36th Parliament, 1st Session
EDITED HANSARD • NUMBER 60
CONTENTS
Monday, February 16, 1998
![V](/web/20061116193009im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
|
1105
![V](/web/20061116193009im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | EUROPEAN COMMON MARKET
|
![V](/web/20061116193009im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Motion No. 181
|
![V](/web/20061116193009im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Gerald Keddy |
1110
1115
![V](/web/20061116193009im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Gerry Byrne |
1120
1125
![V](/web/20061116193009im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Gary Lunn |
1130
![V](/web/20061116193009im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Benoît Sauvageau |
1135
![V](/web/20061116193009im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Yvon Godin |
1140
![V](/web/20061116193009im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Sarmite Bulte |
1145
![V](/web/20061116193009im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Gerald Keddy |
1150
![V](/web/20061116193009im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Marlene Catterall |
![V](/web/20061116193009im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Suspension of sitting
|
1200
![V](/web/20061116193009im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Sitting resumed
|
![V](/web/20061116193009im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | GOVERNMENT ORDERS
|
![V](/web/20061116193009im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | SMALL BUSINESS LOANS ACT
|
![V](/web/20061116193009im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Bill C-21. Second reading
|
![V](/web/20061116193009im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. John Manley |
1205
1210
1215
![V](/web/20061116193009im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jim Pankiw |
1220
1225
1230
![V](/web/20061116193009im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Francine Lalonde |
1235
1240
1245
1250
1255
1300
1305
![V](/web/20061116193009im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Chris Axworthy |
1310
1315
1320
![V](/web/20061116193009im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jerry Pickard |
![V](/web/20061116193009im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. John Herron |
1325
1330
1335
1340
![V](/web/20061116193009im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Gurmant Grewal |
1345
![V](/web/20061116193009im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Walt Lastewka |
![V](/web/20061116193009im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jim Pankiw |
1350
![V](/web/20061116193009im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Walt Lastewka |
1355
![V](/web/20061116193009im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
|
![V](/web/20061116193009im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | ELVIS STOJKO
|
![V](/web/20061116193009im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Bryon Wilfert |
1400
![V](/web/20061116193009im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | TRANS-CANADA HIGHWAY
|
![V](/web/20061116193009im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Lee Morrison |
![V](/web/20061116193009im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | QUEBEC PREMIER
|
![V](/web/20061116193009im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Guy St-Julien |
![V](/web/20061116193009im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | ANNIVERSARY OF CHEVALIER DE LORIMIER'S DEATH
|
![V](/web/20061116193009im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Stéphane Bergeron |
![V](/web/20061116193009im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | LITHUANIA
|
![V](/web/20061116193009im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Sarmite Bulte |
![V](/web/20061116193009im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | RADIO-CANADA
|
![V](/web/20061116193009im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Mauril Bélanger |
1405
![V](/web/20061116193009im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | THE BUDGET
|
![V](/web/20061116193009im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Diane Ablonczy |
![V](/web/20061116193009im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | HERITAGE DAY
|
![V](/web/20061116193009im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Sue Barnes |
![V](/web/20061116193009im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | REFERENCE TO SUPREME COURT
|
![V](/web/20061116193009im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Paul Mercier |
![V](/web/20061116193009im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | OLYMPIC GAMES
|
![V](/web/20061116193009im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Roy Cullen |
![V](/web/20061116193009im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | THE SENATE
|
![V](/web/20061116193009im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Randy White |
1410
![V](/web/20061116193009im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | WINNERPEG, MANITOBA
|
![V](/web/20061116193009im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Reg Alcock |
![V](/web/20061116193009im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | WINTER OLYMPICS
|
![V](/web/20061116193009im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Pat Martin |
![V](/web/20061116193009im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | HERITAGE DAY
|
![V](/web/20061116193009im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Denis Paradis |
![V](/web/20061116193009im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | NATIONAL UNITY
|
![V](/web/20061116193009im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter MacKay |
![V](/web/20061116193009im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | PARLIAMENT OF CANADA
|
![V](/web/20061116193009im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. John McKay |
1415
![V](/web/20061116193009im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
|
![V](/web/20061116193009im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | NATIONAL UNITY
|
![V](/web/20061116193009im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Preston Manning |
![V](/web/20061116193009im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
![V](/web/20061116193009im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Preston Manning |
![V](/web/20061116193009im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
![V](/web/20061116193009im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Preston Manning |
![V](/web/20061116193009im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
![V](/web/20061116193009im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Val Meredith |
![V](/web/20061116193009im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
1420
![V](/web/20061116193009im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Val Meredith |
![V](/web/20061116193009im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
![V](/web/20061116193009im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | REFERENCE TO SUPREME COURT
|
![V](/web/20061116193009im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Gilles Duceppe |
![V](/web/20061116193009im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
![V](/web/20061116193009im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Gilles Duceppe |
![V](/web/20061116193009im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
![V](/web/20061116193009im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Michel Bellehumeur |
1425
![V](/web/20061116193009im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Stéphane Dion |
![V](/web/20061116193009im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Michel Bellehumeur |
![V](/web/20061116193009im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Stéphane Dion |
![V](/web/20061116193009im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | AUTO PACT
|
![V](/web/20061116193009im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Chris Axworthy |
![V](/web/20061116193009im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. John Manley |
![V](/web/20061116193009im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Chris Axworthy |
![V](/web/20061116193009im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. John Manley |
![V](/web/20061116193009im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | REFERENCE TO SUPREME COURT
|
![V](/web/20061116193009im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Jean J. Charest |
![V](/web/20061116193009im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
![V](/web/20061116193009im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Jean J. Charest |
1430
![V](/web/20061116193009im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
![V](/web/20061116193009im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | THE BUDGET
|
![V](/web/20061116193009im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Monte Solberg |
![V](/web/20061116193009im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Paul Martin |
![V](/web/20061116193009im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Monte Solberg |
![V](/web/20061116193009im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Paul Martin |
![V](/web/20061116193009im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | REFERENCE TO SUPREME COURT
|
![V](/web/20061116193009im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Pierre Brien |
![V](/web/20061116193009im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Stéphane Dion |
![V](/web/20061116193009im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Pierre Brien |
![V](/web/20061116193009im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Stéphane Dion |
![V](/web/20061116193009im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | THE BUDGET
|
![V](/web/20061116193009im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jason Kenney |
1435
![V](/web/20061116193009im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Paul Martin |
![V](/web/20061116193009im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jason Kenney |
![V](/web/20061116193009im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Paul Martin |
![V](/web/20061116193009im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | REFERENCE TO SUPREME COURT
|
![V](/web/20061116193009im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Michel Gauthier |
![V](/web/20061116193009im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Stéphane Dion |
![V](/web/20061116193009im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Michel Gauthier |
![V](/web/20061116193009im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Stéphane Dion |
![V](/web/20061116193009im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | HEALTH
|
![V](/web/20061116193009im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Keith Martin |
![V](/web/20061116193009im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Allan Rock |
![V](/web/20061116193009im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Keith Martin |
1440
![V](/web/20061116193009im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Allan Rock |
![V](/web/20061116193009im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | BILL C-28
|
![V](/web/20061116193009im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Yvan Loubier |
![V](/web/20061116193009im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
![V](/web/20061116193009im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | INFRASTRUCTURE
|
![V](/web/20061116193009im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Steve Mahoney |
![V](/web/20061116193009im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Marcel Massé |
![V](/web/20061116193009im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS
|
![V](/web/20061116193009im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Mike Scott |
![V](/web/20061116193009im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Bernard Patry |
![V](/web/20061116193009im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Mike Scott |
1445
![V](/web/20061116193009im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Bernard Patry |
![V](/web/20061116193009im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
|
![V](/web/20061116193009im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Yvon Godin |
![V](/web/20061116193009im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew |
![V](/web/20061116193009im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Yvon Godin |
![V](/web/20061116193009im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew |
![V](/web/20061116193009im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | TAXATION
|
![V](/web/20061116193009im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Scott Brison |
![V](/web/20061116193009im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Paul Martin |
![V](/web/20061116193009im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Scott Brison |
![V](/web/20061116193009im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Paul Martin |
1450
![V](/web/20061116193009im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | AFGHANISTAN
|
![V](/web/20061116193009im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Aileen Carroll |
![V](/web/20061116193009im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Diane Marleau |
![V](/web/20061116193009im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | JUSTICE
|
![V](/web/20061116193009im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Chuck Cadman |
![V](/web/20061116193009im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Anne McLellan |
![V](/web/20061116193009im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | SMALL BUSINESS ASSISTANCE PROGRAMS
|
![V](/web/20061116193009im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Francine Lalonde |
![V](/web/20061116193009im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Marcel Massé |
![V](/web/20061116193009im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | NATIONAL DEFENCE
|
![V](/web/20061116193009im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Dick Proctor |
![V](/web/20061116193009im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton |
1455
![V](/web/20061116193009im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | INCOME TAX
|
![V](/web/20061116193009im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Diane St-Jacques |
![V](/web/20061116193009im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Paul Martin |
![V](/web/20061116193009im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | COMPUTERS FOR SCHOOLS
|
![V](/web/20061116193009im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Bonnie Brown |
![V](/web/20061116193009im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Ronald J. Duhamel |
![V](/web/20061116193009im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | REVENUE
|
