EDITED HANSARD • NUMBER 131
CONTENTS
Friday, October 2, 1998
![V](/web/20061116184928im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | GOVERNMENT ORDERS
|
1005
![V](/web/20061116184928im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | CANADA SMALL BUSINESS FINANCING ACT
|
![V](/web/20061116184928im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Bill C-53. Second reading
|
![V](/web/20061116184928im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Don Boudria |
![V](/web/20061116184928im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Motion
|
![V](/web/20061116184928im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Keith Martin |
1010
1015
![V](/web/20061116184928im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Ken Epp |
![V](/web/20061116184928im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Antoine Dubé |
1020
1025
1030
1035
![V](/web/20061116184928im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Walt Lastewka |
1040
![V](/web/20061116184928im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Roy Bailey |
1045
1050
1055
![V](/web/20061116184928im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
|
![V](/web/20061116184928im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | COMMONWEALTH GAMES
|
![V](/web/20061116184928im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Janko Peric |
![V](/web/20061116184928im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | TRADE
|
![V](/web/20061116184928im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Howard Hilstrom |
1100
![V](/web/20061116184928im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | SOURIS COAST GUARD
|
![V](/web/20061116184928im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Wayne Easter |
![V](/web/20061116184928im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | WOMEN'S HISTORY MONTH
|
![V](/web/20061116184928im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Bonnie Brown |
![V](/web/20061116184928im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | MONTREAL EXPOS
|
![V](/web/20061116184928im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Hec Clouthier |
![V](/web/20061116184928im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | CANCER
|
![V](/web/20061116184928im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Ken Epp |
![V](/web/20061116184928im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | VETERANS AFFAIRS
|
![V](/web/20061116184928im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. David Pratt |
1105
![V](/web/20061116184928im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | BOMBARDIER INC.
|
![V](/web/20061116184928im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Judi Longfield |
![V](/web/20061116184928im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | CANADA POST
|
![V](/web/20061116184928im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Gurmant Grewal |
![V](/web/20061116184928im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | BREAST CANCER
|
![V](/web/20061116184928im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Carolyn Bennett |
![V](/web/20061116184928im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | SASKATCHEWAN SUMMER AND WINTER GAMES
|
![V](/web/20061116184928im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Rick Laliberte |
![V](/web/20061116184928im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | TRICENTENNIAL OF NOTRE-DAME-DE-FOY PARISH
|
![V](/web/20061116184928im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Hélène Alarie |
1110
![V](/web/20061116184928im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | CANADA POST
|
![V](/web/20061116184928im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Raymond Lavigne |
![V](/web/20061116184928im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | HEALTH CARE
|
![V](/web/20061116184928im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. John Herron |
![V](/web/20061116184928im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | VISIT BY SECRETARY-GENERAL OF FRANCOPHONIE
|
![V](/web/20061116184928im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Monique Guay |
![V](/web/20061116184928im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | HUMAN RIGHTS
|
![V](/web/20061116184928im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Sheila Finestone |
1115
![V](/web/20061116184928im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | APEC SUMMIT
|
![V](/web/20061116184928im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. André Bachand |
![V](/web/20061116184928im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | HOME RENOVATION INDUSTRY
|
![V](/web/20061116184928im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Brent St. Denis |
![V](/web/20061116184928im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
|
![V](/web/20061116184928im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | NATIONAL UNITY
|
![V](/web/20061116184928im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Chuck Strahl |
![V](/web/20061116184928im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Herb Gray |
![V](/web/20061116184928im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Chuck Strahl |
![V](/web/20061116184928im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Herb Gray |
![V](/web/20061116184928im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Chuck Strahl |
1120
![V](/web/20061116184928im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Herb Gray |
![V](/web/20061116184928im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | STANDING COMMITTEE ON FISHERIES AND OCEANS
|
![V](/web/20061116184928im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Gary Lunn |
![V](/web/20061116184928im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Don Boudria |
![V](/web/20061116184928im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Gary Lunn |
![V](/web/20061116184928im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | CANADIAN ECONOMY
|
![V](/web/20061116184928im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay |
![V](/web/20061116184928im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Paul Martin |
![V](/web/20061116184928im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay |
![V](/web/20061116184928im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Paul Martin |
![V](/web/20061116184928im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Stéphane Bergeron |
![V](/web/20061116184928im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Paul Martin |
1125
![V](/web/20061116184928im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Stéphane Bergeron |
![V](/web/20061116184928im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Paul Martin |
![V](/web/20061116184928im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Nelson Riis |
![V](/web/20061116184928im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Paul Martin |
![V](/web/20061116184928im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Nelson Riis |
![V](/web/20061116184928im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Paul Martin |
![V](/web/20061116184928im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | AGRICULTURE
|
![V](/web/20061116184928im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Rick Borotsik |
![V](/web/20061116184928im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Lyle Vanclief |
1130
![V](/web/20061116184928im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Rick Borotsik |
![V](/web/20061116184928im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Lyle Vanclief |
![V](/web/20061116184928im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | CANADA PENSION PLAN
|
![V](/web/20061116184928im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Grant McNally |
![V](/web/20061116184928im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Paul Martin |
![V](/web/20061116184928im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Grant McNally |
![V](/web/20061116184928im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Paul Martin |
![V](/web/20061116184928im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
|
![V](/web/20061116184928im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. René Canuel |
![V](/web/20061116184928im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew |
![V](/web/20061116184928im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. René Canuel |
![V](/web/20061116184928im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew |
![V](/web/20061116184928im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | TAXATION
|
![V](/web/20061116184928im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Gurmant Grewal |
1135
![V](/web/20061116184928im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Paul Martin |
![V](/web/20061116184928im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
|
![V](/web/20061116184928im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Paul Forseth |
![V](/web/20061116184928im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Paul Martin |
![V](/web/20061116184928im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | CANADIAN COAST GUARD
|
![V](/web/20061116184928im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Antoine Dubé |
![V](/web/20061116184928im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. David Anderson |
![V](/web/20061116184928im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Antoine Dubé |
![V](/web/20061116184928im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. David Anderson |
![V](/web/20061116184928im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
|
![V](/web/20061116184928im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Roy Bailey |
![V](/web/20061116184928im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Paul Martin |
1140
![V](/web/20061116184928im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Lee Morrison |
![V](/web/20061116184928im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Paul Martin |
![V](/web/20061116184928im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | MERCHANT MARINE VETERANS
|
![V](/web/20061116184928im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. René Laurin |
![V](/web/20061116184928im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Bob Wood |
![V](/web/20061116184928im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | TAXATION
|
![V](/web/20061116184928im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Roger Gallaway |
![V](/web/20061116184928im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Bob Speller |
![V](/web/20061116184928im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | EQUALITY
|
![V](/web/20061116184928im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Derrek Konrad |
![V](/web/20061116184928im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Herb Gray |
![V](/web/20061116184928im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS
|
![V](/web/20061116184928im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Myron Thompson |
1145
![V](/web/20061116184928im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. David Iftody |
![V](/web/20061116184928im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | AGRICULTURE
|
![V](/web/20061116184928im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. John Solomon |
![V](/web/20061116184928im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Lyle Vanclief |
![V](/web/20061116184928im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. John Solomon |
![V](/web/20061116184928im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Lyle Vanclief |
![V](/web/20061116184928im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | GOVERNMENT OF CANADA
|
![V](/web/20061116184928im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Scott Brison |
![V](/web/20061116184928im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Paul Martin |
![V](/web/20061116184928im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Scott Brison |
![V](/web/20061116184928im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Herb Gray |
1150
![V](/web/20061116184928im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | FORESTRY
|
![V](/web/20061116184928im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Roy Cullen |
![V](/web/20061116184928im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. David Anderson |
![V](/web/20061116184928im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | CANADA PENSION PLAN
|
![V](/web/20061116184928im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Philip Mayfield |
![V](/web/20061116184928im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Paul Martin |
![V](/web/20061116184928im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | KOSOVO
|
![V](/web/20061116184928im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Daniel Turp |
![V](/web/20061116184928im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Julian Reed |
![V](/web/20061116184928im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | BANFF NATIONAL PARK
|
![V](/web/20061116184928im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Rick Laliberte |
![V](/web/20061116184928im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Sheila Copps |
![V](/web/20061116184928im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | BOMBARDIER
|
![V](/web/20061116184928im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Diane St-Jacques |
1155
![V](/web/20061116184928im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. David M. Collenette |
![V](/web/20061116184928im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | CANADIAN FORCES
|
![V](/web/20061116184928im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Sophia Leung |
![V](/web/20061116184928im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Robert Bertrand |
![V](/web/20061116184928im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | JUSTICE
|
![V](/web/20061116184928im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Chuck Cadman |
![V](/web/20061116184928im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jacques Saada |
![V](/web/20061116184928im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | THE ENVIRONMENT
|
![V](/web/20061116184928im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold |
![V](/web/20061116184928im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Christine Stewart |
![V](/web/20061116184928im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | AGRICULTURE
|
![V](/web/20061116184928im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. John Solomon |
![V](/web/20061116184928im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Lyle Vanclief |
![V](/web/20061116184928im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | AIRBUS AFFAIR
|
![V](/web/20061116184928im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. André Bachand |
1200
![V](/web/20061116184928im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Herb Gray |
![V](/web/20061116184928im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
|
![V](/web/20061116184928im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | INTERPARLIAMENTARY DELEGATIONS
|
![V](/web/20061116184928im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | The Deputy Speaker |
![V](/web/20061116184928im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE
|
![V](/web/20061116184928im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Procedure and House Affairs
|
![V](/web/20061116184928im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Marlene Catterall |
![V](/web/20061116184928im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | CANADA ELECTIONS ACT
|
![V](/web/20061116184928im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Bill C-437. Introduction and first reading
|
![V](/web/20061116184928im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Nelson Riis |
![V](/web/20061116184928im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE
|
![V](/web/20061116184928im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Procedure and House Affairs
|
![V](/web/20061116184928im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Motion for concurrence
|
![V](/web/20061116184928im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Marlene Catterall |
![V](/web/20061116184928im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | PETITIONS
|
![V](/web/20061116184928im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Adoptive Parents Benefit
|
![V](/web/20061116184928im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Keith Martin |
1205
![V](/web/20061116184928im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Young Offenders Act
|
![V](/web/20061116184928im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Keith Martin |
![V](/web/20061116184928im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | National Head Start Program
|
![V](/web/20061116184928im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Keith Martin |
![V](/web/20061116184928im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Public Safety Officers Compensation Fund
|
![V](/web/20061116184928im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Paul Szabo |
![V](/web/20061116184928im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Labelling of Alcoholic Beverages
|
![V](/web/20061116184928im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Paul Szabo |
![V](/web/20061116184928im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Human Rights
|
![V](/web/20061116184928im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Paul Szabo |
![V](/web/20061116184928im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | The Family
|
![V](/web/20061116184928im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Brent St. Denis |
![V](/web/20061116184928im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
|
![V](/web/20061116184928im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Mauril Bélanger |
![V](/web/20061116184928im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE
|
![V](/web/20061116184928im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Finance
|
![V](/web/20061116184928im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Bob Kilger |
![V](/web/20061116184928im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Motion
|
1210
![V](/web/20061116184928im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | GOVERNMENT ORDERS
|
![V](/web/20061116184928im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | CANADA SMALL BUSINESS FINANCING ACT
|
![V](/web/20061116184928im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Bill C-53. Second reading
|
![V](/web/20061116184928im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. John Solomon |
1215
1220
1225
1230
![V](/web/20061116184928im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Keith Martin |
1235
![V](/web/20061116184928im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Philip Mayfield |
1240
1245
![V](/web/20061116184928im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Rick Borotsik |
1250
1255
1300
![V](/web/20061116184928im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Ian Murray |
![V](/web/20061116184928im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Keith Martin |
1305
1310
1315
![V](/web/20061116184928im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Rick Laliberte |
1320
![V](/web/20061116184928im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Mike Scott |
1325
1330
![V](/web/20061116184928im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
|
![V](/web/20061116184928im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | ROYAL CANADIAN MINT
|
![V](/web/20061116184928im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Ken Epp |
![V](/web/20061116184928im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Motion
|
1335
1340
1345
1350
![V](/web/20061116184928im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Carolyn Parrish |
1355
![V](/web/20061116184928im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold |
![V](/web/20061116184928im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Norman Doyle |
1400
1405
![V](/web/20061116184928im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Ken Epp |
1410
![V](/web/20061116184928im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Appendix
|
(Official Version)
EDITED HANSARD • NUMBER 131
![](/web/20061116184928im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/crest2.gif)
HOUSE OF COMMONS
Friday, October 2, 1998
The House met at 10 a.m.
Prayers
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
1005
[English]
CANADA SMALL BUSINESS FINANCING ACT
The House resumed from September 29 consideration of the motion
that Bill C-53, an act to increase the availability of financing
for the establishment, expansion, modernization and improvement
of small businesses, be read the second time and referred to a
committee.
Hon. Don Boudria (Leader of the Government in the House of
Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the
opportunity to participate in the debate on this excellent piece
of legislation.
We know of course that the Minister of Industry has a keen
interest in small business in Canada, as do all hon. members. As
late as yesterday the official opposition was talking about small
business people in Canada, EI premiums and a number of other
issues, extolling the virtues of small business.
Yesterday the Leader of the Opposition in the House also raised
the world economic challenges going on now and asked if the
government had anything to announce in its business statement in
regard to that. I of course thanked him for the question and
immediately told him about all the excellent legislation on which
we are proposing to move to assist small businesses, and business
generally, and to create wealth and jobs in Canada. That is
central to the program of the government.
[Translation]
Therefore, given the interest of opposition members, and of all
members, in the Canadian economy—if the speeches and interest
shown in the House yesterday are any indication—we can only
wonder why the official opposition has decided, in its wisdom—
An hon. member: Let us not exaggerate.
Hon. Don Boudria: —in its supposed wisdom, to resort to a
procedural mechanism so as to prevent the bill from going
forward.
The opposition has asked that consideration of the bill to help
small businesses be postponed for six months.
Hon. Lucienne Robillard: What a contradiction!
Hon. Don Boudria: The Minister of Citizenship and Immigration
points out how contradictory this is. She is, as usual, right
on the mark.
It is important that this bill to help small businesses go
ahead.
[English]
It is important that the opposition not cause delays on this
bill by moving dilatory motions, hoist motions or other
procedural tricks to stop this bill from going ahead. I do not
think procedural tricks should be going on. Therefore I move:
[Translation]
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): We now proceed to the
period for questions and comments.
[English]
Mr. Keith Martin (Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, Ref.): Madam
Speaker, I thank my colleague across the way for his speech, but
I am disappointed that he wants to put the question on this very
important issue at this point in time.
Be that as it may, I have a question for the hon. member. His
government is taking a significant amount of EI premiums and
putting them into general revenues. These moneys are in excess
of what is needed in the fund to pay out to people on employment
insurance.
1010
Current information shows that taking this money out of the
pockets of the private sector has a significant dampening effect
on the ability of the private sector to generate employment. The
hon. member knows very well that the report of the Canadian
Federation of Independent Business which came out 48 hours ago
shows very clearly that the number one issue that impedes the
ability of business to create jobs are the high taxes in this
country.
I ask the hon. member whether he is prepared to ask the finance
minister today to lower EI premiums by 50%.
Hon. Don Boudria: Madam Speaker, first of all I do not
want to give a procedural lesson to the member across the way,
but “That the question be now put” does not mean that the
debate ceases now.
I have to explain this to the hon. member. He has been
a member for a long time and I am surprised he does not know the
significance of the motion that is now before the House. “That
the question be now put” is a motion to ensure that no member
can in fact hoist the bill and prevent it from coming to a vote.
That is what the motion means.
Mr. Philip Mayfield: Can I ask what the question is?
Hon. Don Boudria: Madam Speaker, I did not know that I
would have to give a procedural course to another member across
the way. Perhaps I can just recommend Beauchesne to both of them
and that will solve the problem. We could have a seminar. It
was actually given to all members when we were elected.
The question proposed by the hon. member is very serious. He
said that the government is taking EI premiums and putting them
into the consolidated revenue fund. I would like him to
substantiate that allegation. No such action has been taken. No
one has taken EI premiums for anything. That is blatantly
inaccurate. I think what he means is that there is a debate
right now as to whether the best course of action should be, not
is, to lower EI premiums or to lower other forms of raising
money, say, for instance, general taxation, whichever is the best
process to put money back into the pockets of taxpayers. That is
the debate. It is not whether someone has taken or is taking EI
premiums.
As to the second part of the question, the hon. member said that
these funds are being put in the consolidated revenue fund. In
1986 the Auditor General of Canada recommended in a report
abolishing the special UI reserve where the premiums were held.
That was abolished a year later in 1987. It has been almost 12
years since there was a separate EI fund. I know news travels
slowly around here sometimes, but such a fund has not existed for
12 years. The debate is not on that; the debate is on what is
the best process.
The Prime Minister has listened to representations from the
member opposite and others. The question is, what is the best
process to put some of that money back into the pockets of
Canadians, not whether it is going to happen. That is an
entirely different issue. How much of a cushion should there be
in the event that there is a slowdown in the economy at some
point in the future, which I certainly hope does not happen.
That is the debate that is before us. It is not whether someone
is taking EI premiums. It is nonsensical to put it in those
terms and does a disservice to everyone around here.
I would recommend that all Canadians read the Reform Party's
policies. I know that is difficult at the best of times.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
Hon. Don Boudria: Let me rephrase that. Canadians should
read a very small portion of the Reform Party's policies because
I know that reading a lot would cause indigestion, heartburn and
other things. We might have to call a well-known physician in
the House to take care of us if we read too much.
If we read very briefly that part which refers to EI premiums, I
know very well that the policy of the Reform Party has been, as
late as the last election, to take EI funds and use them for tax
reduction. That was the policy of the Reform Party, stated in
its own documents.
1015
Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island, Ref.): Madam Speaker, I
appreciate that you recognized me in order that I may comment.
[Translation]
Mr. Antoine Dubé: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
You have allowed the same party two opportunities in a row to
put a question to the Leader of the Government in the House.
[English]
Mr. Ken Epp: Madam Speaker, my apologies but I was
speaking and suddenly I lost the floor. Could you please explain
how that happened.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): One of the members
had a point of order. You have the floor now.
Mr. Ken Epp: Thank you, Madam Speaker. I point out to
anyone watching this debate that the member from the opposite
side has just pulled what we would call a sneaky procedural trick
while he has accused us of doing that.
What we want to do and what the Liberals are failing to do is to
improve legislation. It is totally false for him to imply that
we are somehow against the ability of business to do its job. He
is saying that we want to prolong and somehow kill this
legislation. We want to improve it. We have found from this
Liberal government that there is no openness to reasonable
amendments. We want to make some amendments, we want to have an
allocation of time given to improving this bill before it is put
into law.
In the 35th parliament this government used some form of time
allocation or closure 35 times. The Liberals do not want debate.
They do not want debate in the House and they do not want debate
among the Canadian people. Once the Liberals have made up their
bullheaded minds they do not want to change their minds. That is
giving us legislation that is far less than what it could be.
We have already had seven time allocation motions in this
parliament including one earlier this week on the DNA act. We
supported the principle of that bill but there were some very
important amendments to be made. What reaction did we get from
this government? We got “No, we are going to do it our way”
and there was a time allocation motion. The government brought
all its members in here. They stood and voted for it on command.
As a result the bill was jammed through in its present
uncorrected form. It is flawed legislation.
Why are the Liberals opposed to having legislation improved?
Surely they are not so arrogant as to think that the very first
shot at it is the best anybody in Canada can ever do. Why are
they not willing to listen to other points of view, those
expressed by the Canadian people through the opposition and those
expressed by Canadians directly? Why are they insisting on
closing down debate? This is really unacceptable.
