for some time and more reasonable air transportation connections, will then lead to enhanced trade outside of the region.

This trade will not only be in goods and commodities but also people themselves. Although tourism is a strong component of economic development in my riding there remains many untapped opportunities mainly because of poor transportation infrastructure.

Finally, I return to where I started, the resource sector. First I would like to comment on the mining industry which as most people are aware is a struggling industry in Canada. It is encouraging that the federal budget makes contributions to trust funds for mine reclamation tax deductible. This deduction will help mining companies utilize cash flow for other operating costs as well as making it convenient to ensure mine sites are rehabilitated after operations cease.

Certainly market trends have not been favourable recently for the mining sector in Canada. That is why it is all the more important for this government to seriously consider tax incentives or other measures to help stimulate mining activity. We need to encourage grassroots exploration and investment in Canadian based mineral companies.

I understand the Minister of Finance is open to the concept of mining incentives and I look forward to contributing to the process of renewing this policy.

Furthermore, I acknowledge that environmental guidelines for the mining industry are necessary and it is our responsibility to protect the environment. However, the procedures in place are convoluted and confusing, resulting in unnecessary delays to legitimate mine start-ups. As a result we are losing mineral investment dollars to foreign nations.

We must stop this leakage and support mining projects in Canada by established, concise and efficient environmental assessment procedures. We can protect the environment and ensure mining operations are safe without frightening away investment due to red tape and uncertainty from within the bureaucracy.

I can say from talking to the Minister of the Environment and the understanding that I have within the government that we are now in the process of dealing with that very difficult and complex issue of duplication of environmental policy across the country. I hope to be able to stand up here very soon and share in the announcement of this government that we now have one process for mines, one process for forestry, one process for Canadians as it relates to the environmental assessment process and not have to spin our wheels going from one department to the next, municipal, provincial, federal and God only knows wherever else we have to go before we can get economic development within our regions.

Second, I would like to directly address the forest industry in Canada which is by far the primary economic activity in my riding. The federal government as we all know does not have direct jurisdiction over forestry practices. The federal government instead contributes to research and scientific development through federal-provincial forestry development agreements.

I feel it is the federal government's responsibility and should remain an eminent priority to lend as much support as possible to the development of sustainable forestry practices. A viable and environmentally responsible forestry sector will provide a launching board for the growth of diversified businesses in northwestern Ontario and other forestry regions.

In the estimates there are many things involved, as I have talked about, relating to forestry and mining. It is so obvious to those of us who have been around this House for awhile, the opposition, where I was before this Parliament, that it is very easy to stand up and pick one or two issues to criticize the government on. I hope the members opposite get the opportunity to be on the government side, as some of them have. It would be of benefit to not hold their breath, but if in fact it were their wish to get the opportunity to create policy they would look at initiatives like this in a very favourable light as I have.

Coming from a region that is one-fifth of Ontario, almost the size of the Atlantic provinces put together, that fits in my riding, people have to understand that there is tremendous potential for economic growth given the right kind of policies. These are the policies that I am trying to relate tonight.

I want to conclude by saying that there are many decisions reflected in the budget estimates which hold promise for me and a renewed and vibrant future within the small business community which I talked about extensively in my speech.

Although I have expressed concerns for northern infrastructure and certain resource sectors, I want to stress again, as I have said to my colleagues opposite, that I am confident that if this government does not do what the previous government did, and that is lose its way and forget why we are here and why the people put us here, we will put the kind of policies in place that even the members opposite will cheer.

I know the member for Beaver River will stand up and cheer with me as she has done on numerous occasion when we were in opposition and did get our way on occasion.

[Committees Of The House, March 23rd, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the first report of the Standing Committee on Natural Resources.

The committee has considered Bill C-6, an act to amend the Canada Oil and Gas Operations Act, the Canada Petroleum Resources Act and the National Energy Board Act and to make

consequential amendments to other acts and has agreed to report it without amendment.

[Supply, February 21st, 1994]

Interest groups.

[supply, February 11th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I am quite intrigued by the flow of the Reform Party so far in this particular issue. I would like to follow this up with the member.

The hon. member can correct me if I am wrong because I am trying to read into what he has said so far. He is suggesting the regulations we have in place are not working. He also has the interesting suggestion that all the regulations we have in place are there for some motive not considered acceptable to the Reform Party and that is to do nothing but delay and stop economic development or business.

Even though there are times when he personally disagrees with the decision made on behalf of the environment, would the hon. member overlook his own particular interests? In the case of his colleague from Wild Rose for example, would he agree there are times and situations where the overall good of the environment takes precedence over his own individual interests as a politician and maybe those of his constituents?

[supply, February 11th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I find the member's statement somewhat interesting about aboriginal affairs and self-government. I wanted to ask him if he could clarify two details for me.

The first issue is the one in our red book that deals with the inherent right to self-government, which means we recognize as non-natives that there were treaties signed and those treaties suggested that these were self-governing people before Europeans came. I would like to know whether the Reform Party agreed with that.

My second point is if it agrees or disagrees, that not really being the issue, would he also be prepared to tell me, given a system that at present does not work for aboriginal people and for non-natives, and it has been agreed by both sides that that is the case, why he would not want to see a concept of self-government put in place? This is not easily defined because in each community and each region it represents different things to different people.

Would he also not agree that aboriginal people are not homogeneous people, that they are of different cultures and they have different traditions and because of that self-government cannot be that little catch phrase that he seems to be looking for?

I would be interested if he could give me his opinion on those particular issues because my sense of it is he is suggesting that because he does not have a definition of self-government across Canada, we should do nothing.

[Members Of Parliament Retiring Allowances, February 8th, 1994]

One term wouldn't get it anyway.