![V](/web/20061116193009im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Howard Hilstrom |
![V](/web/20061116193009im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Harbance Singh Dhaliwal |
![V](/web/20061116193009im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS
|
![V](/web/20061116193009im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Claude Bachand |
![V](/web/20061116193009im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Bernard Patry |
1500
![V](/web/20061116193009im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | RAILWAYS
|
![V](/web/20061116193009im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Bev Desjarlais |
![V](/web/20061116193009im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. David M. Collenette |
![V](/web/20061116193009im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | CHILD POVERTY
|
![V](/web/20061116193009im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Diane St-Jacques |
![V](/web/20061116193009im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew |
![V](/web/20061116193009im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | PRESENCE IN GALLERY
|
![V](/web/20061116193009im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | The Speaker |
![V](/web/20061116193009im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | PRIVILEGE
|
![V](/web/20061116193009im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Department of National Revenue
|
![V](/web/20061116193009im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Harbance Singh Dhaliwal |
1505
![V](/web/20061116193009im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
|
![V](/web/20061116193009im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO PETITIONS
|
![V](/web/20061116193009im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter Adams |
![V](/web/20061116193009im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | COPYRIGHT ACT
|
![V](/web/20061116193009im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Bill C-358. Introduction and first reading
|
![V](/web/20061116193009im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Steve Mahoney |
1510
![V](/web/20061116193009im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | PETITIONS
|
![V](/web/20061116193009im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Nuclear Weapons
|
![V](/web/20061116193009im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Bob Mills |
![V](/web/20061116193009im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Criminal Code
|
![V](/web/20061116193009im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. John O'Reilly |
![V](/web/20061116193009im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Public Safety Officers
|
![V](/web/20061116193009im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Paul Szabo |
![V](/web/20061116193009im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Young Offenders Act
|
![V](/web/20061116193009im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Keith Martin |
![V](/web/20061116193009im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Old Age Security
|
![V](/web/20061116193009im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Paul DeVillers |
![V](/web/20061116193009im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | CRTC
|
![V](/web/20061116193009im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Paul DeVillers |
![V](/web/20061116193009im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
|
![V](/web/20061116193009im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter Adams |
![V](/web/20061116193009im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton |
![V](/web/20061116193009im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Guy St-Julien |
![V](/web/20061116193009im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | GOVERNMENT ORDERS
|
![V](/web/20061116193009im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | SMALL BUSINESS LOANS ACT
|
![V](/web/20061116193009im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Bill C-21. Second reading
|
![V](/web/20061116193009im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Walt Lastewka |
1515
![V](/web/20061116193009im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Werner Schmidt |
1520
![V](/web/20061116193009im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Steve Mahoney |
1525
1530
![V](/web/20061116193009im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jim Pankiw |
![V](/web/20061116193009im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter Stoffer |
![V](/web/20061116193009im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jason Kenney |
1535
![V](/web/20061116193009im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Monte Solberg |
1540
1545
![V](/web/20061116193009im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. John Maloney |
![V](/web/20061116193009im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter Stoffer |
![V](/web/20061116193009im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jim Pankiw |
![V](/web/20061116193009im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Werner Schmidt |
1550
1555
![V](/web/20061116193009im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. John Solomon |
1600
![V](/web/20061116193009im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Keith Martin |
![V](/web/20061116193009im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Maurizio Bevilacqua |
1605
1610
![V](/web/20061116193009im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Roy Cullen |
1615
1620
![V](/web/20061116193009im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Gary Lunn |
1625
1630
![V](/web/20061116193009im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Antoine Dubé |
1635
1640
1645
![V](/web/20061116193009im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Keith Martin |
1650
![V](/web/20061116193009im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. André Harvey |
1655
![V](/web/20061116193009im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jerry Pickard |
1700
1705
![V](/web/20061116193009im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. John Herron |
1710
![V](/web/20061116193009im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Jean Augustine |
1715
1720
![V](/web/20061116193009im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Pat Martin |
1725
![V](/web/20061116193009im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jim Pankiw |
![V](/web/20061116193009im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. John Solomon |
1730
1735
1740
1745
![V](/web/20061116193009im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Walt Lastewka |
![V](/web/20061116193009im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Leon E. Benoit |
1750
![V](/web/20061116193009im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jim Pankiw |
![V](/web/20061116193009im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Howard Hilstrom |
1755
![V](/web/20061116193009im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jim Pankiw |
![V](/web/20061116193009im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Sarmite Bulte |
1800
1805
![V](/web/20061116193009im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Steve Mahoney |
1810
![V](/web/20061116193009im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter Stoffer |
![V](/web/20061116193009im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Gurmant Grewal |
![V](/web/20061116193009im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Lynn Myers |
1815
1820
![V](/web/20061116193009im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Ralph E. Goodale |
![V](/web/20061116193009im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter Stoffer |
1825
![V](/web/20061116193009im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Steve Mahoney |
![V](/web/20061116193009im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. John Herron |
1830
![V](/web/20061116193009im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | CANADIAN WHEAT BOARD ACT
|
![V](/web/20061116193009im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Bill C-4. Report stage
|
1850
1900
(Division 73)
![V](/web/20061116193009im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Motion No. 1 negatived
|
1905
![V](/web/20061116193009im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Motions Nos. 8, 9, 11, 12, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 21, 23
and 48 negatived
|
(Division 74)
![V](/web/20061116193009im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Motion No. 2 negatived
|
![V](/web/20061116193009im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Motions Nos. 20, 38, 45 and 46 negatived
|
1910
(Division 75)
![V](/web/20061116193009im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Motion No. 4 negatived
|
(Division 78)
![V](/web/20061116193009im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Motion No. 7 negatived
|
![V](/web/20061116193009im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | The Speaker: Mr. Hill |
1920
(Division 76)
![V](/web/20061116193009im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Motion No. 5 negatived
|
1925
(Division 77)
![V](/web/20061116193009im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Motion No. 6 negatived.
|
(Division 79)
![V](/web/20061116193009im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Motion No. 10 negatived.
|
(Division 80)
1930
![V](/web/20061116193009im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Motion No. 13 negatived
|
1940
(Division 81)
![V](/web/20061116193009im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Motion No. 22 negatived
|
(Division 82)
![V](/web/20061116193009im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Motion No. 25 negatived
|
1950
(Division 83)
![V](/web/20061116193009im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Motion No. 32 negatived
|
(Division 84)
![V](/web/20061116193009im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Motion No. 36 negatived
|
1955
![V](/web/20061116193009im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | The Speaker: Pursuant to Standing Order 76 |
2000
(Division 85)
![V](/web/20061116193009im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Motion No. 43 negatived.
|
![V](/web/20061116193009im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Motion for concurrence and second reading
|
![V](/web/20061116193009im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Ralph E. Goodale |
2005
(Division 86)
![V](/web/20061116193009im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Motion agreed to
|
![V](/web/20061116193009im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | ADJOURNMENT PROCEEDINGS
|
![V](/web/20061116193009im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Shipbuilding
|
![V](/web/20061116193009im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Gordon Earle |
2010
![V](/web/20061116193009im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Walt Lastewka |
(Official Version)
EDITED HANSARD • NUMBER 60
![](/web/20061116193009im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/crest2.gif)
HOUSE OF COMMONS
Monday, February 16, 1998
The House met at 11 a.m.
Prayers
PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
1105
[English]
EUROPEAN COMMON MARKET
Mr. Gerald Keddy (South Shore, PC) moved:
That, in the opinion of this House, the government should
instigate a study of non-tariff trade barriers to the European
Common Market, specifically the ban by the European Common Market
of Canadian forest products that have bark or needles attached.
He said: Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my time today with
the hon. member for Richmond—Arthabaska.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): I am afraid that you
have 15 minutes to start with. You are the proposer of the
motion so you cannot share your time unless you get unanimous
consent of the House. Is that your wish?
Mr. Gerald Keddy: Yes.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): Does the hon. member
have unanimous consent of the House to share his time?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
An hon. member: No.
Mr. Gerald Keddy: Madam Speaker, I rise today to bring to
the attention of the House a trade irritant that has cost the
Canadian softwood lumber industry $700 million per year. This
amount does not include the numerous other industries related to
softwood lumber as well as the Canadian Christmas tree market. I
am referring to the non-tariff trade barrier imposed by the
European Union on Canadian softwood lumber.
1110
This trade barrier is disguised as a plant protection measure. I
am speaking of the kiln drying that the European Union imposes on
all softwood lumber being imported from Canada.
First let me give a summary of the pinewood nematode. The
presence of the pinewood nematode in North American prompted the
European Plant Protection Organization to assess the risk of
transmission from North America to Europe via the lumber and the
wood chip pathway of pinewood nematode.
Assessments by the European Plant Protection Organization
identified the pinewood nematode as a quarantine test and
recommended kiln drying as the only accepted quarantine measure.
This was based on the belief that lumber, with only pinewood
nematode and no insect vector, posed a risk of transmission by
other carriers. The United Kingdom did not support this
conclusion and continued to allow imports of green material under
a visual grub hole program which eliminated the insect carrier.
Other member states continued to accept lumber with only freedom
of bark and still allowed the presence of grub holes. With trade
harmonization of the European community, all member states began
to focus on the plant health risks of the pinewood nematode.
The first regulation enforcing kiln drying as the only
acceptable plant health measure was imposed in 1989. Canada did
not support the kiln drying as a plant health measure since kiln
drying is a commercial mark and is based solely upon moisture
content. Canada maintained that moisture content was not the
element which eradicated the parasite but that heat was the
important element. A Canada-European Union joint research
program was started in 1990. Canada invested $800,000 to
determine that 56° centigrade for 30 minutes was the temperature
that pinewood nematode dies.
In 1993 the European Union required all coniferous lumber except
cedar to be heat treated to 56° centigrade for 30 minutes. Cedar
was exempted based on survey information of non-incidence of
pinewood nematode in cedar trees. This information was supplied
to the European Union by the Plant Health Committee of Canada.
In April 1993 the European Union extended the regulation for
visual inspection to eliminate grub holes by four months. However
this was revoked in June when live larvae were found in the
United Kingdom in green Canadian imports certified to be free of
grub holes.