I would like the member opposite to explain to the Canadian
people, not just to me and our party, not just to the opposition,
why his party has to resort to these heavy handed tactics in
order to jam its legislation through, in its perfect form
according to them, when we know it could be improved.
Hon. Don Boudria: Madam Speaker, I recommend to the hon.
member citation 521 of Beauchesne's. That is the first part of
my answer.
The member says that he wants the bill amended but the motion he
put earlier this week was that the bill be delayed for six months
and not amended. He proposed a motion that would stop it from
going to committee where his own amendments could be proposed.
The opposite to the truth has never been stated more accurately
than by what the hon. member has done just now.
[Translation]
Mr. Antoine Dubé (Lévis-et-Chutes-de-la-Chaudière, BQ): Madam
Speaker, I want to speak to Bill C-53, but something just
happened here that, I think, requires clarification.
1020
Apparently in response to a Reform motion to be disposed of next
Tuesday I guess, the government House leader is proposing a kind
of gag order. Because he does not agree with the Reform Party's
motion to defer consideration of the bill for six months, he is
proposing that we proceed immediately. That is what he said this
morning.
This needs clarifying. The government House leader referred to
our Standing Orders, but went on to talk about employment
insurance and what not, leaving the people who are at home
listening to us completely confused
Granted, Bill C-53 is not perfect. However, given the principles
behind the bill, including the need for small businesses in
Quebec and Canada to have access to financing, leaving these
businesses in a lurch for six month cannot be justified.
Last year, through Bill C-21, approximately $1 billion in
additional funding was to be provided. Now, this was a while
ago, and we all know how long it takes for legislation and
programs to be implemented at the federal level, especially with
this government, which is quick to propose time allocation
motions but is very slow when it comes to reviewing programs. I
find this somewhat funny. The government House leader wants to
proceed quickly when this bill is not well structured enough to
meet the needs of small businesses.
At the same time, there is an urgent need to maintain funding.
But we must be careful not to repeat the mistake made these past
three years, when a bill was introduced each year to provide a
one-year extension as well as additional funding. This year-to-year
approach makes no sense.
We must at least recognize that Bill C-53 provides for the
continuous operation of the small business loans program. We
support this objective. It is very important, imperative, that
we stop playing this game year after year, leaving our small
businesses across Canada on the edge all the time.
Under this kind of management approach, the people concerned
live in fear of the program being abolished or of funds running
out so they rush out to the bank so they can be sure to benefit
from the program.
Often, projects, and this has been shown, are not always ready
and are more vulnerable. They risk being rejected.
When the time comes to compensate the banks for losses, the
government has a number of demands. This is what occurred in
the past, because the basis was a year at a time. The auditor
looked into that and noted that there was indeed a control
problem and a certain lack of cost effectiveness. I think that,
for the last year, the compensation figure was around $200
million. A significant figure nevertheless.
However, 95% of businesses in Canada are small. They create
nearly 50% of jobs. It is the small businesses of 50 employees
or fewer that use much of the manpower and are the most
imaginative and creative, we have to admit. They are the most
involved in economic development.
That is very important.
This is why we support the bill in principle and why, Tuesday,
the Bloc Quebecois will support it. We understand to some
extent the arguments of the Reform Party and we understand why
the Reform Party wants a six-month delay in order to better
understand the situation. If we agreed to their proposal, we
run the risk of depriving small business of funding for a fairly
long time. We cannot agree to that.
1025
The best approach would be for the Reform Party and the other
opposition parties along with the government members to buckle
down and get to work on the Standing Committee on Industry. The
parliamentary secretary is here and has said that he would be
receptive to changes and improvements. For once. We are not
used to having the government open to change proposed by the
opposition.
Generally, they tend to think the truth is exclusively on their
side. We think it is better distributed than that. Often, it
may be found as well on the opposition side.
We can call this a game, but we can also call it democracy.
That is the way our system works.
There is a bill, and a parliamentary committee is going to
examine it. People with proposals for changes will be able to
have their opinions listened to. Some changes will make sense
and others will not. It will be up to the parliamentarians to
evaluate that in committee.
The usual process is for a report to made to the House after
that. Here again, the opposition parties can present
amendments. Since this is a very important subject, this time
it might be necessary for the government to show it is listening
to the views of the public, which will also be expressed through
the opposition parties.
This is what I have heard so far in the debate on this bill, and
on Bill C-21 as well, not to mention the debate last year,
because the government brings this up pretty well every year.
I am on the Standing Committee on Industry, and again yesterday
morning we were presented with a foot-thick pile of documents and
statistical studies. There are proposals for such things as
seminars, symposia, endless press reviews, and groups asking to
be heard. The association of independent business people,
consumers, big business, all have opinions on this. Then there
is all the current debate around the bank mergers. This is far
from a minor issue. It is important.
At the present time, there are seven major banks, plus the
caisses populaires in Quebec. As we know, the caisses
populaires are extremely important in Quebec. I have some
knowledge of this because their head office is in my riding.
Lévis is where the Desjardins movement began in 1900. Its
centennial will be coming up in two years.
My comments are very pertinent, since half of the loans granted
under the old Small Business Loans Act are administered by the
caisses populaires in Quebec, while the other half is
administered by one of the seven major banks. This is very
important.
We are indeed talking about small business and small business
financing, but we are also talking about how banks operate. This
is currently one of the most talked about issues at the federal
level. All the parties must conduct a very thorough review of
this issue. All have basic positions and principles, but the
situation of financial institutions is changing so rapidly at
the world level that the debate should include an assessment of
the financing needs of small business. I know that the Standing
Committee on Finance is looking at this issue. There is the
McKay report on this.
We must take the time needed, but we must not take too much
time, otherwise we would deprive our small businesses from
getting the financing they need.
The bill is not perfect. It is in response to the auditor
general's recommendations who, and rightly so, proposed
accounting measures and controls. The auditor general did a good
job. He is proposing that the government add mechanisms, that
the minister have more means to control the program's
effectiveness. We agree with him. However, we must not only
react to this specific situation.
1030
To rely exclusively on controls, and to implement too many of
them could prevent us from benefiting from the development
triggered by small business in Canada, which we truly need. The
future is far from being secure and guaranteed, and major
businesses—such as GM in Montreal—are slow to announce what
they have in store in terms of investments, planning and
direction. Meanwhile, people are left on the sidelines.
There is a major industry in my riding called Davie Industries.
It has secured $300 million in contracts, but its workers face
an uncertain future, because there is currently no guarantee of
financing. We must take a serious look at this situation,
because it involves hundreds of millions of dollars.
What is involved for 95% of the businesses in Canada is $200
million that has allegedly been lost. However, they have failed
to look on the profit side.
As businesses were setting up under the program and therefore
creating jobs, tax money was being paid both federally and
provincially. This meant additional revenues. Perhaps the
program cost $200 million, but no financial studies have been
done to show how much it generated for the federal and
provincial departments of revenue.
There are no studies to indicate that, but I have no doubt that
it brought in far more than it cost. When we talk about 50% of
Canada's manpower, we are talking a lot of people.
That translates into taxes too. If we do not help small
business to set up and remain in operation—because a lot of
them go bankrupt—and we do not provide for renewed funding,
what happens? Jobs are lost.
After a period of receiving employment insurance benefits, these
people find themselves without jobs. But here, I am sounding a
sour note, because we realize that some 45% of people who have
paid into employment insurance cannot collect benefits under the
new legislation when they become unemployed. That is a scandal
and the subject for another debate.
That involves money too. This sort of situation costs all
taxpayers. What happens when two people are in the same
situation and are not entitled to employment insurance benefits?
They have to turn to social assistance.
This means additional expenditures for both levels of
government, since the federal government also kicks in for
welfare.
I think one would have to be short-sighted to take the Reform
Party's approach and try to have the bill put off for six months
because it is not perfect, because it does not quite suit them,
and turn a blind eye to the serious impact on the health of
businesses, not to say the health of those they employ.
We cannot leave people hanging for six months, not knowing
whether or not the program will be extended. If we were to go
along with this measure, it would mean that, tomorrow morning,
because there is still a little money left in the program—an
additional $1 billion to extend it for one more year—all
businesses would quickly throw projects together and rush to the
financial institutions.
As I see it, there is one major problem with the bill. It
guarantees the banks compensation for any losses, on condition
that they move fast, because once the $1.5 billion is exhausted,
they are out of luck. Everyone is scrambling, and we all know
that, when there is too much haste, problems arise.
The Bloc Quebecois would have liked to see a better bill, one
that incorporated the suggestions it made last year, and wishes
that needs had been more accurately assessed.
1035
An assessment of sorts is under way, it is true, and we will
judge the results on their merits.
We would have liked to see more comprehensive considerations and
broader consultations. We hope that, as part of the work to be
done by the Standing Committee on Industry, it will be possible
to carry out this consultation of the groups concerned, namely
small businesses, financial institutions, the seven major banks,
and the Canadian Bankers Association, as well as caisses
populaires and credit unions in the rest of Canada, which
operate along the same lines as financial co-operatives.
They should have a say in the matter, for the future and for the
long term, so that we will not have to debate this issue in the
House every year only to argue in favour of motherhood.
I think that is where matters stand, but this government is
going to have to listen seriously to what the public has to say
and consider objectively the various proposals being made,
including those from the opposition parties.
[English]
Mr. Walt Lastewka (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Industry, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I appreciate the words of my
colleague from Lévis. He and I have had many discussions on
small and large businesses. Sometimes we agree and sometimes we
disagree, but at least we have a good debate and try to put our
best efforts forward.
When the member brings his amendments to the industry committee
I hope they are to improve the bill and not marginalize it. I
welcome that. I welcome his debate.
The member has been on the industry committee for a long time
now. I have forgotten how many years, because we have both been
there for a number of years. When we put forward Bill C-21, the
extension for one year of the SBLA, in the springtime the
commitment was made by the minister and the department to make
sure that the new bill would be tabled as early as possible.
The objective of the industry committee was to hear from as many
witnesses as possible. The stakeholders of the bill would be
present to make their efforts known to the committee. The
objective was to have a good industry committee discussion on the
bill and on amendments that could be brought forward from the
stakeholders to make sure that when the bill came back to the
House it would be a bill that we would all be pleased with, not
one that we would delay and then have a crunch later on.
Could the member who has been a member of the industry committee
for a long time expand on that.
[Translation]
Mr. Antoine Dubé: Madam Speaker, I will answer by saying that
what goes around comes around. As the hon. member knows, I have
been sitting on the committee since the election held in June of
last year. As regards Bill C-21, which was to be postponed for
one year, the member surely remembers that the Bloc Quebecois
had supported that legislation. At the time, we had reservations
about the legislation and we proposed some changes. I will
certainly help him remember the amendments and suggestions we
proposed back then. There is a good chance we will suggest the
same changes again.
It is in this spirit that I said earlier that we would support
the bill on Tuesday, when the House will vote on it, because we
are dealing here with the principle of the legislation.
Can one be opposed to the principle—and I ask Reform Party
members to reconsider their position on this—of helping small
businesses get financing? I am not talking about subsidies.
I represent the riding of Lévis-et-Chutes-de-la-Chaudière, where the
Lévis shipyard is located. Because of the huge figures involved,
people are always under the impression that it is a major
business. They think it is outrageous to provide assistance to
such a company. But there are essentially no subsidies in the
funds provided by the government. All the money is provided
through loans, loan guarantees or contracts. It is somewhat
similar in this case.
1040
What in fact is being asked of the government is for it to act
as guarantor, up to a ceiling of $1.5 billion, to all of the
small businesses in Canada for loans negotiated with banking
institutions. Everyone recognizes the expertise of the banks,
as well as the caisses populaires and credit unions, for they
are located in the various regions concerned, which have
different problems and characteristics.
The advantage of this is that it offers small business a basic
program. There are other programs more specific to certain
sectors, perhaps too many in my opinion. Too much of something
can sometimes be as much of a problem as too little.
I was recently in an office in Vancouver in connection with my
responsibility for regional development.
I saw people working away at computers to locate government
programs, both provincial and federal. I asked one person how
long she had been at it, and she told me it had been a week.
She told me it had been two days before she finally figured out
how the system worked. She commented that she had been shunted
from one program to another, and how very confusing it was. It
is all very fine to have computers available to give people some
degree of independence, but there still have to be advisors.
Quebec now has a new structure in place which impacts on the
social economy, the local employment development councils.
These have enhanced the economic councils, which some regions
called by another name. These still need counsellors.
It must be kept in mind that a loan program is still needed.
Within the framework of this legislation, this loan program is
aimed at small business.
It is therefore extremely important. I do not believe such an
essential issue is the right place for petty partisan politics.
[English]
Mr. Roy Bailey (Souris—Moose Mountain, Ref.): Madam
Speaker, I am pleased to rise to discuss Bill C-53.
Up to this point in time nobody has mentioned in the House what
makes small businesses go or what makes small businesses operate.
Coming from the western constituency of Souris—Moose Mountain
we have but two major corporations. Both are government owned.
They are coal generated power plants. Outside one other business
every business in my constituency is under definition a small
business.
In the winter of 1966-67 my question to the small businesses in
my community was to ask what they needed most. At that time the
answer was to get the high cost of government doing government
business for them off their backs. It was almost universal.
Now the story has changed and it is a sad case on the western
prairies. It is very sad in my community for small businesses.
It is probably worse to be in a small business in the grain
industry now than it has been since World War II.
When I made phone calls the comments I heard were that the bill
did not interest them in the least. They wanted customers who
had some money to spend. We have not addressed that question in
the debate. It is a domino effect. If customers have no money
in their pockets, the businesses go down regardless of the loans
to them. We have not addressed the plight of primary industries
for a long time.
I made two phone calls to small hardware stores in my community
that would certainly qualify for a loan. Basically they depend
entirely on two sources: the oil patch and the agricultural
community.
1045
Both hardware stores, same response. One more year of this and
we close the door.
In most in my towns and villages there are three businesses
closing for every one that is staying open. We have not addressed
the problem of providing and looking after our primary
industries. Grain production in Saskatchewan is still the number
one industry. I will give members what I dug up in the last two
days. Here are four local industries.
One, setting up steel storage beams. They are out of business.
They had a loan. Two, an independent soil testing device to
provide information to the farmers. Closed. Out of business.
Three, fertilization. It no longer pays to fertilize with the
price of grain. Four is very interesting. A local contractor not
too far from where I live employing four people is out of
business. His job was to put new roofs, barns and so on. But
there is no money. Businesses are going down because we have
neglected the primary industries.
I hope the House and all Canadians will listen to this so they
understand. Picture in your minds nine steel bins on the
prairies full of grain. The first three bins will go to pay the
freight. The next two bins will go to pay the taxes. The next
two bins will pay the fuel costs. The last two bins pay the
seed, spray and maybe some fertilizer. NISA, the RRSP for
farmers, was a good program. I commend the government and the
provinces for that. It now is gone. They used it all in the
last two years. They have exhausted their total line of credit at
the banks and the credit unions.
Here is the situation. I read something I got yesterday morning
from my local elevator. Canadians should realize why small local
businesses are out of the picture. As of yesterday, with freight
deducted, the farmer takes home $2.12 with number one red spring
wheat. That is the worst price that the farmers have received.
Nothing since World War II could come anywhere near that.
The agricultural economists tell us that if we do not get $4.00
a bushel we are not breaking even. 3CW durum is $2.02. No wonder
men stores and the ladies shops and all the small businesses are
closing. Oats are 77 cents a bushel. Number one feed barley is
74 cents a bushel.
I stopped a lady who had gone in to buy some shoes, some jeans,
shirts and so on for a family of three to get them started back
to school. The total bill was around $324. Let me tell members
the plight of western Canadian small business. That small bit
that she bought for her children would take 437 bushels of
barley.
1050
Instead of joking about this situation, hon. members should be
ashamed of themselves. This is not a joke. I live among these
people. I know what is happening out there. All across Canada,
if the primary industries are not nurtured or protected, we will
have a domino effect.
It would take 8,100 bushels of barley or 7,800 bushels of wheat
to pay a $6,000 tax bill.
What happens to the small business is simply that the majority
of taxes in Saskatchewan go to education. These taxes are not
going to come in. Therefore what happens? There are fewer roads
built, fewer teachers hired and it goes on and on.
The local governments cannot keep up because of commodity
pricing and they are not the least bit interested in this bill
until this government takes an honest look at what part it can do
in looking at a very serious situation.
Two of the largest farm implement dealerships locked their doors
in the last two months. They were for sale. No buyers.
In a survey I did, at 26 farm auction sales only 2 of those
farms were going to be turned over to members of the same family.
The majority of these people want nothing to do with the
dreadful situation that exists.
The bill looks good. The bill sounds good but it is of
absolutely no value whatsoever to the people I represent until
the government does something about the primary industries.
The people in my constituency could not care less about the
wrangling in this House today. That does not put money in their
pockets. It does not give them any guarantee for the future.
They hate to face the coming winter.
I do not deny that the government wants to support small
business but I want members to be aware that if they are really
going to support small business, they have to look after the
primary industries of this country.
In that respect, the people in western Canada, the people I have
met in my constituency totally will say you have disregarded the
primary interest of our province. Members have to put more money
into the hands of the customer.
There are approximately 68 private insurance brokers in my
constituency. One motion of this government that will allow the
banks and the credit unions to have it all in-store shopping
could knock out 76 private businesses in two weeks.
They have heard the same message I have but I have made it
abundantly clear to them that I am here to protect their business
on the main street of every town. I hope the government heeds
that lesson very well.
Another thing is the overtaxation not only to the consumer but
as it deals with the private small business.
1055
The domino effect of grants from this government and from the
provincial government has made it virtually impossible for the
small operator to meet those taxation demands. Their taxes have
gone up 8 times, 800% in less than 20 years, and little wonder.
If any of the members opposite want to dispute this claim they
can do their own research. Is it not true that they have had as
many phone calls as I have had with regard to the EI?
Both the people who called me this morning basically said “Do
you want to hurt government businesses? We paid $1.40 for every
one of our employees spending $1. It belongs to us and we won't
be able to hire more people unless that premium is dropped”.
This was from a person hiring some 16 people.
If government really wants to help small businesses, go ahead
but it had better deal with the primary things first. It has
taxed businesses to death. It has taxed the Canadian public to
death. It has excessively taxed people on their CPP premiums,
which is another tax grab. The government has a disgraceful
record in the EI.
While all this is on one side of the government's books, it
tries to stand in the House and tell us what a wonderful thing
this is going to be for small business.
I wanted to move a motion before this bill went any further
because I wanted to make it abundantly clear to all Canadians
that small businesses with a staff of two and three people are
going to close their doors in my province in the next two years
because of this government's lack of concern as to what it could
do to support that primary industry.
The second largest bill is the tax on the fuel that a farmer
uses to run his farm. I was in a farm yard not too long ago when
the tanks were filled and the bill was $1,800. A good portion of
that is taxation.
I think this bill should be delayed. I look at these prices
such as $2.12 a bushel for wheat. I do not think there is a
farm, even if it is a 20 section farm, that can survive on that.
However, because this government seems to have no interest in
that small amount, I want to read to this House—
The Deputy Speaker: The hon. member has run out of time.
He will have four minutes remaining in his time after question
period when we resume Government Orders. I will look forward to
hearing his remarks then.
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
[English]
COMMONWEALTH GAMES
Mr. Janko Peric (Cambridge, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I rise
today to pay tribute to Cambridge native Crystal Gilmore and her
four teammates Emilie Fournier, Veronique Leclerc, Lise Léveillé
and Katie Rowland, all members of Canada's bronze medal women's
gymnastic team at the recent Commonwealth Games in Malaysia.
A member of the Cambridge Kips Gymnastic Club, Crystal and her
teammates represented our nation with determination and pride.
They showed by their example what can be accomplished with hard
work and dedication.