The loss of the program for visual inspection of grub holes
resulted in a $400 million loss in trade since all green
coniferous lumber destined for the European Union, except for
cedar, had to be heat treated. To this day Canada continues to
maintain that heat treatment is unduly trade restrictive based on
the actual risk. Canada and the U.S. have disagreed with the
European Union on a number of scientific arguments related to the
risks of pinewood nematode in the forest of Europe.
In September 1993 the governments of the European Union, Canada
and the U.S.A. convened an international panel of experts from
China, Japan, Europe and North America. The discrepancies
between the conclusions of these experts and the earlier 1998
meeting were the result of extensive scientific research
conducted between 1988 and 1993.
The first discrepancy was that the European Plant Protection
Organization assumed the moderate risk of pine wilt disease north
of the 20°C mean summer isotherm and concluded that pine wilt
could possibly occur in northern Europe if certain conditions
prevailed. The ultimate conclusion was that northern Europe was
not at risk from pine wilt disease and the economic impact of
pinewood nematode was restricted to southern Europe.
The second discrepancy was that the European Plant Protection
Organization's 1988 assessment indicated that there had been
interceptions of pinewood nematode into the European Union. In
fact pine wood nematode was intercepted on one shipment out of
630 surveyed.
The survey was designed to survey the worse case scenario.
Therefore the survey results had no statistical validity. In
order to determine a statistically valid incidence level Canada
surveyed its export lumber between July and December 1993. In
those six months no pinewood nematode was found in 1,157 random
samples. This translate into a 99.7% reliability level. Canadian
lumber is free of pinewood nematode. The conclusion was that
pinewood nematode is rarely, if ever, found in Canadian lumber
exports.
The third discrepancy was that the European Plant Protection
Organization's 1988 assessments concluded that nematodes were
capable of active, independent movement and could leave the wood
which they inhabit to move to adjoining or nearby wood.
1115
The European Union, Canada, U.S.A. and international experts met
and concluded that the research demonstrating this was
inconclusive. In the experts' view there was no supportive
evidence of natural transmission without the carrier except
through root grafting.
The European Union technical team therefore concluded that the
risk of transmission of the nematode without the carrier was
negligible, meaning not worth considering. The conclusion was
that the pinewood nematode could not move independently and that
the insect carrier must be present for transmission to occur.
Therefore eliminating the carrier will eliminate the risk of
transmission.
Since 1989 Canada has lost billions of dollars in exports and
has invested millions of dollars in research to demonstrate that
the presence of pinewood nematode poses a negligible risk to the
European Union and any associated risk can be managed effectively
through appropriate mitigating measures.
Heat treating meant that Canada lost 71% of its market share for
solid wood products in the first year and the market was closed
permanently to other products such as Christmas trees.
From 1993 to 1997 Canada lost 92% of its historic market share
to Europe for solid wood products alone. This amounts to an
excess of $700 million in trade. Millions of additional dollars
of lost trade are incurred through eliminating the potential
exports of other valued forest products.
This brings us to 1997. In September 1997 the Canadian forest
products industry, working in co-operation with provincial
governments interested in resolving this trade barrier which is
disguised as a plant protection measure, agreed that the
Department of International Trade should exercise its World Trade
Organization options and explore a solution to dispute
settlement.
This is one instance where industry and provincial governments
are in full agreement that enough is enough. There have been
enough studies, enough time, and enough market shares have been
lost to warrant action by the federal government. To date the
Minister of International Trade has not indicated his acceptance
of these recommendations. Canada has not yet requested formal
consultations with the European Union on this important trade
irritant.
I urge the Canadian government not to give up on this critical
issue. The demand for Canadian lumber is being replaced by
exports from northern Europe, the Soviet Union and former
satellite countries of the Soviet Union.
There are some who would argue that the American dollar has had
a great effect on this situation. It has certainly allowed the
American market to replace our traditional European market. This
has been further assisted by the results of the American embargo
on softwood lumber, which did not apply to Atlantic Canadian
lumber exports.
Let us not allow ourselves to be co-opted into thinking the
Canadian dollar will stay at 69 cents. No one in business and
certainly no country can afford to lose market share.
There is still a demand for softwood lumber in Europe. Heat
treating rather than kiln drying should be the least that we
accept from the European Plant Protection Organization. Plus it
has never been proven that Christmas trees are carriers for
pinewood nematode transfer and should not be part of the embargo.
If our lumber, wood chips, round wood, pulp and Christmas trees
could possibly introduce pinewood nematode to Europe, obviously
after 500 years of trade to Europe it is there now. If this is
the case it would be a cross-border pest and not applicable to a
European plant protection embargo.
It is time that the Government of Canada stood up for the loss
of a $700 million industry and called the European Union to task.
At best, this should be a minor trade irritant. Instead it is a
blatant example of protectionism in a non-tariff trade barrier.
In conclusion, I urge the Parliament of Canada to study this
very important issue which has a significant impact on the
Canadian economy.
Mr. Gerry Byrne (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Natural Resources, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I thank the member
for raising the important issue of non-tariff trade barriers
which prevent the export of Canadian forest products with bark
and needles to the European community.
I recognize that the member for South Shore has particular
interest in Christmas trees as he, I understand, is a grower. The
issues involved are much broader and affect the forest products
industry as a whole. As Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister
of Natural Resources I take the motion quite seriously.
The Canadian government has been working with Christmas tree
growers, indeed the entire forest products industry, to preserve
existing markets and to develop new market export opportunities.
1120
This sector is of vital importance to the Canadian economy. Ten
per cent of the world's forests are Canadian and there are well
over 300 forest dependent communities across Canada. All in all
840,000 people rely directly or indirectly on the forest for
their livelihood.
In addition, Canada ranks first in the world in terms of forest
products exports. Products ranging from world class light weight
coated paper to engineered panels for home construction are a
vital component of Canadian exports. Forest products producers,
especially those with expanding production, face the constant
challenge of finding and securing new markets. The Government of
Canada wants to help them rise to this challenge.
Christmas tree growers in British Columbia, New Brunswick, Nova
Scotia, Ontario and Quebec already supply millions of Christmas
trees every year to world markets. These Christmas trees are
already being exported to the United States, Central America,
Greenland and even the Caribbean. Increasingly Christmas tree
farmers have been looking even further abroad to find new markets
for their natural products.
The federal government supports these efforts just as it backs
other Canadian industries taking advantage of globalization. The
establishment of the World Trade Organization and the expansion
of free trade in both North and South America have delivered on
promises of open markets. This new dynamic is helping Canadian
businesses grow and prosper in every part of our country.
Even so, barriers to trade remain. It takes constant vigilance
and ceaseless work to prevent creeping protectionism from
reducing access to markets opened by freer trade. As tariffs
have fallen, countries have turned to non-tariff barriers such as
health and environmental regulations to restrict or even ban
imported products which are challenges to domestic industries in
Canada.
The Prime Minister and the government have worked hard to open
up markets and remove trade barriers for Canadian exporters. That
was in evidence during the many team Canada missions he
successfully supported around the world. That is also the case
on the other side of the Atlantic in Europe.
Over the last 10 years the Government of Canada has contested
the way the European community uses health and environmental or
phytosanitary regulations to prevent certain imports. No one
questions the right of governments to protect the health,
environment and safety of their populations, but in many cases
these regulations are unnecessarily restrictive. One example is
the restriction imposed on the Canadian softwood lumber shipped
to Europe.
The majority of countries also require that imported wood
products be free of bark. This kind of non-tariff trade barrier
is increasingly coming into play while international agreements
are being implemented to expand trade and promote economy growth.
Canada recognizes that countries have the right to prevent the
movement of foreign pests, but the Government of Canada also
takes the position that trade restrictions have to be reasonable
and in line with the real risks to health or the environment. In
addition those risks have to be calculated on the basis of sound
scientific research and not unfounded fears.
This is why the departments of foreign affairs and international
trade, agriculture and agri-food and natural resources Canada
have led the way in providing hard data on these types of issues.
I am pleased to inform the member for South Shore that the study
proposed in his motion is being undertaken. Canada has already
launched a joint study with the European commission to reduce
trade barriers and to facilitate trade. This study is one of the
provisions of the joint Canada-European Union action plan signed
by the Prime Minister in December 1996.
Under this process Canada has identified European regulations
which restrict the entry of Canadian products, which act as trade
barriers and which must be addressed.
I assure the House that the Canadian government has been making
strong representations to the European commission in an effort to
resolve these issues. At the same time Canada is keeping all its
options open including provisions of the World Trade
Organization.
While the Canadian government is working diligently to open up
world markets including Europe, it also has to be recognized that
this is a two way street. Canada has its own regulations which
protect Canadian forests, farms, lakes and people from imports
which could lead to disease and animal and plant pests gaining a
foothold in Canada.
Canada is confident however that its phytosanitary regulations
are based on sound science and are aimed only at significant
risks. This means that Canada cannot dismiss the European
concerns about importing green Canadian softwood products.
This is why the Canadian government is committed to working with
the Canadian forest products industry to convince Europeans that
there is no significant risk.
1125
The Canadian forest service of Natural Resources Canada has
already generated a wealth of knowledge about forest pests and
effective measures to control them. The research conducted by
the Canadian forest service is cutting edge and will continue to
serve Canadians well.
The work is demanding and time consuming. There are no quick
and easy answers to these types of issues. Opening up the
European market for Canadian forest products is a challenge but
one that will be met, with the potential to bring great benefits
to Canadians. The Canadian government is prepared to invest the
time and the energy to pursue this very worthy goal.
Mr. Gary Lunn (Saanich—Gulf Islands, Ref.): Madam
Speaker, I thank my friend from South Shore for bringing the
motion forward. I admit that I do not know a lot about the
pinewood nematode, the beetle in the wood which is causing the
ban of the export of Canadian forest products to Europe. However
I would like to bring this debate to the larger picture.