On behalf of the people of Cambridge and all Canadians, I
congratulate Crystal, Emilie, Veronique, Lise and Katie on their
success.
* * *
TRADE
Mr. Howard Hilstrom (Selkirk—Interlake, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, Canadian farmers continue to suffer because of belated
responses by this government to the non-tariff trade actions
taken by mid-western states.
They will continue to suffer because this is obviously part of
an overall policy of U.S. trade action against Canadians. This
is not just an election issue as some members have stated.
The Americans are currently proceeding with anti-dumping
complaints against Canadian beef farmers and the Canadian dairy
industry in addition to the ongoing harassment of the Canadian
Wheat Board.
All of these trade actions will take money out of the pockets of
Canadians.
1100
The government has started the WTO and NAFTA complaint process.
I support this action, but it is not enough. The government must
give this trade issue a higher priority than it has in the past
month. I call on the three ministers involved to use every
possible remedy, including court action, to immediately put an
end to this problem.
* * *
SOURIS COAST GUARD
Mr. Wayne Easter (Malpeque, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased to recognize three Souris, P.E.I coast guard crew members
for a job well done.
Around 9.00 a.m. on the morning of September 27, the Souris
coast guard station tuned in to a mayday call. Captain Roddie
MacLeod, Richard Harris and Leslie Croucher responded immediately
to the call and came to the rescue of three Gaspé tuna fishermen
and their 45 foot boat.
The three tuna fishermen were found with survival suits on,
floating in a life raft and watching their boat sink about 16
kilometres south of East Point. The coast guard crew brought the
three fishermen on board the cutter, captured the boat at
considerable risk, and towed their boat to safety as heavy rains
and winds began to pick up.
I commend the Souris coast guard's Captain Roddie MacLeod,
Richard Harris and Leslie Croucher for their timely response and
valiant rescue.
* * *
WOMEN'S HISTORY MONTH
Ms. Bonnie Brown (Oakville, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I rise to
recognize women's history month. This October will be the
seventh annual celebration of the past and current contributions
of women to Canadian society and Canadian heritage. This year's
theme is the Business of Women: An Evolving Story.
All across Canada women are becoming more involved in the small
business sector. One-third of all small and medium enterprises
are owned by women. That figure rises to 46% when one considers
new small businesses. Women entrepreneurs are also creating new
jobs at a higher rate than the rest of the small business sector.
This government supports women in the small business community.
We will continue to listen to suggestions and look for solutions
to help the cause of women in the Canadian business world.
* * *
[Translation]
MONTREAL EXPOS
Mr. Hec Clouthier (Renfrew—Nippissing—Pembroke, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, as a student at Loyola College in Montreal, I remember
going to see Les Expos when they introduced Canadians to a major
league baseball team they could call their own. I remember the
announcer at Jarry Park calling “The catcher, John
Bock-a-bella.”
I remember Rusty Staub—“Le Grand Orange”—Rhéal Cormier and
Larry Walker, the first Canadian this century to win a major
league batting title.
Let us never forget that the Montreal Expos brought together not
only citizens of Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, but all Canadians.
They unified a country; they aroused a passion for the game of
baseball.
[English]
If the Expos strike out for the last time, Canada's field of
dreams will be forever diminished.
[Translation]
And that is sad.
* * *
[English]
CANCER
Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I want to
tell members today about Beverley and Susie. It is almost 18
years ago that each of these young women, then in their early
teens, found out that their mothers had cancer. Beverley's mother
survived; Susie's unfortunately succumbed to the disease. It was
devastating to Susie, her father, her sister and her brothers.
Beverley is our daughter. Her mother who survived is my wife.
We are so grateful for God's healing. Susie is our son's wife.
Pretty well everyone in Canada has been touched by this dreaded
disease. During October, cancer month, let us do all we can to
further the cause of research. Let us reach out in love and
caring to those who are in the middle of the battle.
* * *
VETERANS AFFAIRS
Mr. David Pratt (Nepean—Carleton, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
Canada's veterans are the reason why this country is the best
place in the world in which to live. It is also why it is
imperative that we recognize the contributions of these valiant
Canadians.
Each year the Department of Veterans Affairs hosts overseas
pilgrimages to the sites of major campaigns and battles. These
are conducted on a five year cycle around specific anniversary
dates and are part of the long term, multi-year plan to remember
Canada's involvement in the first and second world wars, in
addition to Korea.
Today a delegation of about 40 Korean war veterans stops in
Vancouver en route to their former battlefields to commemorate
the 45th anniversary of the signing of the ceasefire.
1105
The contingent will participate in a church service and a
parade, followed by an address by the hon. Minister of Veterans
Affairs.
One question that has recently been asked by thousands of
Canadians is what does Canada do for its veterans. This is an
example of how we honour our veterans. We will and must
remember. We cannot forget.
* * *
BOMBARDIER INC.
Mrs. Judi Longfield (Whitby—Ajax, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
rise today to congratulate Bombardier Inc. for its recent success
in landing a $1.5 billion contract to build 20 50-seat regional
jets and 30 70-seat planes for Comair Inc. based in Cincinnati,
Ohio.
This contract is the largest in Bombardier's history. It is
reflective of this Canadian company's high level of quality,
innovation and professionalism.
When this government invested in Bombardier, it knew what it was
doing. The results are in for all to see.
A market leader in a very competitive industry, Bombardier's
success is a shining example of how Canadian companies and in
particular our high technology companies, are successfully
competing in today's global economy.
This announcement means jobs. This is good news for Canada and
good news for Canadians. I believe that we will see many more
examples like Bombardier in the years ahead as Canadian high tech
firms take their place at the forefront of industry.
* * *
CANADA POST
Mr. Gurmant Grewal (Surrey Central, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
Canada Post franchise holders across Canada want the government
to stop the negative impact of Canada Post's proposed changes to
the operation of postal outlets.
The Canada Post chairman has agreed to review this matter to
ensure franchise owners are not forced to operate at a loss. Many
businesses will be badly hurt and the government should step in.
A very short timeline has been set for these businesses to
finally have their evidence heard on the negative effect of the
changes. Up to now there has not been adequate representation of
franchisee concerns.
Feedback on the proposal was not accurate. The consultation
process leading up to the implementation date of the changes was
not sufficient. The Liberals should take immediate action to
save these businesses and these jobs.
The government must act today and save these 1,700 businesses.
Do not make them operate at a loss.
* * *
[Translation]
BREAST CANCER
Ms. Carolyn Bennett (St. Paul's, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, on Sunday,
October 4, Canadians from across the country will run, jog or
walk in support of breast cancer research, so that a cure can be
found.
Some 50,000 Canadians in 22 cities will participate in the
CIBC-sponsored Canadian Breast Cancer Foundation's Run for the
Cure.
[English]
It is hoped that this event which serves as a main fundraiser
for the Canadian Breast Cancer Foundation will raise $4 million
to be distributed among hospitals, universities, cancer treatment
centres and education centres across Canada.
The Run for Life is a major highlight of breast cancer
awareness month. This year's theme is Living Proof, Loving
Proof. It draws attention to the fact that breast cancer is a
family affair and not confined to the woman alone. The support of
friends and family is invaluable to a woman with breast cancer
and this year's theme is a reflection of that.
Everyone knows someone who has been affected by breast cancer.
It is estimated that some 19,300 Canadian women will develop
breast cancer this year and 5,300 will die from it.
* * *
SASKATCHEWAN SUMMER AND WINTER GAMES
Mr. Rick Laliberte (Churchill River, NDP):
[Editor's Note: Member spoke in Cree and provided the
following translation:]
[Translation]
I rise to congratulate the people of northern Saskatchewan.
The Hon. Carol Teichrob of the Saskatchewan government has
announced the creation of zone nine for the Saskatchewan summer
and winter games.
Louis Gardner, representative of the Northern Recreation
Co-ordinating Committee said “This gives our northern athletes
provincial and national exposure. Hopefully they will be
participants in the Canada and Commonwealth games and have an
opportunity to represent Canada at the Olympics”.
This decision recognizes the wealth of potential to be tapped by
Saskatchewan's competitive sports teams from a a population where
over 60% are under the age of 26. This opportunity will instil a
sense of pride in our youth through their contribution of gifts
and aspirations.
My very best wishes to northern Saskatchewan's young athletes.
* * *
[Translation]
TRICENTENNIAL OF NOTRE-DAME-DE-FOY PARISH
Ms. Hélène Alarie (Louis-Hébert, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I am happy to
join all my fellow citizens in celebrating the 300th anniversary
of the parish of Notre-Dame-de-Foy.
Celebrations have been under way since September 4 to
commemorate the birth of this parish, founded on September 18,
1698, whose first priest was Charles Amador Martin, son of
Abraham Martin, after whom the famous Plains of Abraham were
named.
1110
This parish has a rich historical background, including events
like the 1760 battle of Sainte-Foy, the construction of a
hospital and the arrival of the Sisters of Charity of Quebec and
the Brothers of Christian Schools. These valiant pioneers turned
a country village into a thriving town to be proud of.
I wish to congratulate the team of organizers and volunteers for
the care they have put into recreating the past through many
festivities reflecting the profound values passed down from one
generation to the next by the pioneers of the now 300-year-old
parish of Notre-Dame-de-Foy.
Let us celebrate our past and pay tribute to three centuries of
steadfastness.
* * *
CANADA POST
Mr. Raymond Lavigne (Verdun—Saint-Henri, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
yesterday, October 1, I attended what might have been a fairly
routine event, the release of a series of postage stamps with a
circus theme.
Today I wish to congratulate and thank the President and CEO of
Canada Post, the hon. André Ouellette, for his dynamism, which
he transmits to the entire corporation, and for the vision he
has demonstrated in the choice of stamp issues and in planning
their release.
The routine nature of the release of a stamp issue yesterday was
transformed into something rare, in fact unique as far as I
know. The four clowns depicted on these new stamps are all
still alive, and attended the ceremony. What is more, two of
them are father and son, Giovanni and Frederico Boris Iuliani.
I wish to thank these four artists, all of whom live in my
beautiful riding of Verdun—Saint-Henri.
* * *
[English]
HEALTH CARE
Mr. John Herron (Fundy—Royal, PC): Mr. Speaker, I would
advise you not to break your leg in New Brunswick on a Friday
night. Chances are there will be nobody available to look after
you. Federal government cutbacks have affected the ability of our
provinces to provide adequate health care to our rural
communities. There are no incentives for young physicians to set
up practice in rural communities and the ever increasing workload
hampers the abilities of these towns and villages to fill vacant
spots.
There are over 20 medical positions available right now in my
constituency and in the surrounding region from Sussex to St.
Stephen. The town of Hampton which in 1976 had eight physicians
for the town and the region, as of November 1 will be serviced by
only three. The last time this area had only three doctors was
back in World War II.
Health care cutbacks by this government are forcing Canadian
families to give up their rural way of life because it is no
longer safe. The situation is serious and must be addressed
immediately.
I urge this government to come up with a plan to ensure rural
health care is protected. Canadians deserve adequate rural
health care. Canadians deserve better.
* * *
[Translation]
VISIT BY SECRETARY-GENERAL OF FRANCOPHONIE
Mrs. Monique Guay (Laurentides, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the Government
of Quebec has represented the Quebec people in certain
international forums for a long time now. Ottawa, however,
tried to take advantage of the visit by the Secretary-General of
la Francophonie to again challenge the rights of Quebec. The
former French minister Alain Peyrefitte has described these as
“historically recognized rights”.
The excuse given by the Foreign Affairs protocol office had to
do with VIP security, as if Quebec were not capable of ensuring
this. Knowing as we do that for the federal government the word
“security” is often synonymous with “repression of freedom of
expression”, this demonstrates its total disdain toward Quebec.
In its unflagging efforts to isolate Quebec and to nibble away
at its independence, Ottawa is proving that it is turning its
back on the profound aspirations of the Quebec people. That
disdain will be short-lived, however, for the Quebec people will
soon be opting, clearly opting, for sovereignty.
* * *
[English]
HUMAN RIGHTS
Hon. Sheila Finestone (Mount Royal, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
on October 6 a special stamp honouring the late Dr. John
Humphreys will be unveiled by Canada Post. This stamp will pay
tribute to a great Canadian who made an unparalleled contribution
to the international human rights community.
In 1945 after the world had witnessed the atrocities of World
War II, Dr. Humphreys along with Eleanor Roosevelt drafted the
United Nations Declaration of Human Rights. The never before seen
injustices of the Holocaust prior to and during the war gave need
to find and define a new term, genocide, and to condemn it as a
crime against humanity. This is but one of the legacies of the
universal declaration.
Dr. Humphreys' visionary perspective laid the groundwork for the
realization of human dignity across the world for all people,
whether as groups or individuals, by affirming fundamental rights
and freedoms. The principles enshrined in his legacy have been
adopted in national constitutions in all corners of the world.
His road map is a vision for peace and humanity so that we can
live in human dignity and hope for a more respectful society
worldwide.
* * *
1115
[Translation]
APEC SUMMIT
Mr. André Bachand (Richmond—Arthabaska, PC): Mr. Speaker, our
Liberal friends, particularly the PMO and the Prime Minister
himself, seem to have very special ties with the RCMP.
Whether it is the Airbus affair, Liberal Party influence
peddling in Quebec, or the APEC demonstration, it is becoming
clear that the PMO knew, and so did the Prime Minister.
I would like to remind the House that, far from being the Prime
Minister's own presidential guard, the RCMP is there to serve
all Canadians.
Once again, when the Prime Minister knows something, we feel he
should be required to level with the House.
I hope that we will not have to wait for some post-graduate
research paper to uncover the whole truth of the APEC affair.
* * *
[English]
HOME RENOVATION INDUSTRY
Mr. Brent St. Denis (Algoma—Manitoulin, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I inform the House that the minister responsible for the
Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation is announcing that
October is renovation month.
This occasion is the perfect opportunity to showcase innovative
techniques and celebrate the professionalism of the home
renovation industry in Canada. This industry generates $20
billion and thousands of jobs each year. We also want to ensure
if Canadians decide to renovate their homes that they are
successful.
This year the Canadian Home Builders' Association and CMHC will
feature Canada-wide activities focusing on consumer education and
protection under the theme: do it right, work with a
professional renovator.
I also point out that CMHC Canadian housing information centre,
the largest housing resource centre in the country, has extensive
resources available to assist homeowners and renovators with
their renovating needs.
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
[English]
NATIONAL UNITY
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, it
is 11.15 in Ottawa. Whom do the Liberals want to fire today?
We certainly see the trend. Tell the truth about cost overruns
on Parliament Hill and you're gone. Won't adjust your numbers on
the CPP fund and you're toast. Chair a committee that criticizes
the government and you're history.
Now the health minister has vowed to elevate this to a new
level. He said that he would get rid of the Ontario government
because it will not agree with the Liberal Party.
The Deputy Speaker: Perhaps I could remind the House that
we are on questions, not on Standing Order 31 statements. The
hon. the whip of the official opposition.
Mr. Chuck Strahl: Mr. Speaker, the idea that you are a
omnipotent seems to be going to their heads.
Does the government really believe that declaring war on Ontario
is the best way to promote national unity?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the Minister of Health is a voter in Ontario. He has a
right to express his opinions.
When it comes to promoting national unity it is a two way street
as between the federal government and all the provinces.
I do not know why the hon. member complains because the Minister
of Health, as a voter in Ontario, is expressing an opinion which
has already been expressed by a lot of other voters in the
province.
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the
minister was not speaking as an individual when he attacked the
Government of Ontario. He threatened Ontario with the power of
the federal government.
This is the sort of venomous, personal attack that got the
minister shuffled out of the justice portfolio into his current
portfolio when he carried out his vendetta against Brian
Mulroney.
I wonder is the real reason the health minister blew his stack
at Mike Harris yesterday because Mike Harris has shown compassion
toward hep C victims and the health minister has shown none.
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the people of Ontario will wonder why the Reform Party,
through its whip, is using the House of Commons in a campaign to
support the Harris Government of Ontario.
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the
health minister was asked if the anti-Ontario position was the
formal position of the Government of Canada and he said it was
the informal position. Just exactly what does that mean?
Will the federal government informally try to derail Ontario
initiatives? Will it informally overcharge it for its EI fund?
Or, perhaps today it will informally sabotage its efforts to
build a social union.
Does the health minister really think it is right to use
government resources and his influence to defeat the Ontario
government's initiatives on national unity?
1120
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, does the hon. member think it is right for him to use
the House of Commons to advance the Reform effort to create a new
reformatory party?
* * *
STANDING COMMITTEE ON FISHERIES AND OCEANS
Mr. Gary Lunn (Saanich—Gulf Islands, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
yesterday the Prime Minister said that the chairman of the
fisheries committee asked to be removed for personal reasons. The
chairman, however, has a different take. He said that he was
forced out.
The Prime Minister said that the chairman was very happy with
government policy. The chairman, however, said that he
vehemently disagreed with the direction of DFO.
Can the government clear up these contradictions?
Hon. Don Boudria (Leader of the Government in the House of
Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, that question is sheer and utter
nonsense. The chair of the committee was never asked to resign.
In any case, the report of the committee has not been concurred
in. May I suggest that the hon. member's question is not even in
order.
The Deputy Speaker: The hon. member must realize that
questions of committees are not the responsibility of the
government. I know he will be very careful in posing his
supplementary question.
Mr. Gary Lunn (Saanich—Gulf Islands, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the minister said that the member for Gander—Grand
Falls voluntarily stepped down as chairman of the fisheries
committee and that he was completely happy with government
policy.
This is just not the case. The former chairman says he was
forced out because he disagrees with the Minister of Fisheries
and Oceans. Why did the Prime Minister mislead the House?
The Deputy Speaker: I think the hon. member knows that is
out of order and we will deal with that later.
* * *
[Translation]
CANADIAN ECONOMY
Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay (Rimouski—Mitis, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Finance.
The president of the world bank said yesterday that the G7
countries should “take measures to stimulate their economy,
increase demand and rebuild confidence”. Yesterday, the Bloc
Quebecois put the very same thing to the minister to be told its
position was totally ridiculous.
Does the Minister of Finance think the position of the president
of the world bank totally ridiculous as well?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, what
happened yesterday is that the Bloc Quebecois wanted to blame
the Government of Canada for the ills of the world, and that is
totally ridiculous.
As regards the statement by the president of the world bank,
with whom I had long discussions, I agree with it. All
industrialized countries must join together to bring the Asian
and Russian economies out of the slump they are in. I made a
speech in this regard this week.
Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay (Rimouski—Mitis, BQ): Mr. Speaker, for the
past two months the Bloc Quebecois has been trying to wake up
the minister. All the better to have him awake now.
More and more analysts and experts are sounding the alarm. The
president of the world bank says this is the time to act, and
the minister concludes he is right.
When will the minister stop talking about the Canadian economy
and do something before we find ourselves in a full recession?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the
government has already acted. This is why we were so quick to
eliminate the deficit. This is why productivity in Canada is
now on the rise.
This is why the OECD and the IMF have congratulated the
Government of Canada on its efforts and results.
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron (Verchères—Les-Patriotes, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
I too have a question for the Minister of Finance.
The storm threatens Canada. The economy has been slowing down
for the past four months, and not just in Latin America or Asia,
but right here at home.
How many more months of negative growth will it take for the
minister to admit that there is a problem and that urgent action
is required to stimulate the economy, as the president of the
World Bank has said?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, once
again, I agree fully with the president of the World Bank that
industrialized nations will have to co-ordinate their efforts.
That is not what Bloc Quebecois members are suggesting. They
are suggesting that we spend, and that we reduce government
revenue. In other words, that we go back to a deficit
situation. That is the worst thing we could do in today's
volatile global market.
1125
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron (Verchères—Les-Patriotes, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
if we are to believe the Minister of Finance, things are going
so well that we are only 700,000 jobs short of the number of
jobs before the last recession.