I am from British Columbia. The issue of trade barriers to
softwood lumber is very big as it threatens the forest industry
in British Columbia. In light of that I support anything we can
do to remove all trade barriers.
I thank my hon. friend opposite for his comments. He advised us
that a study is under way.
I do not know if the forest industry in British Columbia right
now is in a crisis situation but it is definitely moving in that
direction. We constantly read in the newspapers and see on the
evening news items about sawmills and forest product companies
that are going under. A lot of it is due to the difficulties and
challenges they face today, some of the difficulties and
challenges being trade barriers and access to foreign markets.
In the last few years the forest industry in British Columbia
has faced trade barriers with the United States which have had a
devastating impact on the industry as a whole. The industry has
had to fight to overcome those barriers. I believe the House is
aware of those trade barriers.
We are moving toward globalized trade. Trade barriers are
coming down. If we are to succeed as a nation with all of our
forest products we will have to fight to ensure that trade
barriers are eliminated and that Canada's interests are first and
foremost.
Having said that, when the government considers this study I ask
it to look at all potential markets. We must do everything we
can do to eliminate trade barriers to ensure that our producers
have access to as many markets as possible and that there are no
unfair practices and scientific data that are unchallenged which
we believe are incorrect and will pose threats to our forest
industry.
The hon. member for South Shore quite correctly pointed out that
our 69 cent dollar to the U.S. is an incentive for Americans to
purchase our softwood lumber products. However it may not be
that way all the time. I understand that if our currency
increases by one cent it represents hundreds of millions of
dollars to the Canadian forest industry alone. I believe that
85% of British Columbia's market is exported to the United
States.
My colleague from Vancouver Island North, who is a professional
forester, will probably be able to speak better than me on the
technical aspects. However, bringing this back to the larger
picture, the motion is very specific to one insect or bug that is
within our softwood lumber and is causing the European ban.
I am not sure of the answer.
1130
Also I would like to ask the government when it does its study,
whether with respect to the pinewood nematode this is targeted at
the Christmas tree industry or where it is specifically
generated. It sounds like the trade barriers are having far
reaching repercussions to all of our softwood lumber. British
Columbia produces a majority of softwood lumber. Does this ban
also apply there? What can we do to ensure that our forestry
companies have access to these markets?
I support the member for South Shore in his initiative to have a
study brought forward on this. I ask to have the larger picture
looked at to ensure that our forest companies have access to as
many markets as possible.
[Translation]
Mr. Benoît Sauvageau (Repentigny, BQ): Madam Speaker, I am
sure you will not mind if, before reading and speaking to the
motion introduced by my colleague for South Shore, I take a few
minutes on this lovely Monday morning, on this historic and special
day, to greet the people from my riding who have come to pay us a
visit here in Ottawa, as well as the many delegations from all over
Quebec who have come here to make known to Canadians and to
Quebeckers our great regret and dissatisfaction with the reference
that began before the Supreme Court this morning.
I thank the people from the riding of Repentigny for being
here this morning.
I would also like to express my appreciation for the support shown
by mayors and municipal politicians who, upon receiving a letter
pointing out the importance of respecting democracy in Quebec, told
us of their interest in following this debate and their
satisfaction with the Bloc Quebecois' particular contribution to
it.
In May and June of 1997, our slogan was “The Bloc is there for
you”, but today, tomorrow and throughout the week, we are going to
show that the Bloc will be there to defend Quebeckers' interests.
Now, I am going to speak more specifically to the motion from
the member for South Shore. Please bear with me while I read it in
its entirety, because, as I am sure you will agree, it is rather
complex: “That, in the opinion of this House, the government should
instigate a study of non-tariff trade barriers to the European
Common Market, specifically the ban by the European
Common Market of Canadian forest products that have bark
or needles attached.”
That is quite specific, but as my colleagues have already
said, it is important nevertheless because, in a number of areas of
international trade in which Quebec and Canada are playing an
increasingly large role, as soon as we step out of line the least
little bit, we are put into our place with references to the court
of international trade or some other court for trade disputes.
For this reason, we must pay particular attention to all these
referrals to trade tribunals.
We were pleased—as was the hon. colleague for South Shore, I
am sure—to learn that the Liberal government was already examining
the possibility of reference to the court. It is worth pointing
out, although I believe the parliamentary secretary did so
inadvertently, that the figures he quoted were perhaps a bit
exaggerated.
What is being referred to here is not lumber in general but rather,
mainly, the specific trade in Canadian forest products with bark or
needles still attached.
This is, therefore, a market of some $11 million. That $11
million figure is significant, definitely, but far from the $700
million figure we were given earlier.
In the Canadian lumber industry, that is a small market. It is
a market that is not expanding, but rather holding its own, for the
businesses involved in this sector are small or very small.
As the previous speakers have pointed out, what is involved is
mainly Christmas tree exports. In Quebec, we are so much into
celebrating Christmas that we keep our trees for ourselves. To all
intents and purposes, we are pretty well absent from this market,
although we do export a few trees.
1135
The problem, or the query, from the European Community
concerns grub larvae. There are a number of scientific sectors
that allow us to look at the real concerns of the Europeans and the
European Community in general in the matter.
We are told, for example, that there is scientific proof. We
were also told there was scientific proof on asbestos. Our
Conservative colleagues from the area will certainly agree with me:
these studies can be made to say almost anything.
This is the same European Community that had such an influence
on the seal hunt. It is the same one that had something to say
about dubbing films in French.
It spoke out about lumber exports generally, in environmental
terms, and now it is concerned more specifically with forest
products that have their bark and needles attached.
As was said earlier, I think we must be open about these trade
disputes. Canada must get involved, as the parliamentary secretary
has said. It should also raise the awareness—ring a few bells,
as we say—of those negotiating the multilateral investment
agreement so we do not increasingly find ourselves in this sort of
bind being pulled hither and thither by the various stakeholders in
this era of globalization.
The subcommittee on international trade tabled a report with
the Minister for International Trade focussing on the clarification
of rules in trade disputes in the context of the MIA.
We have had no response to this report from the subcommittee. We
hope to have a response soon, and especially a positive response on
the legitimate questions raised by my Liberal colleagues, because
the report was not tabled by the Bloc alone, but supported by the
Bloc following the Liberals' recommendations. They agreed to
recognize the importance of clear handling of trade disputes and of
acknowledging a general cultural exception.
This motion by the member for South Shore reminds us of the
importance of all these events surrounding disputes and of clear
international trade and well established rules. With a rare point
of consensus—although I have not heard the NDP on the subject—all
of the parties in the House apparently agree to support this
motion.
Mr. Yvon Godin (Acadie—Bathurst, NDP): Madam Speaker, I rise in
this House today in support of Motion M-181 put forward by my hon.
colleague from South Shore.
Motion M-181 suggests that the government should instigate a study
of non-tariff trade barriers to the European Common Market, specifically
the ban by the ECM of Canadian forest products that have bark or needles
attached.
The Canadian forest industry is one of the most dynamic industries
in the country. It generates $58.7 billion in revenues every year. In
addition, Canada is the largest exporter of forest products in the
world, with $38.3 billion in exports in 1996. This industry is also
important in that it contributes both directly and indirectly to the
creation of 842,000 jobs across the country.
It is from this job creation perspective that I will argue the
importance of the study suggested by my hon. colleague from South Shore.
The non-tariff trade barriers imposed by the European Union on
Canadian lumber have dubious origins. Having to kiln-dry Canadian pine
wood, as required, to kill potential bugs costs the Canadian industry
$780 million.
Steam treatment of wood is an expensive process affecting Canada's
competitiveness with respect to forest products. I consider that
imposing such criteria is necessary when there is a high probability
that some bugs will be transmitted from one country to another. However,
there does not seem to be a high probability of transmission in this
particular case.
The hon. member for South Shore emphasized the absence of an
international consensus about how the said bug is transmitted.
1140
Moreover, a Canadian study shows that 1,157 shipments of Canadian
forest products were totally free of pinewood nematoda. This means there
is only a 0.3% probability of finding this parasite in Canadian
shipments.
Given that international experts are unable to reach a consensus,
and given the low probability of finding pinewood nematoda in Canadian
shipments, the Canadian government must review the issue. One of the
objectives of the Canadian Forestry Service is the promotion of
international trade and investment. Protecting Canadian interests is an
integral part of this mandate.
The study proposed in the motion would allow us to reassess the
scientific findings in this case and eliminate the confusion that seems
to prevail within the international community. The study is all the more
important since it could lead the European Community to reconsider its
criteria on kiln drying for Canadian forest products. This could, in
turn, promote job creation in Canada, to meet the renewed demand from
the European Union.
We often talk about the monetary costs of non-tariff barriers, but
we tend to forget that these barriers also impede job creation. The
Canadian labour force in the logging industry is extremely skilled.
In my riding of Acadie—Bathurst, logging is vital to the region's
economic prosperity.
Unwarranted non-tariff trade barriers affect not only logging companies,
but also the workers of these companies, who find themselves out of work
when the European market becomes less accessible.
As legislators, we have a responsibility to see that any non-tariff
barrier that adversely affects the logging industry is carefully
reviewed, to make sure that the resulting loss of jobs is absolutely
justified.
Perhaps the study will show that the criteria imposed by the
European Community are fully justified. However, given the current lack
of consensus on pinewood nematoda, we must protect the interests of
Canadians and take a very close look at the issue.
[English]
Ms. Sarmite Bulte (Parkdale—High Park, Lib.): Madam
Speaker, Canada has launched a joint study with the European
Commission to reduce trade barriers and facilitate trade. This
study is one of the provisions of the joint Canada-European Union
action plan signed by the Prime Minister in December 1996.