Does the minister understand that, at a time such as this, the
most elementary precaution requires that he take concrete action
to stimulate the economy, and that his worrisome failure to do
so puts our economy at risk?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
there is no doubt that we live in turbulent times. That is why
it was so important for the government to put its fiscal house
in order the way it did.
But let us look at the results in Canada. In 1997, 500,000 new
jobs were created. During the first eight months of this year,
200,000 jobs were created. The unemployment rate has dropped
from 11.5% to 8.3%. Today, the IMF tells us that Canada will
lead the G-7 countries in job creation.
[English]
Mr. Nelson Riis (Kamloops, Thompson and Highland Valleys,
NDP): Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of
Finance. He will probably be aware that President Clinton has
just gone on national television to warn the nation of the
dangers of the spreading global financial crisis. He is likely
also aware that the chairman of Europe's largest bank has
resigned in the last 24 hours over a billion dollar loss from his
bank, as well as the resignation of a number of his senior
directors.
I do not want the minister to go through the usual mantra of the
fundamentals being in place. Could the Minister of Finance tell
the House and millions of concerned Canadians what is the precise
extent of the exposure of Canada's chartered banks to—
The Deputy Speaker: The hon. the Minister of Finance.
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the hon. member asks a very important question. It is
one that the Superintendent of Financial Institutions has looked
into.
The superintendent has assured me he is confident that whatever
exposure Canadian banks have to the overall derivatives market is
one well within their capacity to handle. It is something that
we will monitor, and I appreciate the question.
Mr. Nelson Riis (Kamloops, Thompson and Highland Valleys,
NDP): Mr. Speaker, President Clinton has summoned the finance
ministers and central bank governors for a special meeting on
Monday morning to discuss this growing crisis. He is also aware
that the tumbling stock market puts mutual funds and a lot of the
savings of Canadians at risk.
Could the Minister of Finance tell the House what is the
collective exposure of the big six banks to risks associated with
mutual funds and hedge funds?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, again I am assured that the exposure of our major
financial institutions to the risks the member has just described
is well within their ability to handle.
A number of banks are involved in mutual funds. In terms of the
major hedge funds the hon. member probably saw the report where
the Toronto-Dominion Bank refused long term capital, which is the
hedge fund in most difficulty, because it had prudent policies in
place. I am assured that is common throughout our banking
system.
* * *
AGRICULTURE
Mr. Rick Borotsik (Brandon—Souris, PC): Mr. Speaker, as
we all know there is a nasty trade dispute going on between
Canada and the United States agriculture. In our committee
yesterday a senior trade official said that this was not unusual
during state governship elections, that this always happens.
Did the minister of agriculture not see this trade dispute
coming? If he did, why does he not have a contingency plan to
help save our producers?
Hon. Lyle Vanclief (Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I concur with the comments that were made
by officials at committee yesterday. I also concur with the fact
that every time there is an election in the United States they
seem to crank this issue up in the midwestern states.
I also want to inform the hon. member that many months ago I had
discussions about this very thing with the secretary of
agriculture in the United States. There have been ongoing
discussions. I am very optimistic that in the next few days
discussions which are taking place as we speak right now will be
very fruitful for the industry on both sides of the border.
1130
Mr. Rick Borotsik (Brandon—Souris, PC): Mr. Speaker,
the minister would probably have done just as well having those
discussions with my mother as the secretary of agriculture for
the United States.
As early as last night the Governor of South Dakota, Bill
Janklow, said that he will not give up his dispute until the U.S.
sues Canada for unfair trading practices.
Is the minister simply going to sit back and hope that Secretary
of Agriculture Dan Glickman is going to solve the problem?
Hon. Lyle Vanclief (Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the manner in which we as the Canadian
government have solved these problems in the past, we will solve
them in the future. We will sit down at the table and we will do
it.
Yes, I am confident that Mr. Janklow is not going to sue the
Canadian government.
* * *
CANADA PENSION PLAN
Mr. Grant McNally (Dewdney—Alouette, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
it is incredible how this government treats people who get in its
way. If someone disagrees with the Liberals on human rights,
they get pepper sprayed. If they disagree with the Liberals on
fish, they get fired, even if they are a Liberal MP. If they
disagree with the Liberals on CPP, as Bernard Dussault did, they
get fired and then they get sued.
My question is for the finance minister. Will tax dollars be
used to pay for that case?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, if the hon. member is going to have ridiculous preambles
in his question he has to expect that people will reply to them.
The fact is that the Superintendent of Financial Institutions
runs a separate agency and he is independent. He has made very
clear the degree to which he wants to protect his independence.
There were management differences between he and the chief
actuary. Under those circumstances the superintendent acted.
Mr. Grant McNally (Dewdney—Alouette, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, if the minister wants to talk about ridiculous preambles
he should take a look at his answer. That was ridiculous.
It is clear that Mr. Palmer stated himself that political
comments were on the table. They were involved in this and he
knows it.
Because the minister did not answer the question the first time,
I want to ask him once again whether tax dollars are going to be
used in this case. Yes or no?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, once again, Mr. Palmer categorically denied that there
was any political influence or interference.
The condition precedent to the member's question simply does not
bear examination in the light of day.
* * *
[Translation]
EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Mr. René Canuel (Matapédia—Matane, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my question
is for the Minister of Human Resources Development.
The minister has brought in a short week pilot project, in order
to remedy some of the shortcomings in his employment insurance
reform.
Since the majority of seasonal workers are just about to come to
the end of their peak work period, and are liable to be
penalized by any additional short weeks, can the minister
confirm that he will be bringing in the necessary amendments to
the legislation to correct this serious problem?
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew (Minister of Human Resources
Development, Lib.): Yes, Mr. Speaker. As you know, our
government has undertaken an extremely important employment
insurance reform, one which included a commitment to monitor
very closely the impact of our reform.
That is why, when we learned that the short week situation was
creating problems, in eastern Canada in particular but in other
regions as well, we reacted promptly and set up the short week
program, that is two pilot projects we are in the process of
evaluating to see which is more effective and serves people
better.
Mr. René Canuel (Matapédia—Matane, BQ): Mr. Speaker, that does
not solve the problem in the least.
When is the minister going to stop harassing people with
unstable employment, and settle the problem for once and for
all?
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew (Minister of Human Resources
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, that is what I, as Minister of
Human Resources Development, and we, as a government, have been
doing all along.
We are addressing the situation of those with precarious
employment and that is why we have put into place the body of
measures that accompany employment insurance reform, which has
yielded extremely positive results in a number of regions of our
country.
* * *
[English]
TAXATION
Mr. Gurmant Grewal (Surrey Central, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
small businesses create more than 85% of jobs in Canada. The
Canadian Federation of Independent Business, with 90,000 members,
says that the number one thing this government can do to create
more jobs is to lower payroll taxes like EI and CPP.
1135
Either we believe this taxman or small business. Either the
money is better spent by this taxman or by businesses, workers
and their families.
Why would anyone take his word over the word of small business?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, every year since we have taken office we have reduced
payroll taxes. We will continue to do that.
In addition, we eliminated the EI premiums for young Canadians.
At the same time we brought in a special measure to help small
and medium size business in terms of the millennium bug problem.
If we go through the Income Tax Act and the various measures that
the federal government has brought in, there is a whole series of
measures which recognize the great importance of small business.
The only question is—
The Deputy Speaker: The hon. member for New
Westminster—Coquitlam—Burnaby.
* * *
EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Mr. Paul Forseth (New Westminster—Coquitlam—Burnaby,
Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the finance minister says that he will
not reduce excessively high employment insurance premiums, saying
that such a move relates to recession.
Why is that the case? What happened to the minister's rainy day
fund? What happened to sound fiscal management?
Why are the nation's finances so badly mismanaged that spending
the savings of workers and employers is his only way out?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, it is precisely because of what is happening in the
world that we want to keep in place the caution and the prudent
measures that we have put in place.
Perhaps the hon. member has been asleep for the last couple of
months. There have been fundamental changes that have occurred
worldwide. Russia is virtually without a government. The
Japanese banking system is in great difficulty. All of these
measures are impinging upon North America and ultimately the
Canadian economy.
We want to make sure that the same caution that allowed us to
eliminate the deficit, the same caution that saw our productivity
rise, continues.
* * *
[Translation]
CANADIAN COAST GUARD
Mr. Antoine Dubé (Lévis-et-Chutes-de-la-Chaudière, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
my question is for the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans.
With his response yesterday on icebreaking, either he does not
understand the matter or he could not care less.
Does he realize that the new icebreaking fee will hit port
activity even harder in Quebec than elsewhere?
[English]
Hon. David Anderson (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the question yesterday and the one today
come from the imposition of fees for ice breaking and marine aids
which total approximately 17% of the actual costs of the services
provided. We are attempting to make sure that those who use the
services pay at least 17% of the costs. Then the general
taxpayer is, of course, relieved of that.
The problem with the ports of Quebec is that to get to them
vessels have to go through waters much closer to Newfoundland.
Therefore, if there is ice breaking, the inevitable result is
they could just ice break in the St. Lawrence, but it would not
do much good because the ships would never get to port.
[Translation]
Mr. Antoine Dubé (Lévis-et-Chutes-de-la-Chaudière, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, given the devastating effect of the icebreaking fees,
is the minister prepared to call for a moratorium and have an
impact study done immediately?
[English]
Hon. David Anderson (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we have been setting this particular
proposal for the last four years. We have had intense
consultations with the industry. We have re-examined this in
every possible way.
The very suggestion that the member makes makes clear that the
Bloc Quebecois simply does not understand the importance of
making sure that those who use services pay at least some measure
of the services provided by the general taxpayer of Canada.
In this case they will pay approximately 17%. We think that is
a good start.
* * *
EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Mr. Roy Bailey (Souris—Moose Mountain, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I believe the people of Canada need this answer. My
question is to the Minister of Finance.
Will taxpayer dollars be used to help in the case of the firing
of Mr. Dussault? Yes or no?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, there are established rules of the Public Service
Commission in these kinds of conditions and those rules will
apply.
1140
Mr. Lee Morrison (Cypress Hills—Grasslands, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, my question is also for the Minister of Finance.
I gather from his recent reply that the answer is yes, but would
he please confirm for this House that Canadian taxpayer dollars
are indeed going to be used in the lawsuit against Mr. Dussault?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I am again going to say that there are established rules
on how to handle this kind of thing and those established rules
will be followed.
* * *
[Translation]
MERCHANT MARINE VETERANS
Mr. René Laurin (Joliette, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my question is for
the Minister of Veterans Affairs.
On September 28, three veterans of the second world war who had
been in the merchant marines began a hunger strike in a call for
justice from the government.
During the review of the Pension Act and the War Veterans
Allowance Act, will the minister make measures applying to
veterans of the merchant marines retroactive as they would like?
[English]
Mr. Bob Wood (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Veterans
Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I would like to remind the hon.
member that the 1992 legislation was introduced by the previous
government and supported by members on all sides of the House,
including myself. The legislation was introduced by the former
Conservative government and it did not provide retroactive
benefits to merchant navy veterans.
I for one accept that the legislation introduced by that
government was not retroactive.
* * *
TAXATION
Mr. Roger Gallaway (Sarnia—Lambton, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
my question is for the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister
for International Trade.
One of our largest trading partners, the state of Michigan, has
now imposed a single business tax which applies to all companies
doing business in that state, but allows American corporations a
distinct advantage in that they have the right to recover the
tax.
I would like to know from the parliamentary secretary what
action will be taken under NAFTA to stop this blatant
discriminatory action against Canadian companies.
Mr. Bob Speller (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister for
International Trade, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the Government of
Canada is well aware that the state of Michigan has revised its
single business tax. I want to thank him and particularly the
deputy prime minister for working hard on this issue.
The Minister for International Trade has instructed our
consulate in Detroit to meet with the Michigan treasury
department to express to them in the strongest of terms our
concern with this issue.
We will continue to work with the province of Ontario and all
affected businesses to help resolve this dispute.
* * *
EQUALITY
Mr. Derrek Konrad (Prince Albert, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
last week in a joint session of the Houses of Parliament the
Prime Minister honoured Nelson Mandela for having fought for the
creation of a non-race based constitution and a democratic
society.
What makes that a big, square pill for the rest of Canadians to
swallow is that the Prime Minister was part of creating Canada's
race based constitution and is creating government across this
country based on race.
When will the Prime Minister admit to the hypocrisy and start to
build a legacy for himself and all Canadians of racial equality?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I think we have to categorically reject the unwarranted,
inaccurate and false assertion that our Constitution is race
based. The core is the charter of rights and freedoms which is
intended to treat people on the basis of fairness wherever they
live and whatever their origin in our great country.
I do not know why the Reform Party is unwilling to support our
Constitution inside and outside our country. Look at what the
leader of the Reform Party said when he made his trip outside the
country when the House was adjourned.
* * *
ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Myron Thompson (Wild Rose, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
recently the Indian affairs minister travelled to the Alexander
reserve in Alberta and declared it as an ideal type of reserve
and the way that reserves ought to operate.
I more recently went to the same reserve. I visited the homes
of many grassroots natives. They were sitting on apple crates
and tree stumps. Their homes do not have electricity or running
water. There are holes in the roofs and there is poverty. There
are third world conditions on these reserves and this government
will not recognize it.
When is this government going to get out of its ivory tower and
demand that the chiefs and councils be accountable to grassroots
natives across this country?
1145
Mr. David Iftody (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Indian Affairs and Northern Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
I thank the hon. member for his question and his renewed interest
in the welfare of aboriginal people in Canada.
I would only suggest to the hon. member that if he is interested
in the welfare of aboriginal people, which he ought to be as the
deputy critic, perhaps he could make those same suggestions to
the member for Skeena who keeps opposing the Nisga'a deal.
* * *
AGRICULTURE
Mr. John Solomon (Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, as the global economy teeters on the edge and commodity
prices plummet, farmers are feeling pretty cynical and very
nervous. Farm prices are dropping and fear is rising. Farm
incomes are falling by as much as 40% this year and farm leaders
are pleading with the minister of agriculture to help. Farmers
want to know if he is listening.
What is the minister of agriculture prepared to do to stem the
looming crisis facing Canadian farm families?
Hon. Lyle Vanclief (Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we are doing a lot of things in that we
are assisting the agriculture and agri-food industry to find
markets for their products not only in Canada but on the
international scene as well. We are managing with them in
co-operation with the producers, provincial governments and the
federal government the best safety net system that any farm group
has in the world.
Mr. John Solomon (Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, NISA right now covers one month's expenses for the
average farmer while the U.S. Congress is debating an extra $7
billion to help its farmers. U.S. and European farmers receive
massive support from their governments but here in Canada the
Liberal government has killed the Crow rate, has gutted the rail
system and slashes farm support by over two-thirds. Farmers want
backbone, not backdown.
Will the minister of agriculture stand up for farmers and bring
forward a farm aid package quickly? Will he assure that it is
more than just a band-aid on a hemorrhage?
Hon. Lyle Vanclief (Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, farmers already know that the package is
there. As a matter of fact, in the net income stabilization
accounts alone there is $2.5 billion. In a conference call on
this and a number of issues, the farm leaders in the member's
part of the country just two days ago advised me not to go into
ad hoc payments, we need the strength of our industry and to use
the safety net system that is there already.
* * *
GOVERNMENT OF CANADA
Mr. Scott Brison (Kings—Hants, PC): Mr. Speaker, the
auditor general exposed the deceitful accounting of the
millennium scholarship fund and he was reprimanded. Bernard
Dussault tried to tell Canadians the truth about their pensions
and he was fired. George Baker tried to tell Canadians the truth
about their fishery and he was fired.
Are George Baker and Bernard Dussault the latest victims of a
government addicted to abuse of power? Was the objectivity and
integrity of these individuals incompatible with the oppressive
style of this government?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the superintendent of financial institutions has made it
very clear that there were management differences between him and
the chief actuary. He has also made it very clear that there was
no political interference. There was no political influence. The
superintendent runs an independent agency. He is very jealous of
his own independence, and properly so. He acted within his own
mandate.
Mr. Scott Brison (Kings—Hants, PC): Mr. Speaker,
perhaps the superintendent was jealous of Bernard Dussault and
his objectivity. I would like to know as well who is going to be
paying the legal fees for the superintendent?
Another abuse of power we learn of today is that the Prime
Minister was directly involved in the lawsuit, the witch hunt
against former Prime Minister Brian Mulroney. The Prime Minister
quashed an offer made to Mulroney to settle out of court. When
the former justice minister wanted to apologize to the former
prime minister, the Prime Minister said no.
Will the Prime Minister apologize for his petty partisan and
pathetically political attack on former Prime Minister Brian
Mulroney or was this simply another abuse of power?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the lawsuit in question was settled with the plaintiff,
Mr. Mulroney, dropping his claim for damages and accepting
through a signed minutes of settlement that the RCMP instituted
the investigation on its own. The investigation is continuing.
I think the hon. member ought to read carefully the minutes of
settlement. It will show that his questions are completely
groundless.
* * *
1150
FORESTRY
Mr. Roy Cullen (Etobicoke North, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans. The forest
industry in Ontario, B.C. and Alberta has expressed grave concern
about the recent decision in the Sunpine case, a case involving
access to timber resources. This decision could very negatively
impact the forest industry. Will the minister be taking action
on this very important matter?
Hon. David Anderson (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the government naturally wants to have
thorough environmental examinations. We want to make sure public
involvement is at the appropriate level and we want to make sure
we improve the management of the Canadian Environmental
Assessment Act. It is for these reasons that I have decided to
appeal the Sunpine decision. If left unappealed, the decision
would undermine the discretion of federal departments to
determine the scope of environmental assessments which is a very
important part of CEAA.
* * *
CANADA PENSION PLAN
Mr. Philip Mayfield (Cariboo—Chilcotin, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the minister sure took quick action when he fired the
chairman of the fisheries committee but I want to ask a question
of the finance minister. He says that the rules allow the
taxpayers to cover the cost of Palmer's lawsuit against Mr.
Dussault. Does the finance minister think this is an acceptable
use of taxpayer dollars?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, that is not what I said. I said there are rules that
cover this kind of thing and those rules will apply.
* * *
[Translation]
KOSOVO
Mr. Daniel Turp (Beauharnois—Salaberry, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the
Minister of Foreign Affairs has expressed his sorrow at and
concern over the situation in Kosovo, but is still banking on an
American diplomatic mission and on discussions between his
personal representative and President Milosevic, the very person
who has caused negotiations to fail three times over the past
six months.
Is it not time Canada called clearly for the use of armed force
to put an end to the massacres, the exodus and the extermination
of the Kosovar people?
[English]
Mr. Julian Reed (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Foreign Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I can report to the
House that the Minister of Foreign Affairs met yesterday morning
with the secretary general of the United Nations to express
Canada's very deep concern.
I thank all the members who supported the resolution that was
passed in this House. Canada stands by our NATO commitments and
we are still urging the security council to pass a resolution. I
expect that—
The Deputy Speaker: The hon. member for Churchill River.
* * *
BANFF NATIONAL PARK
Mr. Rick Laliberte (Churchill River, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
my question is to the minister of heritage. The Liberal
government tells Canadians that only basic and essential
development can occur at the Banff National Park. For this
reason the village of Lake Louise is denied improved medical
facilities, a small church and a school. But when CP Hotels
wants a seven storey convention centre on the lakeshore, this
government jumps to its approval. Can the minister of heritage
explain why a conference centre is more essential than the basic
needs of a community?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Minister of Canadian Heritage, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I think the member who belongs to a party that
supports the integrity of Canada's national park system will
understand that the government wants a plan that will keep parks
for all Canadians and not turn them into residential areas.
In the Lake Louise approval we were able to recuperate 42 acres
of land which would have gone to a golf course and for other
activities. Instead we have put them back to nature. If the
member and his party look at the overall Banff plan they will see
we have a good plan to save the park for all Canadians.