By May 1998 we hope to have first, a list of barriers identified
in terms of their economic significance for Canada and the
European Union; second, options for reducing or eliminating these
barriers, including trilateral agreements with the United States
and multilateral agreements; and third, an identification of the
best means of addressing the most significant barriers.
Canada has identified the European Union's phytosanitary
regulations affecting Canadian lumber exports as a barrier for
the purposes of this study. Canada has been making strong
representations in an effort to resolve this issue bilaterally
and is now considering its options under the World Trade
Organization.
As a WTO member which is bound by the agreement on sanitary and
phytosanitary measures, Canada recognizes the rights of all
members to adopt measures necessary to protect plant health.
Canada and other members, like the European Union, regulate the
importation of plant material in their territories in order to
prevent the introduction and spread of pests or disease that
could threaten the health of their forests.
Sanitary and phytosanitary measures by their very nature can
result in some restrictions on trade. This is currently the case
with respect to Canadian exports of certain plant products to the
European Union.
With respect to live trees or forestry products with bark and
needles attached, like Christmas trees, the European Union has
been concerned for many years with a number of pests that can be
found on coniferous trees. Canadian plant health officials have
similar concerns with respect to imports from the European Union.
In addition, the European Union is regulating the importation of
green coniferous lumber from Canada and other countries to
prevent the entry of pinewood nematode, a pest which the European
Union fears can cause damage to its forests.
1145
The Canadian government, with the co-operation of the Canadian
industry, has conducted various surveys and studies to analyse
the risk of transmission of pinewood nematode to the forests of
Europe. The Canadian government has also worked with the
Canadian industry on control measures to mitigate the risk of
transmission of pinewood nematode from Canadian shipments of
green lumber.
To date, however, European Union plant officials are not
prepared to provide access for Canadian green coniferous lumber
or other untreated forestry products.
The new WTO agreement on sanitary and phytosanitary measures
builds on previous trade rules to restrict the use of unjustified
and unnecessary sanitary and phytosanitary measures while
maintaining the right of every country to provide the level of
protection it deems appropriate.
The government will continue to work with the industry and the
provinces to ensure that Canada's rights and obligations under
the agreement on sanitary and phytosanitary measures are
protected along with the interests of the Canadian forest
industry.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): If the member for
South Shore is to sum up, it will be understood that no other
member will be able to rise on this issue.
Mr. Gerald Keddy (South Shore, PC): Madam Speaker, in
summary, I think there are several issues at stake which all
members of the House, especially the members on the government
side, should be aware of.
The reason I worded the motion to deal with forest products with
bark and needles attached, specifically relating to the Christmas
tree industry, is that there has never been a proven link between
the Christmas tree industry and the introduction of pinewood
nematode into Europe.
For members here today who may not be completely cognizant of
this issue, pinewood nematode is a parasite that lives in the gut
of wood boring insects such as the sawyer beetle. That was the
reasoning behind European plant protection measures asking to
identify bore holes in the wood. They thought if the vector was
not there or the insect was not in the wood that would reduce the
incidence of transmission.
I deliberately spoke about the value of the lumber industry and
the potential to transmit pinewood nematode to Europe versus the
Christmas tree area of this motion.
I want to state this once again. The reason the motion is made
on Christmas trees is that Christmas trees should not have the
same classification as lumber. I will deal with the lumber issue
in a minute. Christmas trees are a separate issue. There has
never been a proven link by plant health Canada or by the
European plant protection agencies that they can transmit
pinewood nematode into the European forest. Therefore we should
be opening that door in order to get the rest of our lumber
supplies into Europe.
I would like to make a few comments on the government's actions
since December 1996. I am in agreement that the government has
instigated a study. The lumber suppliers I have talked to have
felt that the studies have been bogged down and that there is no
heart on behalf of our scientists to push this as a real relative
issue into Europe. They feel there is definitely something we
should be doing here. As parliamentarians and as people who
represent our constituencies and the rest of the nation, it is
our job to bring those points forward.
There are a couple of things we need to understand. Plant
health Canada spent $800,000 on a study to prove that heat
treating eliminated pinewood nematode in our forest products.
There is a big difference between heat treating and kiln drying.
The European plant protection organization enforces the kiln
drying law. Kiln drying is a longer process. It is much more
expensive. There is no comparison in the two processes. The only
certification we get out of kiln drying is when we put the kiln
dried seal on a piece of lumber it certifies that there is less
than 20% moisture content in it. There is no certification of
heat. There is nothing else there. It is strictly a
certification of moisture content.
1150
The least we should accept for the Canadian lumber industry is
the certification of heat treating which would be a lot cheaper
and would allow our product to go to Europe without that extra
cost of kiln drying.
The other point I do not think we can speak enough to, and I
realize I have only five minutes, is that we have traded with
Europe since the Vikings were here in the 10th century. We have
traded with Europe for 500 years of recorded trade. If there is
any danger of transference of pinewood nematode into the forests
of Europe, surely this House would agree it is there now.
We have never had any significant studies by the European plant
health organization that it is not already there. It has not
proven to us that it does not already have the problem. If it
does, it is not a foreign pest. It is a cross-border pest and
the plant health organization regulations would not apply.
Look at our history of trade with Europe. We used to ship
millions of board feet of lumber across the ocean in log barges
with the bark attached. We have exported Christmas trees to
Europe for 75 years. The last market to fall was when Italy
joined the common market in the early 1990s. Until that time we
sold Christmas trees to Italy.
All of a sudden the door closed. They said no, now that we have
signed a piece of paper, we have a trade agreement, we are a
member of the European Union, your treaties are no longer
acceptable. Nothing changed. They were not a threat the day
before, they were not a threat the day after.
In conclusion, I would like once again to ask for the unanimous
consent of the House to make this motion votable.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): Does the hon. member
have the unanimous consent of the House?
An hon. member: No.
[Translation]
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): Since no more members wish
to speak and the motion was not selected as a votable item, the
hour provided for consideration of Private Members' Business has
now expired and the item is dropped from the Order Paper.
[English]
Ms. Marlene Catterall (Ottawa West—Nepean, Lib.): On a point
of order, Madam Speaker, it being not quite noon, you might find
consent in the House to suspend until noon when the House could
move to Government Orders.
SUSPENSION OF SITTING
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): Is there unanimous
consent to suspend the sitting of the House until 12 noon?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
(The sitting of the House was suspended at 11.54 a.m.)
1200
[Translation]
SITTING RESUMED
The House resumed at 12.00 p.m.
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[Translation]
SMALL BUSINESS LOANS ACT
Hon. John Manley (Minister of Industry, Lib.) moved that
Bill C-21, an act to amend the Small Business Loans Act, be read
the second time and referred to a committee.
He said: Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to have the
opportunity to introduce Bill C-21, an act to amend the Small
Business Loans Act, in the House of Commons. This is an important
bill because its purpose is twofold: to maintain an element of
government framework in order to support small businesses in Canada
and help them prosper, and to ensure improved operation of this
element.
Small businesses play a vital role in Canada's economy. They
number more than 2.5 million, including the people they employ.
Half of all private sector jobs are in businesses with fewer than
100 employees, and 43% of this sector's productivity comes from
such businesses. In 1996-97, small businesses created 81% of all
new jobs.
It is clear that Canadians see small businesses as one of the great
engines of economic growth and that their importance is continuing
to grow.
The business community has often said, however, that the
absence of reasonable financing is a significant obstacle to the
growth of small businesses. It is for this very reason that the
small business loans program exists.
[English]
The objective of the Small Business Loans Act is to increase the
availability of loans for the establishment, expansion,
modernization and improvement of small business enterprises by
encouraging lending institutions to make loans at reasonable
terms and conditions. These fixed asset loans are available for
such things as the purchase of land or equipment or for making
improvements to a leasehold. They are not available for the
purpose of financing the purchase of shares, working capital or
existing debt. They are not based upon goodwill or other
intangibles.
Virtually all small businesses are eligible to borrow under this
program. Eligible borrowers include almost all enterprises in
Canada that operate for gain or profit provided the annual gross
revenue of the business does not exceed $5 million. Farming
operations and religious and not for profit organizations are
excluded from this program.
The small business loans program was established back in 1961
and its overall record is one of great success. Preliminary
information indicates that in fiscal 1996-97 alone some 30,000
small and medium size businesses used the SBLA to access about $2
billion of financing. Clearly the small business loans program
provides significant and obvious benefits to Canadians and their
economy.
[Translation]
The program is subject to a cut-off clause and has been
extended many times since 1962 for fixed periods. Unless
Parliament decides otherwise, however, no new loans may be approved
under the program after March 31, 1998.
1205
The bill we are introducing today would enable us to continue
to meet the needs of small businesses in Canada where long term
loans are concerned. It would extend the SBLA by one year, and
would increase the total loan envelope.
More specifically, Bill C-21 amends the Small Business Loan
Act by extending its application to March 31, 1999 and by
increasing the total envelope by $1 billion, thus raising it from
$14 billion to $15 billion.
[English]
Passage of this bill will allow the SBLA program to continue
beyond March 31, 1998. The extension of the program for another
fiscal year is important to continue to meet the expanding needs
of small business during this period of strong economic growth.
At present, lending under the program has reached $12.7 billion
and has a ceiling of $14 billion. The $1 billion figure
contained in Bill C-21 was arrived at because this is the amount
that current economic forecasts have determined to be necessary
to allow lending to continue for one year.
As I have stated, the SBLA program has served Canadians well
since its adoption in 1961. The program is supported by the
small business working committee which includes representatives
of the Canadian Federation of Independent Business, the Chamber
of Commerce and other Canadian business leaders. It was also
supported by the Standing Committee on Industry in its report
“Taking Care of Small Business”.