* * *
[Translation]
BOMBARDIER
Ms. Diane St-Jacques (Shefford, PC): Mr. Speaker, my question is
for the Minister of Transport.
Bombardier, which is located in my riding, submitted an
application to the Department of Transport for the certification
of a low-speed vehicle called Bombardier NV.
The NV is the first close range electrical vehicle produced on a
large scale. This vehicle, which has already been certified in
the United States, was recognized by the American department of
energy as the leader in air quality protection.
Since I am convinced the Canadian government will appreciate the
jobs created to produce this vehicle, I ask the minister whether
he can make sure that—
The Deputy Speaker: The hon. Minister of Transport.
1155
Hon. David M. Collenette (Minister of Transport, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, we are currently evaluating the risks associated with
this type of vehicle, to determine the relevance and usefulness
of creating a new category of vehicles, and to develop new
safety standards.
[English]
This is a particularly good initiative that Bombardier is taking
in having a small electric battery driven vehicle that could be
used in Canada's cities and help with the cutting down of
pollution. Our department is seriously evaluating the use of
that vehicle.
* * *
CANADIAN FORCES
Ms. Sophia Leung (Vancouver Kingsway, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
concern has been raised whether the Canadian Forces assist
British Columbia in case of natural disaster.
Can the Minister of National Defence tell the House what the
Canadian Forces did to assist British Columbia during the summer
battle against forest fires?
Mr. Robert Bertrand (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
National Defence, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member
for the question because it gives me an opportunity to talk about
our fine Canadian Forces.
The Canadian Forces are a multipurpose, combat capable force. As
such they are equipped and receive a broad range of training
suitable for a wide spectrum of operations. They may on some
occasions receive mission specific training before being
deployed. This kind of training has enabled them to assist many
communities across the country which have been ravaged by natural
disasters over the past couple of years.
* * *
JUSTICE
Mr. Chuck Cadman (Surrey North, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, a man
has recently been charged for a rape committed two and half years
ago while he was on bail for an earlier sexual assault. He could
have been charged much earlier had the Burnaby RCMP not taken two
years to report the first assault into the violent crime linkage
analysis system.
I have asked the solicitor general in the past regarding
problems with delays in reporting and data entry backlog for
ViCLAS. Again, has he done anything and if not, why not?
[Translation]
Mr. Jacques Saada (Parliamentary Secretary to Solicitor General
of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I will be pleased to look at what
is happening regarding this issue and to report to the hon.
member at the first opportunity.
* * *
THE ENVIRONMENT
Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold (Jonquière, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of the Environment.
Yesterday, we learned that, following Bill C-14, the government
now intends to use a national strategy to meddle in the area of
drinking water, a matter of provincial jurisdiction.
When will the minister honour the Constitution and acknowledge
that drinking water is a natural resource and therefore a
provincial matter?
[English]
Hon. Christine Stewart (Minister of the Environment,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the federal government is concerned about
the export of bulk fresh water. We do permit for the export of
bottled drinking water. That occurs with great frequency right
now.
However, the issue of the export of bulk fresh water is of
concern to the federal government. It is a national issue.
Individual provinces do have some authority but it is in the area
of a national issue as well.
* * *
AGRICULTURE
Mr. John Solomon (Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the minister of agriculture.
European countries and the American government are providing
substantial farm aid programs for their farmers and their farm
families.
Will the minister of agriculture support early next week a
debate on the looming farm crisis, the agriculture crisis in this
country? Will he support such a debate?
Hon. Lyle Vanclief (Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am engaged in that debate every day and
if the hon. member, now that he has an interest in it, wishes to
participate in that debate I would welcome his contribution at
any time.
* * *
[Translation]
AIRBUS AFFAIR
Mr. André Bachand (Richmond—Arthabaska, PC): Mr. Speaker, new
allegations are pointing to the involvement of the Prime
Minister and his cabinet in the Airbus affair.
A few words suffice to describe the Airbus and the APEC affairs:
misuse of political power.
Is the Prime Minister aware, yes or no, of the RCMP
investigation prior to November 18, 1995 and does he continue to
deny having conversations with his Minister of Justice about the
Airbus affair?
1200
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, Mr.
Mulroney's response, as expressed through his lawyer, is clear.
When they signed the document—
[English]
When the minutes of settlement were signed in Mr. Mulroney's
lawsuit, it says very clearly the parties accept that the RCMP on
its own initiated the Airbus investigation. This was signed on
behalf of Mr. Mulroney. Certainly if he was willing to have this
signed, this should answer the matter.
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
[English]
INTERPARLIAMENTARY DELEGATIONS
The Deputy Speaker: Pursuant to Standing Order 34 I
have the honour to present to the House in both official
languages the report of the parliamentary delegation that visited
Germany from June 21 to 28, 1998.
* * *
COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE
PROCEDURE AND HOUSE AFFAIRS
Ms. Marlene Catterall (Ottawa West—Nepean, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I have the honour to present the 38th report of the
Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs regarding the
membership and the associate membership of some standing
committees of the House.
[Translation]
If the House gives its consent, I intend to move concurrence in
the 38th report later this day.
* * *
[English]
CANADA ELECTIONS ACT
Mr. Nelson Riis (Kamloops, Thompson and Highland Valleys,
NDP) moved for leave to introduce Bill C-437, an act to amend
the Canada Elections Act.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to introduce this bill
today. This bill has to do with people in Canada 16 and 17 years
old who are not able to vote in national elections. At age 16
people can join the armed forces, drive vehicles, participate in
party conventions to select leaders of political parties and
participate in the development of policy.
In countries where the voting age is 16, I am pleased to say
that the participation rate is exceedingly high. This tells us
that given the opportunity, young people will participate in the
political process even more than their parents.
This private members' bill is an effort to lower the voting age
from 18 to 16 years for national elections.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed)
* * *
COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE
PROCEDURE AND HOUSE AFFAIRS
Ms. Marlene Catterall (Ottawa West—Nepean, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I move that the 38th report of the Standing Committee on
Procedure and House Affairs presented to the House earlier this
day be concurred in.
(Motion agreed to)
* * *
PETITIONS
ADOPTIVE PARENTS BENEFIT
Mr. Keith Martin (Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I have a few petitions.
The first one is signed by hundreds of people from my riding.
It calls upon parliament to end the discrimination against
adopted children by reinstating the adoptive parents benefit that
was eliminated in 1991, thereby equalizing the benefits received
by biological and adoptive parents.
1205
YOUNG OFFENDERS ACT
Mr. Keith Martin (Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the second petition, again signed by hundreds of people
from my riding of Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, calls upon parliament
to enact legislation to repeal the Young Offenders Act and
replace it with an act that will provide adequate penalties to
protect society and at the same time to work with the provinces
to implement prevention programs such as a national head start
program and address the root causes of crime.
NATIONAL HEAD START PROGRAM
Mr. Keith Martin (Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I have another petition again signed by hundreds of
people from my riding of Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca and elsewhere in
British Columbia.
The petition calls upon parliament to enact legislation to
implement in conjunction with the provinces a national head start
program for parents and children that would concentrate on the
critical childhood formative years and give children the
necessary building blocks to become responsible productive
adults. This national initiative would focus on preventing crime
and reducing socially unacceptable behaviour in society and I
concur.
The Deputy Speaker: The hon. member for Esquimalt—Juan
de Fuca is an experienced member. He knows he is not to express
his concurrence or otherwise in respect to petitions he presents
but to give a brief summary. I know it is useful to remind hon.
members of the rules once in awhile and perhaps over the summer
he forgot.
PUBLIC SAFETY OFFICERS COMPENSATION FUND
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
have three petitions. The first has to do with our police
officers and firefighters. It is signed by a number of
Canadians, including some from my own riding of Mississauga
South.
The petitioners draw to the attention of the House that police
officers and firefighters are required to place their lives at
risk on a daily basis as they discharge their duties. Often the
employment benefits they have do not provide sufficient
compensation to their families when one of them loses their life
in the line of duty. Further, the public also mourns the loss of
our police officers and firefighters killed in the line of duty
and they wish to support their surviving families in a tangible
way in their time of need.
The petitioners therefore ask parliament to consider
establishing a public safety officers compensation fund for the
benefit of families of public safety officers who are killed in
the line of duty.
LABELLING OF ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): The second
petition, Mr. Speaker, has to do with health warning labels on
the containers of alcoholic beverages.
The petitioners draw to the attention of the House that the
consumption of alcoholic beverages may cause health problems.
Specifically, fetal alcohol syndrome and alcohol related birth
defects are 100% preventable by avoiding alcohol consumption
during pregnancy. Further, consumption of alcoholic beverages
impairs one's ability to operate machinery or automobile
equipment.
The petitioners therefore call upon parliament to require health
warning labels to be placed on the containers of alcoholic
products to warn expectant mothers and others of the risks
associated with alcohol consumption.
HUMAN RIGHTS
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the final petition is on the issue of human rights.
The petitioners, in this year marking the 50th anniversary of
the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights, would like to draw
to the attention of the House that Canada is internationally
recognized as a leader in promoting human rights around the world
and that human rights abuses tragically continue in many
countries around the world, including Indonesia.
The petitioners therefore call upon parliament on behalf of the
Government of Canada to appeal for action by leaders of countries
where human rights are not being protected and to seek to bring
to justice those responsible for the violation of internationally
recognized universal human rights.
THE FAMILY
Mr. Brent St. Denis (Algoma—Manitoulin, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I have a petition from several dozen constituents of
mine from Elliot Lake. They request that parliament support a
motion concerning the rights of parents vis-à-vis the rights of
the child and that all such matters take into consideration all
members of the family.
* * *
[Translation]
QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
Mr. Mauril Bélanger (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Canadian Heritage, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I would ask that all
questions be allowed to stand.
The Deputy Speaker: Is it agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
* * *
[English]
COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE
FINANCE
Mr. Bob Kilger (Stormont—Dundas, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
there have been discussions among all the parties and I believe
you would find unanimous consent for the following motion. I
move:
That the Standing Committee on Finance be allowed to travel
across Canada, from October 4 to November 10, 1998, in relation
to its prebudget consultations and its consultations on the
recommendations of the Task Force Report on the Future of the
Canadian Financial Services Sector and that the necessary staff
do accompany the committee.
1210
If I might, I would like to add a brief explanation to the
working schedule of the committee as it was understood by
agreement by the whips of all parties.
[Translation]
The committee will table a final report in early December on the
pre-budgetary consultations, at the same time as a preliminary
report on its examination of what is commonly known as the
MacKay report.
That examination will continue throughout February 1999, with
hearings to be held here in Ottawa. A final report on the
MacKay report will then be prepared for tabling in March 1999.
I thank my colleagues, the whips of all parties, for their
co-operation in this matter.
[English]
The Deputy Speaker: Does the chief government whip have
the unanimous consent to propose the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Deputy Speaker: Is it the pleasure of the House to
adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
(Motion agreed to)
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[English]
CANADA SMALL BUSINESS FINANCING ACT
The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-53, an
act to increase the availability of financing for the
establishment, expansion, modernization and improvement of small
businesses, be read the second time and referred to a committee;
and on the motion that the question be now put.
Mr. John Solomon (Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, I am pleased to stand in this House today to provide
some comments with respect to Bill C-53, the Canada Small
Business Financing Act. This act will increase the availability
of financing for the establishment, expansion, modernization and
improvement of small businesses in Canada.
At this point we are also debating the motion of the Liberal
Party to cut the debate short. This is a very serious matter
that the government has implemented.
We see two political parties in the House of Commons playing
games.
The Reform Party wants to kill the bill. Reform Party members
time after time, speaker after speaker, whether they are from
British Columbia, Alberta, Saskatchewan or Manitoba, stand in
this House and say that small businesses do not deserve fair
financing opportunities for their progress. Reform Party members
time after time from every province they represent, the four
provinces in western Canada, say that this bill is bad and that
they want to kill it.
This bill will affect about 200,000 businesses over the next
number of years.
The Reform Party is playing what many people describe as silly
games. The Liberal government in response to silly games jumps
right in feet first and plays sillier games by ending the debate,
closing or limiting the debate on this bill which is very
important to small business owners and employees of small
businesses in this country. The NDP is really quite unhappy that
both of those political parties are playing games with the
futures of these businesses and the families that are supported
by them.
As well, we have seen the Liberal Party time after time limit or
close debate on matters that are of economic importance to our
country. We have seen it invoke closure so many times in this
House I have lost count.
1215
We have seen it invoke closure on the wheat board act, which was
supposed to be an act that encouraged debate and provided
opportunities for members of parliament to strengthen the wheat
board. Instead, the Reform played its silly games. The Liberal
government jumped right in and played more silly games, ending in
a wheat board act that is not as strong as it should have been if
it had full debate in the House of Commons.
We have seen the Liberal government opposite limit debate on
very important budget bills because the Reform Party played silly
games. The Liberal Party gets sucked in. It embraces these
silly games and plays sillier games. We have seen it cut debate
on the World Trade Organization legislation.
The World Trade Organization has handcuffed Canadians but not
Americans to the detriment of agriculture in this country, to the
detriment of many small, medium and large enterprises in this
country. We are seeing firsthand in Canada this week the effects
of limiting of debate on the very bad World Trade Organization
legislation.
Today we see one more silly game by the Liberals, and the Reform
Party is embracing silly approaches to the business of the
nation. I believe that both parties are negligent in their
responsibility to the taxpayers of the country. They are
negligent to the small business community because they do not
want full debate or full discussion on the bill. The Reform Party
not only does not want debate. It does not want the bill. It
does not want to have any small businesses left in the country.
When it comes to business people viewing the Reform Party's real
agenda, its big business, anti-small business agenda, the Reform
Party will pay very dearly for that come the next election. The
Liberals will not benefit from that because they are the ones who
are inciting the Reform Party to play these stupid games.
I am from Saskatchewan. In part I share the comments of the
member of parliament for Souris—Moose Mountain, a Reform member
from Saskatchewan. He is concerned about the agricultural
problem in western Canada and in our country. I am very
concerned about this serious matter. I have had calls from and
discussions with farmers and their families over the last number
of weeks. Farmers in Saskatchewan and in other parts of the
country are in desperate straits.
We have seen commodity prices fall. We have seen the incomes of
farm families falling. Many predict that they will fall by about
40% this winter alone. What this means is that one-third of the
farmers who are basically operating on a very tight margin could
potentially loose their farms.
What do we have here? We have a Liberal government and a Reform
Party that are killing debate on a small business bill. They do
not allow for wide-ranging debates and inputs from the House of
Commons on the agricultural farm aid packages which are
necessary. One of the key issues for us in the House is not just
small business and financing for small business but making sure
that our farm families have at least equal support from our
national government.
We are the only country in the OECD that does not have a
national agricultural policy or a program to assist our farmers.
When the Liberal government eliminated the Crow benefit we were
told that it was according to requirements of GATT and the WTO.
I went to the Council of Europe in Strasbourg, France, and
raised the issue with farmers and farm members of parliament from
36 European countries that subsidize their agricultural needs and
farm families. I said that the Liberal government in Canada was
eliminating the Crow benefits, a farm agricultural transportation
subsidy, because of the WTO. I asked whether they were to
eliminate subsidies in their countries which, by the way, total
about 60 cents on the dollar for European farmers from their
governments. We total about 2 cents on the dollar in Canada.
They said that GATT and WTO gave them five years to address
their subsidies to farmers. The Liberal government eliminated
these subsidies at the first possible opportunity. We are seeing
not just farmers going bankrupt in record numbers. We are also
seeing the transportation system being ripped apart by the
government as well.
1220
However, these European parliamentarians and the agriculture
committee of the Council of Europe said that under no
circumstances would they abandon their farmers to benefit the
United States of America in its need to have reduced subsidies
for other farmers except its own.
It has been three years since I have spoken to these politicians
in Europe. They said their subsidies were intact but their
farmers were still suffering but not as much as farmers in Canada
because they have a basic support package from their national
government and our government does not provide one.
I believe Bill C-53 is a work in progress. It should be
forwarded to the standing committee on industry for a detailed
review to make sure that small businesses have an opportunity to
access funding.
We have heard representations from the small business community
and some of their representatives such as the Canadian Federation
of Independent Business and others saying that one of the
important requirements of small business is access to capital.
We are very concerned that small business continue to have
access to capital. The bill will provide small businesses with
an opportunity to obtain some guaranteed loans which will be
totally financed by the businesses in question. This is not a
subsidy program but a loan guarantee program which I feel is very
necessary, particularly for the small business community.
I will raise a couple of concerns about the bill. It is
basically an update of the Small Business Loans Act, the SBLA,
which has been very successful over the years because businesses
can apply directly to an authorized lending institution for a
loan and their requirements can be met with respect to the SBLA
and now the new Canada small business financing act, the CSBFA.
The basic parameters of SBLA are not changed in the bill,
according to my information. There will still be asset based
debt financing to businesses with less than $5 million in annual
sales. The loans will remain capped at up to $250,000 per
business. There will be a maximum amount eligible for financing,
which is 90% of the cost of assets. There will also be a one
time registration fee of 2% which is paid to the government to
apply for this loan once it is accepted. The loan period will
remain pretty much static.
This initiative by government is important to small business
because 30,000 firms apply each year under the program. It is not
$250,000 per approved application. It actually averages to
around $68,000 per loan. For some people that may not sound that
large, but we have to understand that there are some very
interesting structures in the Canadian small business area.
For example, Thompson Lightstone & Company Limited just
completed a study in 1998 with respect to small business. It
found that two-thirds of small and medium enterprises report
annual sales of less than $500,000 a year. Thompson Lightstone
also reported that 49% of all businesses report sales of less
than $250,000 a year. This is up from 43% the previous year.
From 1997 to 1998 we saw an increase from 43% to 49% of all
businesses with less than $250,000 a year in sales. This study
also showed that small and medium enterprises employed on average
only seven full time people.
The Reform Party is trying to kick the heck out of small
companies that are trying to create jobs and trying to sell
services and products in this country and abroad. Yet it expects
in return support from the small business community. The small
business community will be quite interested in its comments with
respect to the bill and to small business. They will be
distributed across the country by all members of parliament who
support some kind of financing mechanism for small business.
1225
Another point I want to make is that the Canadian Federation of
Independent Business did a study of its membership. There are
between 70,000 and 90,000 members, depending on the year.
However, 27% of CFIB members believe that the availability of
financing is a problem. If the bill is killed by the Reform
Party 27% of all existing businesses will be concerned because
there will be almost zero availability for much of their
financing problems.
This figure does not quite jibe with the Lightstone statistics.
Lightstone says a top of mind issue of small and medium
enterprises is about 10% but that is because when the CFIB poll
its members it gave them a choice of about 10 issues: which of
these 10 issues are important to you and are first at mind?
The Lightstone polling is more of a cold random sample. It
calls up small business people who are very busy trying to do
their jobs and keep their businesses going. They are caught on
the phone and have to answer these questions. The first thing
that comes to the minds of most business people is that they need
more customers and more revenues. This is very important, but in
terms of key issues facing the viability of small business 27% is
a number which has been consistent throughout the years in all
the research I have seen.
The Lightstone report also provided interesting information with
respect to businesses. Lightstone said that 18% of the hundreds
of thousands of small business enterprises used an SBLA type of
loan guarantee and another 6% used some other form of loan
guarantee, be it a provincial government or a federal government
loan program.
Some 26% of small and medium enterprises are rural based. The
member for Souris—Moose Mountain indicated earlier that
agriculture was a problem and that it would not really help the
business community in his riding. He made a good point, but I do
not think he understands that 26% of these small and medium
enterprises are rural based.
The most important statistic I find with respect to the
breakdown of businesses and where they operate from in the
Lightstone report is the figure that 28% of all small businesses
are home based. That is a tremendous figure. It is a huge
figure which is backed up by Statistics Canada in its national
registry.