But those who support the program have also encouraged us to
continue improve it, to increase its effectiveness and to lower
costs for the taxpayer. Indeed the SBLA program is at present
undergoing a comprehensive review with input from both private
and public sector stakeholders.
Moreover Canada's auditor general audited the SBLA program and
released his report in December 1997. I am pleased that the
auditor general noted that we have made considerable progress
toward increasing productivity and reducing the overall costs of
the program. The auditor general's report will be a very useful
tool as we review the SBLA and design ways to make the Small
Business Loans Act even better in the future.
A one year extension of the act will provide the time needed to
complete the review of the program. The extension will also
allow both private and public sector stakeholders to consider the
auditor general's recommendations and thus become better prepared
to participate in the ongoing comprehensive program and policy
review.
[Translation]
In 1993, the previous government made in-depth changes to the
program, resulting in a heavy increase in the number of loans made.
When we came into power, we saw that the program's sustainability
was in jeopardy. As a result, the government made major changes in
1995 in order to move in the direction of a cost recovery program,
for the first time.
We imposed annual administration fees, the purpose of which
was to compensate for claims for losses on loans extended after
March 31, 1995. As the auditor general pointed out, however, we
inherited a heavy burden, which will weigh upon us for some years
yet.
[English]
The average period before a loan defaults is about three to five
years, but the major program changes were approved by Parliament
effective January 1, 1996. Thus we are now living with the costs
associated with the massive build-up of lending under the 1993-95
SBLA rules. We did not wait for the auditor general's report to
act responsibly to address this problem. As I said before, we
took necessary action in 1995 to move the SBLA program toward
cost recovery.
Consider the facts. The SBLA at present guarantees to the SME
community loans worth approximately $2 billion per year. Are we
to scrap this worthwhile program because of losses that were
incurred as a result of 1993 program changes as some critics have
proposed? That would be throwing out the baby with the bath
water.
The sensible and responsible course of action is to pass Bill
C-21 and to continue the SBLA program for another year, using
that time to complete our comprehensive review so that the SBLA
can be made into an even better instrument for responding to the
needs of small and medium size businesses.
1210
Certainly there is room for additional improvements. That is
what the review process is all about. For example an improved
monitoring process could provide for a better means of tracking
performance and verifying cost recovery. Likewise a better
forecasting system could make the program more flexible and
better able to respond to economic conditions and the changing
needs of small business.
While the SBLA lays out clear objectives for the program, we do
need a more detailed and updated evaluation framework. This
framework will be developed as part of the comprehensive review
being undertaken this year.
[Translation]
Those are the sort of questions being asked in the review that
is under way. To date, the studies and consultations have
addressed the following points: general advantages of the program;
possible extension of the program; specific consequences relating
to inclusion of capitalized leases among the activities eligible
for financing.
Other studies are either under way or in preparation on:
program costs; the possible inclusion of operating costs in the
expenses eligible for loans; the consequences of improved start-up
loans; possible changes to program parameters; possible changes to
the regulations, and the auditor general's recommendations.
[English]
We want to make sure that the SBLA program remains relevant to
the needs of the small and medium size enterprise community. The
auditor general's report will help the government ensure the
effectiveness of this valuable program.
The types of questions that are being asked and answered by this
comprehensive review illustrate why it is both relevant and
necessary to constantly consider both the costs and the benefits
of the program. The government therefore is encouraging
interested parties to come forward and participate in the review
process over the coming year.
The private sector financial market is at present in a period of
rapid change with new financial products and services being added
on an almost weekly basis. The impact of these changes on the
SME access to financing is as yet unclear. Therefore it is
important that we keep some stability in the system by keeping
the SBLA program in place. It is also important that we take
this evolution of the SME financing environment into account as
part of the comprehensive review process to ensure that the
program remains both relevant and sustainable.
It is true that there is a wide diversity of private and public
sector programs which provide financing to SMEs. However the
SBLA is unique. Under it the government does not provide money
directly to small businesses. The program provides private
sector lenders with a government guarantee for those lenders who
sustain loan losses. The lenders are the sole decision makers as
to whether or not a loan is made.
Thus it enables the vast majority of SMEs to have access to
fixed asset financing. It is accessible through more than 1,500
different lenders: banks, caisses populaires, credit unions,
Alberta treasury branches, loan and trust companies, and other
institutions.
Far from duplicating the services of other programs, the
presence of the SBLA program has allowed federal and provincial
programs to focus on other usually more narrowly defined gaps in
SME financing.
[Translation]
That program bears no resemblance to a small business subsidy
program. The loans that are now being guaranteed under the terms
of the program are made in keeping with the principle of cost
recovery.
Thanks to the SBLA, the government, the financial institutions
and the small business borrowers share the risks inherent in
capital loans. By pooling the risk, the SBLA is supporting one of
the most dynamic growth sectors of the Canadian economy.
The Small Business Loans Program meets a need that would not
be met otherwise. The average amount loaned under the program is
extremely modest: in the vicinity of $65,000.
[English]
Moreover the success rate of the program is quite high.
In the history of the program some 94% of SBLA loans have been
repaid. This suggests that the lenders are exercising good
judgment when they decide who gets an SBLA loan, since it is the
private sector lenders who decide who receives a loan under the
program and not the government.
1215
The small business loans program is an integral part of our
programs and services to promote growth and job creation in
Canada's small business sector. By passing the act before the
House we will allow the SBLA to continue to back loans to SMEs
for another year, a year during which we can complete the
comprehensive review of the SBLA that is under way. The debate
on that review will help determine the longer term future of the
Small Business Loans Act.
Madam Speaker, I thank you and I ask hon. members for their
co-operation in the swift passage of this legislation.
Mr. Jim Pankiw (Saskatoon—Humboldt, Ref.): Madam
Speaker, it is a pleasure to participate in the debate on Bill
C-21, an act to amend the Small Business Loans Act. The purpose
of the bill is to extend the SBLA for another year until March
1999 and to raise the government's total liability to $15
billion, a $1 billion increase.
Under the Small Business Loans Act businesses can apply for a
government guaranteed loan up to a maximum of $250,000. Before
changes were introduced in 1995, SBLA borrowers were subject to a
2% registration fee and the taxpayer would cover 90% of any loan
that had been defaulted. However, changes were introduced in
1995 where an additional one and a quarter per cent
administration fee was passed on to the borrower and the taxpayer
would cover 85% of any defaulted loan.
These changes were introduced to move the SBLA toward full cost
recovery. While that is certainly a laudable goal there is some
question as to what effect these fees have had on bankruptcies
and whether the program can reach full cost recovery. Concerns
surrounding these matters can be found in chapter 29 of the
auditor general's report of December 1997. The auditor general
has raised serious concerns about the operation of the SBLA, and
his analysis of the functioning of the program constitutes the
basis for Reform's opposition to this bill.
Reform is acutely aware of the difficulties that face small
businesses in terms of obtaining financing. Access to financing
continues to be a major impediment to the growth of small
business in Canada. However, we must ask will more government
funds alleviate the problem? Will putting the taxpayer on the
hook for another billion dollars be the surest way to increase
access to financing? Will Bill C-21 contribute to growth in the
small business sector and help to address Canada's chronic
unemployment? The answer to these questions is no.
Government spending programs do little to create employment.
Government intervention in the marketplace creates an unlevel
playing field and ultimately does more harm than good. Studies
examining regional development programs like the Atlantic Canada
Opportunities Agency indicate they simply promote and protect
inefficient enterprises. They may be handy for the government in
buying votes but real long term, good paying jobs are rarely the
result.
Jobs created by the Liberals under these types of government
programs are always overstated, and the SBLA is no exception. The
auditor general found that with respect to the Liberals'
infrastructure program job creation numbers were highly inflated.
An audit of ACOA found the same problems. The problem is the
Liberals simply accept job projections as actual jobs created.
In a press release of November 20, 1997 the industry minister
claimed the SBLA created more than 73,000 jobs in the 1996-97
year. However, the actual number of jobs created is probably
closer to 14,000. The auditor general found that under the SBLA,
like other government spending programs, job creation figures had
been inflated by as much as five times. I invite the minister to
issue an erratum to his press release given this huge
discrepancy.
1220
I also encourage the minister to speak with his SBLA officials
considering this discrepancy and the many other serious problems
the auditor general has found. It seems as though the Minister
of Industry has been asleep at the switch, and it took the
findings of the auditor general to prompt a total review of the
SBLA. And yet before this review has been completed and given the
auditor general's findings, the minister comes before this House
and asks for an endorsement of another $1 billion secured with
taxpayer money.
We have to say no to this Liberal solution, throwing good money
after bad. The errors in the minister's November 20 press release
do not end with job creation figures. The release states that
government payouts are covered by user fees built into the
interest charged to borrowers. That is wrong. While there are
user fees, taxpayers are on the hook for $210 million in
defaulted loans for the period between 1993 and 1995. The auditor
general does not believe that new user fees will lead to full
cost recovery.
The minister's release goes on to say that Bill C-21 will allow
the SBLA to operate for another year at little or no cost to the
Canadian taxpayer. Does a $210 million payout in defaulted loans
qualify as no cost to the Canadian taxpayer?
The errors in the minister's release are quite glaring, and I
suggest to him that before he issues another one on the SBLA, he
may wish to consult with the auditor general and get his facts
straight. Clearly the minister is not getting the whole story
from his SBLA officials and they are keeping him in the dark.
The auditor general has a great deal more criticism for this
program. He stated that studies done for industry found that
between 30% and 50% of SBLA loans were unnecessary. These firms
would have received loans from their financial institutions
anyway.
The minister has known about this since 1994 and a second study
was done in 1996, but nothing has been done to curtail the
program or streamline its operations and thereby reduce the risk
to the Canadian taxpayer.
What this government has done is returned again and again to
this House asking for an increase to the liability ceiling of the
SBLA. More money, more money, more money. That is the motto of
the Liberal when it comes to public funds. They think that
Canadians are a bottomless pit of financial resources and
therefore they can continue increasing taxes year after year.
Canadians are fed up with tax and spend governments. We have had
enough of politicians fixated with continually expanding the size
of government and increasing taxes every year to pay for it.
The auditor general also found that the SBLA has been abused by
borrowers and lenders. Borrowers have split their companies into
subsidiaries so that they can receive more money than the
$250,000 SBLA limit. Lenders have charged SBLA applicants
additional fees for their loans and they have not exercised due
diligence in approving the SBLA applications. Because defaulted
loans are covered by the taxpayer, many lenders simply do not
care and they approve questionable SBLA loans.
Again, who foots the bill for these abuses? The taxpayers,
ordinary Canadian families. Do the Liberals care? No. They come
forward with a bill requesting that Canadians cover another $1
billion in liability.
The auditor general was also critical of the SBLA's lack of
accountability to Parliament. He states parliamentarians do not
have the information necessary to assess whether the SBLA program
is managed efficiently and is achieving its objective. The
minister himself does not even have this information. That is why
we see such a damning report from the auditor general.
His report outlines a program that is inefficient with no clear
goals or objectives. It has taken a scathing report by the
auditor general to prompt the minister into action to conduct a
full review of the SBLA. Why was this review not done earlier?
What has the minister been doing while the SBLA has deteriorated
to this terribly inefficient state?
I will tell members what he has been doing. He has been cosying
up to big business like Bombardier and its many affiliates with
grant after grant after grant. Meanwhile small businesses, the
engine driving the economy and job growth in this country, takes
a back seat to the minister and his chosen aerospace companies in
Montreal.
The auditor general has found serious problems with the SBLA,
but here are the Liberals asking for another $1 billion in
taxpayer guarantees, promising to finish the review later.
We know what effect reviews, studies and royal commissions have
on this government. None at all.
1225
Since 1994 the Liberals have known that there were problems with
the SBLA and yet here we are, four years later, receiving a
report like this from the auditor general. Unfortunately it is
the taxpayer who ends up on the hook for this Liberal
complacency.
If the Liberals had any real concern for small business
financing and growth and creating jobs in this country, they
would not be asking for an additional $1 billion in public
guarantees. They would be asking the finance minister for $1
billion in tax relief.
Survey after survey shows that Liberal taxes are draining the
lifeblood out of the economy and it is small businesses that
suffer.
The Canadian Federation of Independent Business found in its
October 1997 survey that 80% of small businesses cited the total
tax burden as too high. In its prebudget submission, the CFIB
stated that tax levels continue to be the number one concern of
small business.
However, the Liberals have hammered small business once again
with a further increase in CPP premiums, a move that everyone
knows will kill jobs in our country and force many small
businesses into bankruptcy. Indeed, studies done by the finance
department show how increasing payroll taxes kills jobs. It is
not that the government does not know, it just does not care.
The CPP hike is retroactive to 1997 and changes to employment
insurance premiums still ensure the Liberals will collect an
extra $5 billion each year from hardworking Canadians. If the
finance department knows payroll taxes kill jobs, why are they
punishing us with ridiculously high employment insurance
premiums? Why not reduce EI premiums to a level where the fund
is breaking even?
It is because the finance minister uses this fund to reduce the
deficit. Thanks for eliminating the deficit should not go to him
but to hardworking Canadians whose quality of life suffers
because of the high tax policies of the Liberal government.
The small business deduction limit of $200,000 has not been
changed in 16 years. Even just accounting for inflation, the
limit should be at $315,000 today. However, keeping the limit
low allows the Liberals to extract more tax dollars from more
small businesses.
Steadily increasing taxes are leaving small businesses with no
retained earnings. All their funds are going to Ottawa. Retained
earnings are essential for small businesses to grow.
Rather than demand another $1 billion from taxpayers under Bill
C-21, why not leave $1 billion in the pockets of small business
owners?
In a January 27, 1998 news release the CFIB called on
governments at all levels to rein in forms of taxation that drain
small firms of valuable retained earnings. The CFIB sent a
pre-election small business survey to all political parties. The
Liberal answer to questions on job creation was more government
spending programs. The Liberal answer to questions on small
business was more government spending programs.
The Liberals just do not get it. Government does not create
jobs. Redistribution of wealth does not create jobs. Government
spending programs are not the answer to addressing unemployment
in Canada. We need to bring in broad based tax relief, lower
income taxes and reduce payroll taxes. That encourages spending
and prompts firms to hire more employees. That is how to lower
unemployment.
Between 1990 and 1996 the CATO Institute in the United States
did a study comparing 10 high tax states with 10 low tax states.
The tax cutters increased employment by 10.8% while the high tax
states created zero net new jobs. The tax cutter economies grew
22% faster than the high tax states.
I know these facts fall on deaf ears within the Liberal cabinet.
It has passed up opportunities to cut taxes. It continues to
spend and it continues to believe that big government is good,
government knows what is best and government programs are the
answer.
Small businesses know that Reform is on their side. We want to
cut the GST and eliminate the 3% and 5% income surtaxes
introduced by the Tories. We will reduce capital gains taxes to
encourage investment and reduce job killing payroll taxes. These
are the measures that small businesses have been asking for, and
Reform has been listening. These policies will leave more of
their hard earned dollars in their pockets and create an
environment where small business can succeed and grow. These
policies will allow firms to retain more of their earnings,
allowing them to build equity and therefore provide them with a
better opportunity to obtain financing.
1230
The Liberals are way off target in demanding another $1 billion
for the SBLA. They should be giving $1 billion to small
businesses in the form of much needed tax relief. Given the
auditor general's findings, it is incredible that the minister
would demand another $1 billion for the SBLA program prior to the
completion of an analysis of the effectiveness and efficiency of
the program.
Had the obvious inefficiencies been addressed when they should
have been, the minister would not be asking taxpayers to cover an
extra $1 billion because as much as $6 billion would not have
been wasted. Had the Liberal government acted properly, the
taxpayer liability could be reduced by $6 billion instead of
facing yet another increase.
Accordingly the Reform Party does not support Bill C-21.
[Translation]
Mrs. Francine Lalonde (Mercier, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased
to rise on behalf of the Bloc to speak at second reading, that is,
when parties take a stand on the principle of a bill, in this case
in favour of Bill C-21, which extends by a year and $1 billion the
availability of funds under the Small Business Loans Act.
I would add right off that we feel obliged to vote in favour
of the bill so as not to deprive small and medium size businesses
of credit in the months to come, even though it is inadequate and
the guarantees of government management were sharply criticized by
the auditor general. We feel we must vote in favour of the
principle of the bill, even though we will no doubt make
recommendations during committee hearings and at third reading.
The Canadian Small Business Loans Act dates from 1971. It was
revised in 1995 and serves to guarantee loans to small and medium
size businesses. However, we have many criticisms of it.
After looking at the broad use of this legislation in Quebec, I
will have a look at the criticism levelled by the auditor general
and, no less importantly, by the Canadian Federation of Independent
Business, which is an umbrella organization for many small and
medium size businesses, which it regularly surveys.
I would first like to say that, again, Quebec's take on this
issue is unique. The caisses populaires in Quebec administer more
than half the loans under the SBLA, the Small Business Loans Act.
In 1995-96, over 6,000 loans were granted by caisses populaires for
a total of $321 million, whereas the banks gave out 5,600 loans
worth $385 million. Financial institutions have therefore given a
total of 11,952 loans worth $732 million.
I should point out here that, even though the bill allows the
loans to reach the maximum of $15 billion, it does not mean that
the government is lending out $15 billion. It means that the
government has agreed to pay back the lenders, either the banks or
the caisses populaires, up to 15% of the loans granted, but never
more than 10% per borrower.
So the figure of $15 billion can be bandied about, but in fact
the risk to the government is much less, understandably. It is not
in the business of lending money.
1235
I would point out that this $732 million for 1995-96 represents
Quebec's share of a total amount of $2.233 billion and 34,000 loans
across Canada. The number of loans for 1996-97 is slightly lower in
Quebec as well as across Canada. The amount loaned and therefore
guaranteed is also lower, that is to say $662 million in Quebec and
$1.999 billion for Canada as a whole.
I think it is interesting for those who are following this
debate—although I am pretty sure that, in Quebec, many more are
watching RDI and following the supreme court proceedings, which I
would no doubt be doing if I were not here, but for the benefit
at least of those who may catch the replay this evening and those
following the House of Commons proceedings live across Canada, it
is certainly interesting to know that the auditor general
reiterated that the purpose of the departmental program is to
encourage lenders to extend loans on reasonable terms for the
establishment, expansion, modernization and improvement of
businesses.
We readily agree with this objective. The problem, if I may
challenge the auditor general, is that loans extended as provided by the
act for the purpose of buying land, building offices or plants or
acquiring new equipment cannot in any way meet the objective stated
here. The objective is to provide small business with reasonable terms
to get set up—in other words start-up assistance—and expand or grow.
It is as risky for a business to expand as it is for it to start up.
While statistics vary, it is generally agreed that, over a ten year
period, two or three businesses out of ten or two out of every five will
make it. It is not a matter of life or death. Studies have been
conducted, but there is a close link between the capacity of a small
business to start up and develop and its management of course, but also
the availability of capital.
I would add that it is all the more true, and the auditor general
emphasized this point at the end, that, in this era of knowledge-based
economy, the necessary investment and working capital may be much
greater than for a small or medium size business in the service sector,
for example.