The Reform Party is attacking home based enterprises and other
small and medium enterprises by cutting off any opportunity they
may have for obtaining loan guarantees, which I remind members
are basically self-funding and self-financing from the business
community that uses them.
Some may argue that the auditor general had some concerns. Yes,
indeed the auditor general had some concerns with respect to the
Canada Small Business Loans Act. I happen to have some comments
from the auditor general in this regard. He was very concerned
about the accountability of some of these loans. He was very
concerned about how some businesses were abusing it with the
co-operation of certain financial institutions. He had some
other concerns in terms of auditing and keeping track of the
numbers and the government's potential liability.
These concerns are legitimate and I think all members of the
House would support them. The bill should be referred to
committee so that these concerns could be raised one more time
and the government could provide assurances in the bill at
committee that the auditor general's concerns will be addressed
and that the the very minor abuse by financial institutions and
by some businesses alike will be addressed and cleaned up.
We see in the SBLA program that 177,000 new loans from 1993 to
1997 were approved with loan guarantees. The total was about
$11.2 billion, a significant amount of money.
1230
We in the New Democratic Party have other concerns to raise with
the House. The concerns are more related to the pilot projects
the bill is going to undertake. Two pilot projects are proposed.
One is to extend the program's guarantee to cover capital
leasing and the other is to improve the voluntary sector as
eligible borrowers. We are concerned about the design of these
projects. We would like to raise with the Treasury Board
minister and the Minister of Finance our concern that it becomes
a regulatory process in terms of approving these loans. They are
not as transparent as they should be. The auditor general has
indicated that there should be some transparency in approving
these loans certainly with respect to the regulation thereof.
There is cost recovery under this program. We believe that if
there is a cost recovery component in these regulations the act
will be very beneficial to small business. The CFIB has some
concerns about capital leasing. It is concerned that the
$250,000 limit is quite high. It is concerned as is the auditor
general about larger firms beating the system. It is concerned
that the data collection and the monitoring are poor and should
be improved. We want to see this bill referred to committee so we
can raise these matters on behalf of small business and others.
We feel along with the CFIB that there may be some politicizing
of this bill in particular as we are providing the volunteer
sector with access to the SBLAs. The volunteer sector is a very
important sector in this country. It benefits by receiving
charitable donations and other donations which are tax supported
through the tax system. We are concerned this is just one more
way of saying to the volunteer agencies that we are not going to
provide any more funding to you but we will let you borrow money
through guarantees in the government.
We want to see this bill referred to committee for further
study. We want to make sure home based businesses, first nation
people and women are not excluded from the program. We want to
make sure the banks in this country are able to discriminate
between small and large businesses. We are also very concerned
about the mergers of the banks and how those will affect access
to capital for small businesses. The merging of the banks is
economically a very dangerous situation for our country. We
would like to see the mergers stopped because with respect to
this bill and small business the banks have admitted they have
failed in their delivery of small business financing and access
to capital for small business. We want to make sure the small
business community is given a fair shake in terms of reviewing
capital. I look forward to discussing this bill further in
committee.
Mr. Keith Martin (Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague from the NDP for his speech.
However, I will correct him on a number of points. The hon.
member suggests that we are somehow against the notion of this
bill. Nothing could be further from the truth. The Reform Party
has been on the cutting edge of providing constructive, effective
and pragmatic solutions in order to revamp our economy and make
it a nimble, aggressive tool for the people of Canada in the 21st
century. It is unfortunate that neither his party nor the
government has done as much as they could do on that matter.
The member alluded to what the auditor general mentioned. These
were not just small concerns. They were large concerns, concerns
of accountability. The auditor general said very clearly that
90% of the loans in the act would already have been made by
private sector banks and that there was no need of money from the
government. In other words, the taxpayer did not need to
subsidize loans to the private sector. In this era of declining
resources and a lack of money on behalf of all governments to
provide for programs we already have, we are opposed to the
taxpayer subsidizing the private sector on loans it would already
be getting.
1235
In effect the taxpayer is subsidizing the banks.
I would like to ask my hon. friend and colleague whether he will
join with the Reform Party in holding the government to task to
make sure this act is going to ensure the monies available are
going to small businesses that would not normally get a loan from
the bank and that accountability is put into the system so monies
will be invested in such a way that they come back to the
taxpayer and we have an ongoing replenishment of the cycle. This
is what the Reform Party is very much in favour of.
Mr. John Solomon: Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for
this question.
One of the concerns we have in the New Democratic Party is the
same concern he has and the same concern the auditor general has,
to make sure the abuses that have been taken with the SBLA
program are eliminated, the abuses larger businesses have been
instrumental in participating in, the banks in a co-operative
sense helping them abuse the system. These should be addressed
and terminated. That is why we want to see the bill sent to
committee, to make sure these points are raised, that there is
clarification and that there is no opportunity in the future for
abuse to take place such as this. I agree with the member on
that.
The NDP believes that a government has to be accountable, that a
government has to be responsible and that a government has to
deal fairly with the people it governs. We have proven this for
37 of 52 years in governing the province of Saskatchewan.
In Saskatchewan we have been re-elected time after time on these
three principles because we do not just preach but we take action
and implement the programs that Liberal-Tory-Reform coalitions do
not support.
Saskatchewan had 11 consecutive surplus budgets under the NDP
government of Allan Blakeney, no debts at all in the province of
Saskatchewan, free dental care for children 18 years of age and
under, the lowest tax rate in the country, the lowest
unemployment rate in the country, an almost free drug
prescription program in the seventies and early eighties.
We have seen the Reform style governments of Mr. Grant Devine
take all those programs, eliminate them, drive our province into
$16 billion in debt for one million people. Some Reformers in
the House of Commons were supporters of Mr. Devine. They are now
saying they are going to be accountable and responsible. I do not
think one person in Saskatchewan believes that to be the truth.
The member for the Reform Party may not agree with this. I ask
the Reform Party members from Alberta and British Columbia to
talk to people from Saskatchewan who have experienced the Reform
style government of Grant Devine which promised and implemented
the same promises they are blaming for their economic solutions
and who butchered our economy.
This small business Bill C-53 deserves full debate. It does not
deserve silly games that the Reform Party like to play with it.
Business is business in this country. Business is serious.
Business supports families. Business creates jobs. It is my view
that when this bill gets to committee we will be able to discuss
this fully and have the Reform Party put forward its
recommendations that Grant Devine put forward which proved to be
total and utter failures.
Mr. Philip Mayfield (Cariboo—Chilcotin, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I am very interested in the comments of my hon.
colleague.
I would like to tell members a little story. I was talking to a
businessman who runs a small sawmill in British Columbia not far
from where I live. He said that when the NDP took over the
government in British Columbia he had $200,000 in the bank. He
said that of course is long gone. He said that after this NDP
government last year he had a really good year. He lost only
$10,000.
This is what the NDP has done to British Columbia.
1240
The Small Business Loans Act is an important piece of
legislation. It is to support small business people,
entrepreneurs who are trying to create business, opportunities
and employment in Canada. But it takes the initiative of the
government, it takes the support of the provincial government and
it takes the courage of the entrepreneurs to do this.
Part of the difficulty with this bill as the auditor general has
pointed out is that there are too many conflicting ideas about
how many jobs it is creating and the government overestimates
this. He also has said that this bill is supporting the lending
institutions probably more than the small business people and I
believe this should be rectified.
I would like to ask the hon. member, in light of what is
happening in British Columbia, how his socialistic premises are
going to improve the opportunities of small business people when
governments like the New Democratic Party government in British
Columbia have done everything that they can to bring small
business and big business to its knees.
Mr. John Solomon: Mr. Speaker, we have seen firsthand in
Saskatchewan a Reform style of government.
Mr. Philip Mayfield: How about British Columbia?
Mr. John Solomon: If the member will give me one moment
to answer the question. He has given an example of one business
that has lost $10,000 and that is very sad. I was very
thoughtful and listened to his question and he does not want to
do that because he knows that he has a real problem. There is an
old saying in Saskatchewan with respect to what Reformers are
yipping and yapping from their seats on. When you throw a rock in
the dark and you hit a dog and a dog yelps, you've hit a dog.
That is what we have here. We have hit a dog because we have
seen the policies of the Reform Party in Saskatchewan in 1982 to
1991. They promised fewer taxes, fewer services, less
government. We have higher taxes, low services and huge debt.
People in Saskatchewan were so ticked off with the Reform Party
that it does not exist any more provincially. It abolished
itself.
Only 18 Reform members of the legislature under the Devine
Liberal-Reform coalition ended up being charged and found guilty
with respect to how they governed the country. I believe that is
the proof of the pudding. When we get Reform style governments
governing and 18 of them are charged and found guilty as a result
of their activities in delivering governments in the province
they can deliver, that is the proof of the pudding.
Mr. Ken Epp: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I believe
this member is very close to imputing improper motives to fellow
members of the House. That is against the rules of this House. I
would ask him to withdraw that.
The Deputy Speaker: I did not hear the hon. member
imputing motives. But perhaps he could clarify the situation for
the Chair. Perhaps the hon. member for Elk Island could tell us
what was imputing motives. I thought the hon. member was
discussing problems with the government in Saskatchewan, not with
the government here.
Mr. John Solomon: Mr. Speaker, I am a businessman by
profession. I was in business for six or seven years. There was
a saying in Saskatchewan under the old Reform style government of
Grant Devine. How do you start a small business in Saskatchewan
under the Reform style government of Grant Devine? Every
business person in the province was saying at that time you start
a big business and you wait a year under the Reform style
policies. That was the result of the Reform style government
of Grant Devine.
These people are really concerned about being associated with
Mr. Devine, but they were and they are. I do not begrudge them
the fact that they want to duck that relationship that has been
proven through membership cards in Saskatchewan that many of the
supporters of the Reform Party in Saskatchewan held. They do not
want to be associated with that. That is fair game. They can duck
that as they see fit. But the record shows very clearly that the
Reform style government of Grant Devine in Saskatchewan in the
1980s was clearly a bad government. I would hope that the Reform
Party members have learned a lesson from that and apologize to
this country for the disgraceful performance of their government
in the 1980s.
1245
Mr. Rick Borotsik (Brandon—Souris, PC): Mr. Speaker, I
will try not to be quite as partisan as the last two speakers who
rose to speak to Bill C-53, the the Canada small business
financing act. Perhaps later on I will explain to the hon.
member from the NDP that there are provincial governments across
this country which do have the proper policies in place to
encourage small business.
Make no mistake about it. Small business is the backbone of the
Canadian economy. It is the small businessmen, the small
businesswomen and small businesses themselves which hire people
and give them the opportunity of having employment in our
economy.
It is those small businesses which have to be assisted in some
fashion in order to identify and achieve the necessary working
capital and the operating capital that is required to develop and
start a small enterprise or a medium enterprise, referred to as
SMEs.
As a matter of fact, it was the 1961 Progressive Conservative
government of John Diefenbaker which introduced the first
legislation concerning small business, the Small Business Loans
Act. For over 37 years it has helped small businesses achieve
those finances that are absolutely required to put them in place
and help the Canadian economy.
Quite frankly, I should say off the bat that the critic for our
party, the hon. member for Markham, obviously agrees in principle
with the legislation that has been put forward.
However, there are, as there are in every piece of legislation,
problem areas. At committee stage it is hoped that the
amendments which will be put forward by the opposition parties
will be listened to logically by the government because, quite
frankly, no government has a lock on ideas on how to make
legislation better.
Logical amendments that should be put in place will come forward
in committee to make this piece of legislation better.
First I want to talk about small business in general. Perhaps
the hon. member from the NDP, who attacked other provincial
governments and policies which they have put in place, may well
want to listen to this.
In the province of Manitoba small business is appreciated for
what it really can do. Let me give some ideas and examples of
what has happened in my province just recently in developing what
I consider to be a business friendly environment, something which
has not happened, as was mentioned earlier, in the province of
British Columbia. In fact, businesses are being chased away and
are leaving in droves the province of British Columbia to go to
other business friendly environments.
Let me talk about the environment in Manitoba which now has, if
not the best, one of the best economic opportunities of the last
century.
Part of the business friendly environment involves taxation.
Taxes in the province of Manitoba have been reduced.
Workers' compensation assessment rates have fallen by 22% since
1988, the time of an NDP government, and will fall a further 5%
in 1999. A regressive payroll tax has been reduced in the
province of Manitoba.
The payroll tax exemption has increased from $100,000 to $1
million. That means that small businesses which have a payroll
less than $1 million will be exempt from a regressive payroll tax
in Manitoba.
The payroll tax rate will decline from 2.25% to 2.15% in 1999
which means that those businesses whose payroll is over $1
million will pay less in payroll taxes in 1999 than they do
currently. That is another reduction of a regressive payroll
tax.
1250
The capital tax exemption has risen from $1 million to $5
million which means there is a reduction in capital taxes to
small business enterprises. That makes it much easier for those
enterprises to do business in the province of Manitoba.
The retail sales tax has, since 1991, been applied alongside the
federal GST. It was previously applied on top of the federal
manufacturers sales tax. We do not have to go into the benefits
of the GST, which removed a very regressive manufacturers sales
tax and which made our ability as Canadians to compete with
international markets much easier and much better. This tax was
implemented by the Progressive Conservative government and then
embraced by the existing government, which said “We will scrap
the GST”. The GST was not scrapped and is now an unnecessary
evil.
Electricity used in mining and manufacturing activities in
Manitoba is now sales tax exempt. I wish the NDP government of
British Columbia would listen because these business friendly
improvements were made in the province of Manitoba to increase,
not decrease, the economy of the province.
When we talk about small and medium enterprises it is necessary
to recognize that they are the economic backbone of our country.
The people who we see walking in the streets are the people who
are employed by these corporations. These people pay substantial
taxes to the federal government. I mention this because the
government not only has an opportunity under Bill C-53 to make it
easier for small and medium enterprises, it could also make it
much easier for those same enterprises if it would embrace the
concept of less taxation.
There is a prime opportunity before us, which is the reduction
of EI premiums. Over the last two weeks in the House we have
talked about what should happen to the $19 billion surplus in the
EI account. We have heard from the government that the surplus
is going to be used in whatever way it sees fit, for education or
health care or whatever.
The government has a responsibility to look after education and
health care. It has done a very poor job by reducing by $6
billion the transfer payments that should be put into those
services which Canadians wish to have. That does not mean that
the moneys that came from the EI fund, an insurance fund, should
be used for those purposes. The law states that when there is a
surplus the surplus should be returned to those people who
invested in the fund.
The EI premium for employers is $3.78. The break-even rate that
has been calculated for the EI employment premium contribution is
$2.58. Currently $3.78 is being charged per $100 of earnings. A
reduction of $1.20 could be put in place now for employers.
What are we talking about in Bill C-53? Small businesses which
employ people. Reducing EI premiums would be a way to allow
dollars to go back into those businesses. It would allow those
same owners to hire more people, to produce more product, thus
enhancing our economy. Not only does this apply to the employer.
EI premiums for employees are currently being charged at $2.70
per $100. The break-even rate for employee EI premiums is $1.83.
1255
EI premiums for employees could be reduced to $1.83. But no,
the government likes to have a $6 billion to $7 billion annual
surplus, raised from the taxes of not only the employees but the
employers. Now the government has the opportunity to use it as a
slush fund for wonderful political projects which, quite frankly,
do not do one iota of good for the small businesses which are
paying all those costs.
Not only is it unfair, I believe that under the act it is
illegal. I am sure the Minister of Finance and the government
will change that in order to use that money as a slush fund.
We have a necessity to assist small and medium size enterprises.
Right now we have this piece of legislation before us. It is
good legislation because it was put in place by a good government
in 1961. However, legislation has to be adapted as the years go
by. Things have changed over the last 37 years and we have to
adapt.
Unfortunately the government has not adapted quite enough with
Bill C-53. Having it go to committee is the right thing to do.
But the very right thing to do is to have the government listen
when it goes there, to have the government listen to very good
amendments from the Progressive Conservative Party so that we can
make this legislation better.
Let me give one example of an area where the government does not
have the vision to look forward to how business should be done in
the future. I am talking about the knowledge-based industries.
If members of the government or members of other opposition
parties actually talked to their constituents, their businesses
and the people, they would recognize that achieving working
capital and operating capital for a nuts and bolts business is
easier than achieving that same capitalization for a
knowledge-based industry because with a knowledge-based industry
the asset is intellectual.
It might be difficult for government to understand that. I can
appreciate that, but I am sure that in committee we will be able
to lay it out in simplistic terms so that it will understand that
with the intellectual asset requirement in small businesses we
have to change the way we do business.
The Minister of Industry has actually stood in this House and
said that he embraces the knowledge-based industries. But there
is nothing in Bill C-53 that will achieve that. What we have to
do is make sure that the government recognizes that and adds to
this piece of legislation the ability for intellectual properties
and knowledge-based industries to be treated equally, as are
other types of small businesses trying to achieve the necessary
working capital for their industries.
As I said at the outset, we agree in principle with Bill C-53.
However, we would like to see some of those necessary changes.
There are some minor changes and there are some major changes, as
I mentioned, concerning intellectual properties.
This is only one small part of what it takes to achieve success
for our small businesses. I would like to suggest very strongly
that it is necessary not only for the Minister of Industry to
make the changes, but for the Minister of Finance to make the
necessary changes to make sure that we are successful in keeping
this very vital part of our society in business.
The member from the Reform Party talked about the agricultural
sector. I, too, am very familiar with that as I have been very
familiar with small business for most of my working life. There
is no doubt and no question in my mind that the agricultural
industry in this country right now is being adversely affected by
a number of factors.
One obviously is the major global economic downturn, particularly
in Asian markets. Agricultural industries are also being
affected by an ineffectual government. We must ensure that trade
deals which have already been negotiated are complied with. It is
not happening, as we see now in the northern states of the United
States. In fact governors, unilaterally, are suggesting that we
are not complying with our own rules of trade, which is not the
case.
1300
The government of the day is ineffectual in making sure that
those states comply. It is affecting my producers and our
country's agriculture industry. That is only another part of how
this government has unfortunately neglected small business in the
agriculture industry.
We can talk about a number of other things with respect to
agriculture but at this time I will suggest only one thing. We
would like to see the government have an open mind when this
legislation comes back to the House and when it is dealt with at
the committee level. Our critic, the member for Markham, will be
at the committee table. I hope the government will listen with an
open mind.
Mr. Ian Murray (Lanark—Carleton, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
do want to thank my colleague from Brandon—Souris for support in
moving this bill to committee as quickly as possible.
The one comment I wanted to make is to correct something my
colleague from Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca made in response to the
previous speaker. He was talking about the number of loans that
might or might not have been made without the Small Business
Loans Act. I believe the figure he referred to was 90% that
would have been approved even without the act being in place.
All members of parliament received some documentation from the
Minister of Industry on Bill C-53 entitled “Meeting the Changing
Needs”. In that document there is an item about incrementality,
in other words, measuring the extent to which loans made under
the program would not have been made at all or would have been
made under less favourable terms in the absence of the SBLA
program.
I just want to quote from the document. “While incrementality
is difficult to determine, studies have shown that under a broad
interpretation, as many as 86% of loans guaranteed under the
program since 1995 are incremental”. This means that either
these loans would not have been made at all to the small
businesses concerned, and that is 54% of firms, or they would
have been made under less favourable terms, and that applies to
32% of firms applying.
I just wanted to have that on the record. Even recognizing it
is difficult to draw firm conclusions about the subject of
incrementality, the latest studies that the Department of
Industry had undertaken on its behalf have shown that it is a
very significant program in terms of making access to capital
available to small businesses.
Mr. Keith Martin (Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I thank my colleague from the government for his
comments. I would be very interested and curious in seeing the
document he presented to the House because it flies in the face
of information that I have received.
I am pleased to speak on Bill C-53, the small business loans
bill. At the outset I would like to say that we in this party
have been very much in favour of trying to find innovative ways
in which small businesses can become more aggressive in trying to
meet the challenges in their need to acquire capital in order to
grow and become competitive.
While we agree with the notion of this bill and its intent, we
have a difficult time with parts of it. The auditor general
supports our contention that there needs to be more
accountability in the system to ensure that the moneys go to
businesses and that there is a mechanism of determining that the
money actually goes to the businesses that need it. We must also
ensure that those moneys are repaid, that they come back to the
taxpayers.
We found that the moneys are being disbursed to companies that
would by and large already receive bank loans. In effect this
bill has been subsidizing the banks. The banks do not need
subsidization. They are making some pretty fat profits and have
been doing so for some time in spite of the recent downturn the
entire economy is facing.
On the larger issue, our legislative agenda for the next few
months is about as useful as pabulum. Look at the situation in
our country today. The really big issues are a plunging loonie,
an economy that is in the doldrums and an international crisis
the proportions of which we have not seen since the Great
Depression.
Our health care system is collapsing. The CPP is in dire
straits. And we see issues for the House to spend time debating
that have very little meaning to those grand problems that affect
Canadians.
1305
We need to get back to dealing with the large issues. We need
to use this House in a way that we can find the best solutions
from within Canada and around the world and apply them to the
problems at hand.
The health care system is eroding. Canadians are in pain and are
on enormously long waiting lists. The future of the CPP is in
crisis. Our economy is falling apart. And we are looking at
small, minuscule issues dealing with these problems if we deal
with them at all. Let us get down to brass tacks. Let us get
down to the real issues at hand.
An important issue that Bill C-53 deals with is the economy. We
have seen the lowering dollar. There has been a consecutive
decline in the the GDP over the last four months. We have an
unemployment rate which is 4% higher than that of the United
States. Our productivity has declined. Our productivity was
significantly lower than that of the U.S. when our dollar was 90
cents. It is still low at 65 cents.
The public may or may not be aware of this, but our dollar is
declining for many reasons. Some people point fingers at the
Asian flu. Some people point fingers at the Russian meltdown.
The bottom line is when we point a finger at something, three
fingers point back at us. It is true that some of these things
are out of our control but many are within our control. There
are many constructive suggestions that we can employ. The Reform
Party challenges the government to employ some of these
solutions.
How can we get our productivity up? The Canadian Federation of
Independent Business put out a document three days ago. It
articulately and eloquently shows that youth want to work but
they are unable to work for many reasons. One of the biggest
reasons they are unable to work are our high taxes. The
government needs to reduce taxes.
There are some specific solutions that my colleagues have spoken
about. We spoke about reducing EI premiums. Let us also reduce
the CPP premiums. This is a provincial responsibility, but let
us also look at reducing workmen's compensation premiums which
also contribute to choking off the private sector. Let us also
remove the existing surtaxes that crush the private sector.
There are surtaxes such as the capital gains tax. It impedes
the private sector's ability to take moneys it has invested, sell
things such as real estate and reinvest that money into the
business. The capital gains tax restricts the movement of
capital within our system thereby reducing our productivity.
The government should work with the provinces to decrease those
taxes. I challenge the finance minister to bring together his
provincial counterparts within the next two weeks to discuss
these issues, make a plan and institute it as soon as possible.
By doing this we can make ourselves more competitive, not by
reducing the loonie but by dealing with the structural reasons of
why our country is non-productive.
If we look at the history of the United States, the 1920s, the
1960s under President Kennedy, and the 1980s, every time there
was a reduction in taxes there was a huge increase in the
effectiveness of the economy. Why? There are increased savings
and increased investment. There is also a greater desire to work
because we know that the more we work, we will not have more
money taken away from us.
We will also see a reduction in the black market, a significant
problem in our country. By reducing these tax loads we will be
able to reduce the black market. In 1992 under Prime Minister
Mulroney we found that more moneys came into the public coffers
for the reasons I previously mentioned.
1310
We can deal with facts. Looking back in history we can see the
constructive solutions that have already worked we and can apply
them in 1998 to make them work for the people of our country
today. I caution that this will not compromise the people who are
most impoverished. It will make them more employable and will
allow them to have more funds. It will rescue our social
programs by making more funds available.
Reducing taxes will allow us to deal with another important
structural problem, the brain drain which my colleague spoke
about earlier. In 1997 we lost 46,500 of our best and brightest
people to the United States alone. Compare that with 1990 when we
lost 20,500. That is a substantial difference. There has been a
substantial change.
Our best and brightest, the crème de la crème of our country are
going south, not necessarily because they want to live there but
because they see far greater opportunities there. Comparing the
tax structures, after tax a family of two in the U.S. makes 44%
more than a family of two wage earners in Canada. How can we
compete with that? We cannot.
Earlier this year the business community combined with the
educational community to provide a number of constructive
solutions to deal with another factor that could improve our
economy, the educational system. It involved innovative
partnerships between the private sector and the educational
system that would do much to address one of the core pillars of a
strong, nimble and effective economy.
In a nutshell, the business round table had many recommendations.
It recommended that all students learn at significantly higher
levels and that the curriculum content reflects the higher
expectations we would have of students. It recommended that
instructional strategies and school choices vary to ensure
success for all and that the system be based on performance by
using a broad range of assessment tools. It recommended that
schools have a major role in decision making, which would
alleviate the rigid control over schools in what they can do.
Schools should receive rewards for success, assistance to improve
and penalties for failure to be effective teachers of today's
youth. A major emphasis should be placed on staff development.
The round table also recommended that employee unions at
individual schools be required to grant waivers on certain
contract provisions governing the hiring and firing of teachers
and principals and on the participation of staff in academic and
financial planning.
I cannot overemphasize the importance of those recommendations.
If we are going to have an effective, nimble and aggressive
economy, we have to change our educational system. We have to
give schools some control over what they do in terms of teaching.
They must have control over their budgets. They also must have
the ability to be assessed.
Teachers federations have traditionally been completely opposed
to an assessment of a teacher's performance. I feel this is
wrong. Good teachers will benefit from the system because they
will not only be keeping their jobs but they will also be
rewarded for doing a good job. It would add the needed element of
incentive into the teaching profession. It would remove from the
system teachers who are not doing a good job.
In any system, including this one, those who are not doing a
good job get turfed. That may sound ruthless but when we are
dealing with the future of our youth, we must give them the best
opportunities we can. We owe it to the youth of today to ensure
they have an opportunity for the best education possible.
We must strive not only to help those who are among the most
underprivileged and disadvantaged. We must also encourage those
who are the best in our system and give them the challenges they
require to become individuals who can contribute greatly to our
society.
The finance minister could do a couple of other innovative
things. There is presently a limit on the amount Canadians can
devote to foreign investment. It is now at 20%. The government
should increase that to 30%.
That would go a long way to enabling people to provide for their
future. As we in the House all know, the CPP will not be there
for those in my age group and younger as it has been for previous
generations.
1315
The finance minister could actually expand RRSPs, have a
designated RRSP amount. Those moneys could then be used to invest
in the private sector, in small to medium size businesses on
Canadian soil. If the finance minister were able to expand
RRSPs, it would not be a lodestone around the taxpayer neck. It
would also enable Canadians to invest in Canadian companies on
Canadian soil and create Canadian jobs. It would be an important
tool for increasing investment and innovation in the private
sector by using the dollars that already exist. It would not
rely on taxpayers.
This is an important facet the prime minister and the finance
minister should look at to enable us to put money into the
private sector and to enable the private sector to do research
and development.
I would be remiss in suggesting that we not ensure the research
and development system including the National Research Council
have the moneys to do the very good research it does. It should
be encouraged to partner with the private sector so that it will
have the moneys to build another pillar of the private sector,
the research and development section. Therein we would have a
much more productive and effective economy for the future.
Mr. Rick Laliberte (Churchill River, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
I am delighted to address the hon. member's comments. He dealt
with education. I realize he championed the national headstart
program, the early childhood intervention program. Fortunately
the aboriginal headstart program is well on its way and is
serving a greater purpose.
I want to share with him a vision of education. One of the
first obligations of the country to first nations occurred when
the aboriginal people negotiated the future of their people.
Education and health were major priorities. Education rights and
health benefit rights are entrenched in the treaties.
In a social democratic country like Canada why do we not have
tuition free education? Why do state controls stop after our
children have gone through school from kindergarten to grade 12?
Why can we not hold and nurture them until they become adults at
the age of 21 to 25? Then they could stand up and take on their
master's degrees or the Ph.D degrees to attain their careers.
Tuition for university, technical schools, business schools and
all trade apprenticeship programs should be supported. Youth
need to be prepared a bit longer.
I wonder what the hon. member's vision is, because his heartbeat
seems to be on the socially conscious side.
Mr. Keith Martin: Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague
from the NDP. I know of his deep interest in aboriginal issues,
particularly in improving the health, welfare and education
systems of aboriginal people so that they have the tools to stand
on their own feet.
The member's question was about why we did not have government
funding for post-secondary education up to and including bachelor
degrees. The bottom line is money. Unfortunately we have a
limited amount of money and we have to do the best we can with
the resources we have.
The leader of the Reform Party championed the concept of an
income contingent loan replacement scheme in the last parliament.
This is a very clever scheme that would provide for a greater
amount of loans for students.
Those moneys could actually go into a system that is far more
accountable and more money would stay in the system.
1320
In essence, when a student leaves school loaned moneys would be
paid back on the basis of the earnings potential of the student,
rather than current system where the student has to pay the whole
shot back in a very short period of time, usually at a time when
it is very difficult to acquire a job.
If the House and my hon. colleague in the NDP were able to work
with us to champion that, we would do a great service to students
by implementing an income contingent loan replacement scheme
which would provide for more money for students while not
extracting more money from taxpayers.
Mr. Mike Scott (Skeena, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, a few minutes
ago the member for Regina—Lumsden stood in the House as a member
of the NDP and tried to paint himself and his party as being
defenders of small business in Canada. I have not heard anything
more laughable in the last couple of months. There are comedians
at work all over the place and this member seems to want to get a
job doing that.
In British Columbia there is an NDP government. It is easy to
start a small business in that province: start with a big
business and it will not be long before it is a small business.
Another way is to start a small business in British Columbia and
move it to Alberta. That NDP government of B.C. has a shockingly
interventionist attitude and punitive tax levels.
The corporate capital tax in British Columbia is a tax paid on
the value of assets every year whether a business is making any
money or not, whether one is making a profit or not. Give me a
break; the NDP telling us that it is going to be the defenders of
small business. I do not think so.
The Liberals would try to have us believe that they are the
defenders of small business in Canada. I was a small
businessman. As a matter of fact it was my time and my
experience as a small businessman that drove me into the House of
Commons, that got me involved in politics. I got mad enough at
those clowns over there that I had to come here to do something
to set the situation right.
This is my experience as a small business person: I was living
on the west coast of British Columbia, minding my own business,
trying to earn a living, employing people and trying to get
along. What happened? The federal government continually
interfered in my business. Statistics Canada sent me forms to
fill out. This was back in the early 1980s. The first time I
filled out the forms. I thought I could do it once. Then Stats
Canada started sending them on a regular basis saying that they
had to be filled out.
The time involved in filling out the forms was substantial. I
reached the point where I said I was not going to do it any more.
Then the people from Stats Canada said it was against the law and
if I did not fill them out they could prosecute me and throw me
in jail.
Next I learned that the receiver general wanted to collect his
payroll taxes. He wanted them in his bank account on the 15th
and the last day of every month. If the money was not in his
bank account on those dates there was an immediate 10% penalty
and the interest clock started ticking right away.
There are businesses in rural Canada, which a lot of these
members do not realize exist, that do not have access to
electronic banking so they have to pay their taxes in advance.
That is the level of understanding and comprehension that the
government has for small business.
1325
Speaking of taxes, if by some fluke a profit is made in one
year, the government expects the business to start paying taxes
on its next year's profit before it is even made. It expects a
cheque to be sent every month in case a profit might be made.
That is the level of attitude of the federal government. I cannot
believe that the government actually tries to paint itself as
being concerned about small business.
Let us talk about lending money to small business because that
is what the bill is about. I will speak about a situation that
happened in my home town. Our great, wonderful and illustrious
federal government back in the early 1980s decided to embark on a
loans program for small business.
A concrete company in my home town of Kitimat poured ready-mix,
made concrete slabs and so on. On rainy days when there was
nothing else to do, it used its little block plant to make
concrete bricks. It was rainy day work and a good fill-in for
employees rather than the owner of the company sending them home
during inclement weather. A fellow in Terrace—they were both
good business people—decided to go into the block plant
business. He got a loan from the federal government and the new
block plant put the block plant in Kitimat out of business.
Let us think about that. The guy who was already in business
and paying his taxes for years and years saw his tax dollars
going to provide a loan to a potential competitor to set up
business and drive him out of business. Also the employees that
were able to work during times of inclement weather were sent
home. Those were net effects of the government's policy with
respect to lending money to small businesses.
I do not mean to criticize either one of these businesses. It
is just an obvious contradiction. The private sector ought to be
providing capital for small business, not the government. If the
government would do the right thing, set its own house in order
and get the fundamentals right, we would not need to be concerned
about whether small business had access to capital.
There are some matters we would like to see the government
consider. It has not as yet. One of these days there will be a
government on that side of the House that will do these things.
It should reduce bureaucracy, reduce red tape, reduce payroll
taxes, reduce personal income taxes and quit meddling in the
private sector. Let the private sector get on with what it does
best. The government should get out of its way.
I cannot believe the government believes it has some way of
helping small business in Canada without addressing these
fundamentals. The government has shown its willingness to
continue a rip-off of the EI fund which is hurting small business
and rank and file Canadian taxpayers, workers, and which will
take $7 billion in excess out of the economy this year. How can
it suggest, with any sense of credibility at all, that it has
somehow managed to come up with an idea that will help small
business in Canada?
It is nothing more than mother Ottawa trying to devise another
interventionist government directed policy. It is a government
that, to solve the problems of small business, sets up a program,
sets up a ministry, sets up a bureaucracy and, by the way, lends
money.
Why does the government not try just leaving small business
alone? Why does it not try reducing punitive tax levels? Why
does it not trying reducing red tape? Why does it not try
leaving people alone? If the government would listen and would
be willing to consider those ideas, small business in Canada
would be a lot better off than it is right now.
Mr. Speaker, I do not know how much time I have left.
1330
The Deputy Speaker: The hon. member has lots of time
left, but unfortunately it is 1.30 p.m. and we have to proceed
with Private Members' Business.
When the House resumes consideration of this bill, the hon.
member will have 11 minutes remaining in his allotted time. I am
sure we will all look forward to the resumption of his remarks.
PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
[English]
ROYAL CANADIAN MINT
Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island, Ref.) moved:
That an order of the House do issue for copies of all documents
relating to the Royal Canadian Mint building a coin plating plant
in Manitoba.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I am absolutely delighted that finally we
have a venue for an open and parliamentary debate on this issue.
Those who have been following this story know that it has been
almost a year now since this story hit the fan, so to speak. It
is a situation where approximately 100 jobs in my riding are
being jeopardized by a decision of the government to build a coin
plating plant in Winnipeg, the back door of the Minister of
Foreign Affairs.
I might also give another quick little political plug here
because I think it is very appropriate. I have a strong
suspicion that if the plant I am talking about, the private
enterprise plant Westaim Corporation, were in a Liberal held
riding we would not be discussing this right now. I do not think
the issue would have gone this far. That is just a suspicion I
have, based on my observations of the way this place works and
what I have seen happen around here in the last few years.
Let us get down to the actual issues. The motion is for the
production of papers. The motion specifically says that we want
to have the papers released that will finally show the truth of
the decision making process on this issue.
I have in my speech, which will be taking place in the next few
minutes, a number of questions which I would like to have
answered. I am just conjecturing here but I believe there is
probably already a canned speech ready for the parliamentary
secretary. My hopes of getting these questions answered is
somewhere between zero and nothing. I want to pose them anyway
and then I am going to urge members of this House in the
interests of truthfulness, disclosure, openness of government to
support the motion since if there is nothing to hide then the
government should be eager to have everything out in the open so
that the truth can be known.
If they vote against it, we can only conclude that the
motivation must be that they want to deal in innuendo and in half
truths or non-truths in order to justify their actions.
That is a big challenge for these Liberal members. I think they
need to very seriously consider what the implication of their
vote is. If they say no, it is really equivalent to the
shredding of papers in the Somalia affair. It is a possibility
that we can have the non-disclosure of all this information. That
is really all we are after. Let us have the facts.
The other thing which underlies this question is that government
decisions, especially as pertaining to the expenditure of money
and the operation of the business of government which includes
crown corporations, the mint, should be made prudently and be
based on true facts. The decisions should be done wisely.
With all due respect, humbly I submit that some of the facts of
the case here have been quite systematically ignored. I want to
see what those facts are.
Very briefly, the government proposed last year to build a coin
plating plant in Winnipeg. The cost at that time was projected
to be around $30 million. Since then there have been two other
numbers that have been publicized, $31 million and $38 million.
We do not know at this stage exactly what the final cost of the
plant will be. However, we do know that it is a plant of about
56,000 square feet with a capacity for producing plated coin
blanks of approximately one-third of the capacity of the Westaim
plant in my riding which is at issue here.
1335
The other issue is the question of savings. In a press release
last October it was said this would also lead to savings. The
first number touted was a saving of $9 million per year and the
second figure given was $9.5 million per year for a total saving
of between $18 million and $19 million in a two year timeframe.
This is not a saving at all since moving the job from one
location in the country to another at the expense of one and
giving it to another is not a real saving. Furthermore, the
savings could have also been achieved simply by continuing at the
original location.
I believe this decision was based on the incorrect answers to
three questions. First, is there security of supply? The
government said no. I and the people in my riding and the
Westaim Corporation emphatically say there is security of supply.
Second, are there cost savings? As I indicated in my
introduction, I will talk more about the real and perceived
savings and how they can be achieved.
Third, should the government be in business competing with
existing businesses and threatening them? This is a
philosophical question. I am not sure we will get the answer
from the papers but it is one which also demands an answer.
Should government be in an industrial process business?
To the question of security of supply, Westaim Corporation has
been a major supplier to the mint since 1961, albeit at that time
under a different corporate name. It is the same plant, the same
organization and it has evolved over time. Now it runs under the
name of Westaim.
In 1961 the corporation began producing nickel strip for the 5
cent coin. We call them nickels because they are made of nickel
which came from the Westaim plant in my riding. In 1968 it began
supplying the blanks for the dime, the quarter and the 50 cent
piece. We all know what high quality coins Canadians have, so
there is no question about the security of the supply and the
quality of the supply. The coin blanks are pressed into actual
coins by the mint which is a proper function of that crown
corporation.
Westaim Corporation has subsequently supplied all the blanks for
the loonie. Everyone who has a loonie in their pocket is
dragging around metal that was produced in my riding. I want
everyone, especially Liberal members, every time they look at a
loonie or spend one to think of the wonderful riding of Elk
Island just out of Edmonton, Alberta because that is where it
originated.
The nickel strip portion of the two dollar coin is made at
Westaim in my riding, so we have a large contribution to the
coinage of Canada. Westaim in its coin production has been a
solid business for over 30 years. It is doing just fine. For
anyone to imply that the security of supply is at risk is totally
incorrect. This is an international company. It produces coin
products for markets all around the world, including recent large
contracts to China and Brazil. Besides supplying Canada's
domestic market it is a large exporter, thereby helping greatly
in Canada's economy. It also does high tech research and
production.
1340
What really intrigues me, since my uncle died in a fire
accident, is that Westaim produces a very high tech biomedical,
totally sterile dressing for burn victims. It markets this all
over Canada and the United States. It is an expensive but very
effective product. It is very good at it. It has a research
department in advance display technologies.
Recently it announced a breakthrough. We all have these little
desktop computers. It could be that very soon computer
manufacturers will be buying these thin screened, multicolour
displays from Westaim Corporation in Fort Saskatchewan. It has
excellent surface engineered products.
It recently announced a breakthrough regarding some fine powder
materials which are used in the production of these high tech
rechargeable batteries that all of us have in all our electronic
equipment.
Does that sound like a business that is not able to give a
secure supply? I guess not, so my contention is the decision was
made based on less than perfect facts.
With respect to the security of supply and an answer to some of
the things the minister said, even in this House as a response to
questions that I raised and also that members of the other
parties raised, Westaim has offered to the mint, if it is really
concerned about it, to actually sign a contract, to dedicate the
production from one line to the mint.
In other words, it is ready to say if at any time the mint wants
to run the same kind of production it will be able to get out of
its Winnipeg plant it is available right here and right now.
That is because there is a worldwide oversupply in this market.
It just boggles the mind when one wonders why the government is
trying to get into a business in which there is a present
oversupply and in which there is not a foreseeable future of
increase since we are moving more and more to electronics, credit
cards and soon we will probably have cash cards. Coins are not
an ongoing growing industry. They are level at best, with peaks
admittedly.
When the Europeans bring in the new Eurocoin, zippo, there is a
big demand for large coins. Canadians decided to have a $2 coin.
Suddenly there was a demand because from zero the whole country
had to be supplied with all the coins needed in that
denomination.
Now that the loonie is in production and has been for over 10
years, the $2 coin now for a few years, the amount of production
required to replace the coins that are lost or hoarded is not
anywhere near what it is when a new coin is introduced. It is
not a matter of the government getting into a business for which
there is a huge ongoing and increasing demand. It is one where
really what it is doing is upsetting the market and intruding
into a business that is currently totally adequately covered by
Westaim Corporation in my riding.
I say parenthetically with respect to the offer of the one of
the three lines in the Westaim plant, the minister made a false
statement in the House on March 24 this year when he said that
the president of Westaim refused this offer. That is wrong. The
president of Westaim made the offer. Again, I think we need to
deal with actual facts when making these decisions.
Let me get to my second question, cost savings. They claim there
will be a saving of around $9 million to $9.5 million per year.
The fact is that only a small portion of that saving can be
attributed to the fact that they will be producing their coin
blanks in-house instead of purchasing them from Westaim. The
largest component of that saving is due to the fact that they are
changing from a nickel base to a steel base for their coin
blanks.
Just the change in material and the cost of the process would
produce this change and if they were to simply enter into a long
term arrangement with Westaim, that saving could be achieved,
just as with their new plant in Winnipeg they are proposing.
There is only one difference, that the saving could be achieved
almost immediately instead of waiting for two years until this
plant is in full operation. At least we hope it will be in full
operation.
1345
It will be a brand new untested plant and, as with all new
plants, it will have start-up pains. Therefore instead of saving
$9 million to $9.5 million per year starting in the year 2000 or
later, we could save that right away. There is another $18
million.
The minister in the House said this is not going to cost the
taxpayer anything. That is not true. The mint is a crown
corporation. If it makes money that money accrues to Canadians.
If it looses money that is money that is lost to Canadians. If
it reduces its total net profit that comes essentially and
eventually from the pockets of the taxpayers of this country.
I submit that if we take the price of $38 million for the plant
and $9 million a year for two years in savings, we are looking at
a total of $56 million that the mint is expending when if it
simply stayed with the present set-up there would be $56 million
less to spend which is money saved and equivalent to money in the
taxpayers' pockets. When the minister says this is not going to
cost the taxpayer anything, it is not so.
This comes to my next topic which I am not up to yet but these
things overlap a bit. They claim to be making money but the fact
is they will not be making very much money if they are not going
to compete internationally. The minister said we were not going
to compete internationally. If they are not going to I do not
know where they will get the money to provide all the domestic
needs in this country. Unless we get into the business of issuing
a new coin and a new denomination every other year there will not
be that big domestic demand. Either they are going to contradict
what the minister said and compete internationally or they are
not going to make any money.
Furthermore, if the claim they will be making money it is
inevitable that they will be making it at the expense of an
existing corporation, a taxpaying corporation in this country.
Any business they get which will allow them to make money will be
money taken directly away from Westaim Corporation in my riding.
I think that is wrong.
I have already spoken about the premise of increasing demand.
Frankly, the documentation available shows that not to be so.
That is not correct information. There is of course a present
peak in demand for coin production because of the Eurocoin but
when that passes it is expected to level off and, as I said
before, the excess of supply in both plated and non-plated coin
products is somewhere in the neighbourhood of between 30% and 50%
which is the excess of supply right now. It is absolutely
foolish to be getting into this business.
Let me address my third question. Should the government be in
the business of competing with business? My answer is a hearty
no. It may not do this. It is an affront to our concept of
justice and decency for the government to use its clout to
compete directly in a business with private enterprise. Would
we allow if it were to say let's start a factory to build cars
and compete with the car manufacturing places? What about a used
car lot? Would anyone buy a used car from our Prime Minister? I
do not know.
What kind of businesses is the government going to get into? It
may not compete directly. Furthermore, a recent bill in this
House proposes to give the mint not only additional borrowing
powers but additional borrowing powers from the consolidated
fund. It is terribly unfair to have business A run by the
government being able to use taxpayer money directly borrowing
from the consolidated fund in order to compete with a private
enterprise firm that is doing very well, thank you, as long as
the government butts out and keeps out of this business. It has
no business intruding there.
There is also a very great contradiction. It is the policy of
this government to not compete with business. We have noticed
how it has been privatizing. NavCan is an example. All the
airports in the country are being privatized. Even some
components of the military operations are now being put out to
contract for private involvement. We also have the government
printing operations.
1350
There are many examples of it. It is getting out of the
business of being in business in order to let private enterprise
do its thing. We already have private enterprise being very
successful. The government is incorrectly intruding in it, in
violation of every decent principle that we could possible think
of.
I strongly urge the government to vote in favour of this motion
of the production of papers. When the facts are disclosed and
truly known, and when we look at the contradictions in the debate
so far, because there are some real sincere questions, hopefully
we can rationalize this and even at this late date we can stop
the government from this inappropriate intrusion into private
business.
Ms. Carolyn Parrish (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Public Works and Government Services, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
consider it poetic justice that Mr. Epp and I face off once
again. We are no longer on private members' together selecting—
The Deputy Speaker: I know the parliamentary secretary
would want to refer to the hon. member for Elk Island. I know she
will want to comply with the rules in that regard.
Ms. Carolyn Parrish: Mr. Speaker, my apologies.
I found the machinations the member for Elk Island went through
interesting. He knew we were going to vote for his motion. I
guess it gave him an opportunity to rent his clothing and rail
against the winds for his constituents.
Motion P-16 requests that the Royal Canadian Mint produce
documents concerning the construction of a new coin plating
facility at the Royal Canadian Mint location in Winnipeg.
As the hon. member for Elk Island already knows, the Standing
Committee on Natural Resources and Government Operations asked
for these documents last June. The Royal Canadian Mint complied
and sent the documents to the clerk of the committee. The
committee will soon reconvene and the documents requested will be
available for review. We are on division going to vote for this
today. We are going through the exercise, but it must be
completed.
I ask the House why we are using our valuable time and resources
to debate a motion when its goal has already been achieved,
except for the opportunity for Elk Island to get up once again
and state his position.
Let me address the benefits of the new plating facility to all
Canadians. The initial guarantee is that it is a secure cost
effective supply of plated coinage. Plated coinage is the
technology of the future. Plated coins are less costly to
produce and are just as durable and attractive as the coinage
used in the past.
By building this facility, the government will achieve quite a
large saving. The mint will pass on savings to the government of
approximately $10 million per year. This is extremely important
to a government that is counting each one of its pennies very
carefully.
The mint is the only corporation mandated for the production,
sale and distribution of coins in Canada. It supplies Canadians
with coins that are of high quality, are cost effective and are
delivered on time. The mint must also generate a profit for its
shareholder, the Government of Canada, by successfully marketing
its minting services in coinage products worldwide.
The Royal Canadian Mint is not an appendage of the government as
was the implication of the member opposite. It competes in a
global environment. Business fundamentals such a market
analysis, sales, competitive positioning, leading edge technology
and investment in human resource development are daily
essentials, as they are with any corporation.
The mint does not receive government subsidies. All its
operating costs are paid through its revenues or by securing
financing from private financial institutions. The member
opposite knows this. Making coins for other nations keeps the
mint presses running at high speed and around the clock, which is
the most cost effective production technique available. In 1997
the mint produced over one billion coins for 16 foreign
countries. This year it will have upped that number to two
billion.
It is expected that the mint's new plating technology will
continue to be in high demand around the world. The mint
estimates the new facility will enable it to generate an
additional $300 million in annual profits. Construction of the
plating facility began in April. Construction is on schedule and
on budget.
It is also important to note that the entire project has been
financed by the mint through commercial financial institutions.
One hundred to one hundred and thirty construction jobs were
created over the three years of the construction period. On
completion it will add 25 to 30 new permanent full time staff to
its Winnipeg workforce.
1355
The hon. member for Elk Island is understandably concerned about
the well-being of a company in his riding, Westaim Corporation.
Let me assure the House that the Royal Canadian Mint does not
compete with Westaim. Westaim has been a supplier of the Royal
Canadian Mint for many years and will continue to be one of
several suppliers that provide the Royal Canadian Mint with the
materials it needs. Westaim is the sole supplier for the 1$ coin
blank because it holds the patent for this project. Suppliers
from Canada, the United States and Europe provide the mint with
metal strip and coin blanks for the other coins.
Throughout the world there is a growing demand for lower cost
circulation coinage. There will be many opportunities for both
Westaim and the mint to work together to compete against foreign
mints which are also expanding to meet the growing demand for
lower cost coinage, in particular plated coinage.
As early as 1991 Westaim informed the mint that it wanted to get
out of the coin business and we had to make other plans. Westaim
wanted out of the business and it is not considered to be a
secure supplier for the mint.
The mint's coins are preferred by vendors who require two years
to retool their machines, so let us look at what the cost would
be to private enterprise. The mint's process is environmentally
safe and produces high integrity coins. The mint needs the
plating facility to fulfil its mandate and to meet the
expectations of its customers at home and around the world. The
mint is a totally independent crown corporation charged with the
task of making money, both coins and profit. The plating facility
is an essential tool that will enable the mint to fulfil its
mandate to produce secure top quality but cost effective coins
for Canada and profits for Canada through marketing its coinage
expertise around the world.
The plating facility is essential for the mint to succeed in the
international coinage business in which it is an active and
extremely successful player. It is a dynamic and innovative
organization in a highly competitive international market. For
now and in the future it will continue striving to be the world
leader in minting.
I remind the House that the Royal Canadian Mint has already
produced the documents requested by Motion P-16 in response to a
similar request made by the Standing Committee on Natural
Resources and Government Operations last June. These documents
will be available for review as soon as the committee reconvenes.
Any member of the House may obtain a copy of those documents
from the clerk of the committee.
[Translation]
Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold (Jonquière, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased to rise today in the House in support of the motion
moved by my colleague, the member for Elk Island.
The government should comply with such a request. It is a
request for clarity. Parliamentarians should be clearer in the
requests they routinely make of the government. When
constituents tell an MP there is something odd, it is important
that people can finally say that parliamentarians and MPs are
really there to stand up for their interests.
Earlier, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public
Works gave us the history of the Royal Mint, and of this new
project.
This is why I am supporting the motion. She did well to give the
background, but I support a motion for greater clarity. That is
something I find very important.
We live in a very fast-paced world, and a project of this sort
involves more than $5 million. As the Reform Party member says,
perhaps it is bigger than they think. We are talking about a
project involving over $30 million.
I strongly urge the House to support the Reform Party member's
proposal and motion, and tell him that he has the support of
Bloc Quebecois members.
[English]
Mr. Norman Doyle (St. John's East, PC): Mr. Speaker, I
thank my colleague, the hon. member for Tobique—Mactaquac, for
giving me a chance to speak on this motion today.
1400
I want to thank the member for Elk Island for pursuing this very
important matter in the House.
From the beginning our party has opposed the construction of the
Royal Canadian Mint's new plant which will manufacture coin
blanks. We believe the mint has not been forthcoming with
Canadians on this new facility.
The motion the member has proposed today would give taxpayers
and members of parliament the opportunity to examine in detail
the decision making process at the mint which has led government
to support the decision which will have very terrible
consequences for Westaim, for its employees and for taxpayers as
well.
Let me review a few of the facts and arguments that our party
has talked about in this particular case.
Through Bill C-41 the Liberal government has moved to increase
the borrowing authority of the Royal Canadian Mint, allowing it
to build a coin plating plant, another patronage plum,
incidentally, in the Minister of Foreign Affairs' backyard.
That facility would put the mint into direct competition with
Westaim of Fort Saskatchewan, Alberta. Because the world market
for coin blanks is going down, either Westaim will be forced out
of the business and 110 employees will lose their jobs or the
Royal Canadian Mint's new venture will go down in flames and
taxpayers will be on the hook for a minimum of $30 million.
Why should the deal be stopped? Westaim is a legitimate
Canadian business which has supplied the Royal Canadian Mint with
coin blanks for 35 years. It employs 110 people in Fort
Saskatchewan and the entry of the Royal Canadian Mint into the
industry would jeopardize the Westaim division and its 110
employees.
Industry experts agree that the market for coin blanks will
experience a slight blip in demand as the newer European currency
starts up and then will continue on a steady decline as
electronic transactions become more popular and the need for
coinage and paper money decreases.
The new coin plating plant will not only replace Westaim as the
source of supply of coin blanks, but will compete against Westaim
in the world market.
The costs of getting the mint into the coin blank business are
enormous. The $30 million announced is only to build the plant.
Start-up costs are substantial for a new competitor in a mature
to declining market.
The mint will be required to compete against established,
experienced, well-entrenched competitors who have had years to
build their expertise and economies of scale.
Not only will the Royal Canadian Mint have to contend with a
high cost structure, but like any brand new business it is going
to make many mistakes as well.
There is currently a 30% to 40% oversupply in the world coin
blank market. The entry of the mint into that market will likely
either drive Westaim and its 110 employees out of business or it
will spectacularly go down in flames and take millions of
taxpayer dollars with it.
Even though there is no direct subsidy being proposed in that
venture, because all money spent by a crown corporation reduces
dividends paid to the government, ultimately the taxpayer is the
one who pays.
Parliament has not approved Bill C-41 that would give the Royal
Canadian Mint the authority to borrow the money for the new
plant. Westaim still has an unresolved lawsuit against the mint
involving the softening process necessary to make these coin
blanks. The mint cannot legally proceed with that venture unless
it settles both of these outstanding matters, yet construction of
the plant started in March.
Getting government right is a Liberal government policy that has
been around since 1993. Among other things it stipulates that
where the private sector can provide a service equal or superior
to a government department or agency, then government should not
be in that business. This venture violates that Liberal
government policy.
The only reason this is being allowed to happen is because it is
a patronage plum for the foreign affairs minister's backyard. The
Westaim plant is in an opposition-held riding. It is as simple
as that. If Westaim were in a Liberal riding this venture would
never have made it past the cabinet table.
1405
We do not have to look any further than the fiasco that the
Liberal government created in the oil industry in the 1970s to
know that it does not make sense for the government to take over
part of an existing industry to compete with private companies.
Back then the Liberals nationalized Petrofina and created the
national energy program. That hurt the industry. It cost jobs
and taxpayers ended up paying out millions and millions of
dollars. All that money was paid out quite unnecessarily. The
same problem will happen with the Royal Canadian Mint.
In June of this year my colleague, the member for
Tobique—Mactaquac, had the pleasure to meet with the master of
the mint, Mrs. Danielle Wethrup, and her vice-president of
finance and administration. The meeting was an opportunity for
our party to exchange views and information with the management
of the Royal Canadian Mint.
They made some very convincing arguments concerning security of
supply. But when we asked them to show us their business plan,
they refused. When we asked them to show us their market
projections which they claimed indicated a healthy growing
demand, they did not do that. When we asked them to show us any
piece of evidence that could reassure us that the $30 million of
taxpayer money that was on the line would not be a risky venture,
they said “You are just going to have to trust us because we
cannot do that as well”.
We cannot trust them in that regard. As I have indicated, every
bit of information we have seen on this matter reinforces our
view that this scheme of the mint's will put Westaim and its
employees out of business. It will put 110 people on the
unemployment rolls and possibly on the provincial government's
welfare rolls. It is going to cost millions of dollars.
I am happy at least that government members are going to vote
for the motion to give access of information to the opposition.
The motion will give our party access to the information that we
need to determine the advisability of this proposed venture, and
specifically if we should support Bill C-41.
I call on the mint to make public all relevant papers on the
coin plating facility. I am very pleased indeed that all members
are going to support that part of the process.
The Deputy Speaker: If the hon. member for Elk Island
speaks now, I must advise the House that he will close the
debate.
Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, that is
exactly what I am going to do. I am going to thank all members
of the House for their kind consideration of this very important
private member's bill. I appreciate the tone in which the debate
was held.
I would like to respond by saying two things.
First, in a quick response to the letter that was quoted, I do
not want to do what I think we are finding others guilty of, so I
would like to simply ask two questions with respect to the
letter. I am talking about the statement that is repeated over
and over by the minister that Westaim gave an intention to go out
of business.
I would like to ask whether the government, in quoting this
letter, would at some time totally and accurately describe the
actual circumstances under which the letter of intent was signed.
Second, is the government prepared to disclose the date on which
that letter of intent expired and became null and void?
The fact of the matter is that Westaim is in the business. It
was in the business at the time the mint announced its intentions
to build the plant. It is a strong company. It is not a
question of whether it is intending to vacate that field.
I would like to emphasize that and to indicate to the government
that the continued use of that statement is really quite
inappropriate.
The last statement I would like to make is that I hope as a
result of this discussion we can get into a wider discussion on a
basic philosophical question.
That is, should the government be in the business of competing
with business?
1410
One person in my riding, not specifically on the Westaim
question but on another one, asked whether the government should
be in the business of competing with business thereby driving out
the business. It is a fundamental principle which we recognize
that where the taxpayers are behind the government, it gives the
government funded operation a huge and unfair advantage. There is
another case which I did not mention because I ran out of time.
Who buys coinage products? Everyone probably knows there are
two main buyers. There are those who buy some types of coins and
medals or coins commemorating sovereigns or whatever, and the big
market is governments. When any government around the world is
looking for a supply of coinage products, we have little old
Westaim, and I say little old strictly and only in comparison to
Government of Canada.
To many foreign governments, dealing with another government is
very important. They have a huge advantage without even talking
about the actual price at which they bid. It could happen that
Westaim in future international bidding contracts could have the
lower bid and a superior or at least equal product, but would
lose the bid because other countries want to deal with the
government instead of a private enterprise. Government has
absolutely no business being there.
I hope that this debate today will be enlarged so that we can
carry on with that larger debate. I think this is so crucial to
our whole situation.
In conclusion, I thank the members of the House. Let us move
forward to see if we can bring the facts to the table and get a
resolution to this deeply philosophical problem.
The Deputy Speaker: Is the House ready for the question?
Some hon. members: Question.
The Deputy Speaker: Is it the pleasure of the House to
adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
An hon. member: On division.
(Motion agreed to)
The Deputy Speaker: That concludes Private Members'
Business for today. Although it is not 2.30 yet, we will call it
that. The House will accordingly stand adjourned until Monday
next at 11 a.m. pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).
(The House adjourned at 2.12 p.m.)