The auditor general made a number of interesting points, some of
which are worth mentioning for the benefit of Canadians. He said that,
in recent years, many studies were conducted on the small business
sector. At the federal level, the 1994 report prepared jointly by the
Department of Finance and Industry Canada on the development of small
businesses—nice, but what does it really mean?—pointed out that
the growth of small businesses is a determining factor for job creation
in Canada. So, the growth of small businesses is a determining factor
for job creation in Canada.
I will get back to this, but let me first continue. He added
that the report also stressed the critical importance of having
access to capital, and the need for an operational environment
that promotes the growth of small businesses. The report
mentioned the means that the federal government—but we know that
some provincial governments are just as active in this area, in a
totally independent fashion, which can lead to overlap and even
contradictory policies—intended to take to create such an
environment: to work in close co-operation with the other
economic stakeholders, and to set up new policies and programs to
support small businesses.
1240
That was in 1994. The important point is that the review of
the Small Business Loans Act in 1995 was very limited. I would
like to mention here that Bloc Quebecois members on the committee
stressed how unwise it was not to include working capital as
eligible for loans under the Small Business Loans Act.
I was pleased to hear the minister say earlier, when
announcing a review of the act, that he was thinking of including
working capital.
How many problems, lost jobs and failures of small businesses could
have been avoided if the government had considered loan guarantees
for working capital.
This may sound technical, but it is really very simple. When
people set up a business, or when are looking at a period of
growth, they incurs expenses and then wait for the money to come
in. Often, owners of businesses put everything they have into
getting a business started. Accounts payable are often due in 30
days, but accounts receivable sometimes go to 90, with the result
that, if the owners do not have the necessary working capital, they
lose everything they have put in. Often, they lose your savings,
as well as the savings of their friends and relatives.
Ensuring that the SMEs have sufficient access to allow them to
start up and expand operations—and this includes working
capital—it was extremely wise of the colleagues in the Bloc
Quebecois to point this out.
The auditor general continues. He makes an extremely important
observation, repeating a comment by the Committee. He said “The
Committee also believed that the government guarantee should be
used to increase the availability of credit rather than to allow
lenders to reduce their risk on loans that they would have made
without the guarantee”.
Further on, the auditor general went on to say that it was
found—in a variety of ways—that close to half of the loans were
made without government guarantee.
Since these guarantees are being used on loans that would have
been made in any case, they limit access to credit where they would
have been really necessary.
The banks need to be followed up on closely, since they may be
tempted to take advantage of this opportunity. It is
understandable, too, that it is not necessarily easy for the
department to follow every action of the banks. This matter must
be looked into, most definitely, as the auditor general says.
Another passage that he gives emphasis to, and one which
merits repeating here, is a committee recommendation which was not
followed up on. It recommended a series of initiatives to provide
a sound basis for small business growth and development.
Those initiatives included increasing financial institutions'
participation in debt financing, together with using the
government's leverage to encourage competition among financial
institutions to significantly increase their appetite for lending
in the small business market. The auditor general reiterated his
interest in this question further on.
What did the auditor general recommend further? That the
program's objectives be clear. That the projected results be
equally clear.
1245
He notes that the objectives include recovering costs, not
losing money, as the Reformers insist the government ought to do,
but he also stresses that the target of creating jobs must comprise
a precise strategy for doing so, be it through the establishment or
the expansion of businesses.
The auditor general points out that certain loans intended to
modernize businesses kill jobs rather than create them. Naturally,
it can sometimes be said that it is better to modernize and lose a
few jobs rather than lose all the jobs a few months later because
the business is no longer competitive.
The question remains: how can this program be used to help create
jobs?
The auditor general proposes an optimum design for the
program. If the aim is to promote growth, this objective should be
made clear. For it to be made clear, the approach must be
considered.
He pointed out, after studying the situation, that only 54% of
loans granted to small and medium business, including new business,
could be considered to contribute to growth. This is not a
significant proportion. Here we come to the most important
sentence in his report “We consider that the dual objectives of
increasing the availability of loans at reasonable rates while
recovering all costs need careful analysis”.
This is the most important point, and I wonder if the government or
our colleagues from the Reform Party gave it much thought. On the one
hand, there is indeed a need to recover the amount of the loans
guaranteed with taxpayers' money, but on the other hand, if this
curtails the effectiveness of the program as a whole, then we are no
further ahead.
Small business is one of the main engines of growth, job creation
and wealth in Canada as well as in Quebec. It needs us to give serious
thought to what can help it start up, develop and modernize, instead of
constantly struggling to survive, which gets in the way of being the
engine of growth that it can be.
When he talks about serious consideration, are these two objectives
incompatible? This is an issue we will come back to later as it is a
crucial one, especially in this knowledge and information age.
The auditor general does indeed ask very important questions. The
most important one is no doubt: is this particular program effective?
There are currently small and medium size businesses that have loans
they are happy with. However, the study conducted by the Canadian
Federation of Independent Businesses shows how unsatisfactory this
program is in meeting its intended purposes. I repeat, the purpose is
the establishment, development, modernization and improvement of
businesses.
1250
If these loans only allow them to struggle along, to get going only
to come crashing down, what is the point. Because it should be pointed
out that banks cannot demand personal securities on loans guaranteed
under the act, but they do in other areas and, as a result, the loan as
a whole becomes tied to the business owner's home, with all his
belongings, his RRSPs and so on.
We do not realize enough how important small business owners are to
economic growth and job creation, often at their own expense,
displaying a virtue seldom heard of these days, namely self-sacrifice.
For years, many small business owners can only pay themselves a small
salary, well below that of senior public servants, or even steel workers
and workers in other sectors. These owners pay themselves a smaller
salary. They risk losing everything they own. They work long hours. If
they calculated their hourly wage—and I am not trying to make a bad
joke—it would often be equivalent to that of MPs, at least those who
work hard, which is the vast majority of them.
The men and women who own small businesses deserve—the word
“deserve” has a moral connotation—or, rather, have the right to get
help, because they make the difference between real growth and a
stagnant economy. We have a duty to help them, to the extent that this
depends on policies.
Major companies are also important, of course, as well as new innovative
businesses, and I will get back to them after discussing a poll from the
Canadian Federation of Independent Business.
Here are some of the major findings: 29% of small business owners
said that credit availability was a serious problem for them. The
situation had improved somewhat, but only for businesses with 20
employees or more.
It is important to note that fewer and fewer businesses apply for
loans. They do not bother doing so because they are convinced that their
application would be rejected. Mrs. Swift said that economic growth is
jeopardized when businesses do not have access to an adequate line of
credit. The fallout hurts everyone.
The lack of money and the inability to get credit hurt everyone, because
this means slower growth, fewer jobs and less wealth. Eleven per cent of
loan applications were rejected, which is 2% more than in 1987.
Mrs. Swift pointed out that the main reason for these rejections is
the turnover among bank executives. This is a very concrete issue and
perhaps the department could make appropriate regulations, or at least
establish some guidelines or policies. It is easier for businesses to
get loans when bank officials have been in place for more than three
years.
1255
The smallest businesses, those with five employees and under,
are seeing interest rates that are increasingly higher than for
other businesses. They have a great deal of difficulty obtaining
credit. Yet these businesses, like self-employed workers, are the
ones now creating the most new jobs. Not giving them easier access
to credit is like shooting ourselves in the foot.
She points out that, in order to improve access to credit for
the smallest businesses, workers' funds like the one in Quebec have
been created, but that, elsewhere in Canada, these funds have often
not been around as long and do not always meet small businesses'
capitalization requirements.
Therefore, she says:
[English]
“The small business sector represents the future of the economy
and its financial well-being should be a priority”.
[Translation]
I think these criticisms say a lot about the need for a
complete review of the Small Business Loans Act. But there is
another criticism as well and it is one of my own, or rather I base
it on a Privy Council document made available to the Standing
Committee on Industry.
The Privy Council is concerned about Canada's low
productivity.
The result of this low productivity is that, even though there is
economic growth, it is not being accompanied by wage and income
increases, by a real increase in wealth, and might only be due to
the fact that Canada used the dollar's devaluation to bump up its
exports. That is one hypothesis.
This hypothesis leads to another, which the Privy Council took
as a warning. This one has to do with the fact that small and
medium-size businesses, which are more numerous in Canada than in
the United States, often have a lower rate of productivity. What
does that tell us? It does not tell us to forget about small and
medium-size businesses, but to be very sure that they have the
capacity to innovate.
Care must be taken to give small businesses access to innovation,
to keep them informed, but also to ensure they have the capacity,
and by capacity I mean purchasing capacity, training capacity,
operating fund capacity, and in general an environment that is
pro-development.
Yet when these small businesses have every possible difficulty
in obtaining sufficient credit in time, and at competitive rates,
it is understandable that there is a degree of stagnation in the
economy, even if they are playing a role.
When the minister re-examines the act, we are most certainly
going to be involved from A to Z, so that things can be better for
small businesses, better than the hard life they have now,
particularly the women entrepreneurs, who are forced to put
everything they own into their businesses and then meet conditions
that force them into bankruptcy, as they become keenly aware that
they do not have the same opportunities as the major corporations
do.
1300
I am thinking of my colleagues' concerns for what this would
cost the government. Let me tell you, those major corporations,
those who can easily get around paying taxes, have access to the
stock exchange and can get funding very readily. The people behind
them are not forced to risk everything they own, all their personal
assets.
Small business owners are nothing like the CEOs of major
companies, who can buy thousands of stocks at $1 and sell them
again the same day for $17, as I have seen one Quebec entrepreneur
do this past weekend. That is just small potatoes compared to
some.
The conditions imposed on small and medium size businesses, and
those imposed on major corporations are so different that the whole
situation must be reviewed. Otherwise, employment, development and
growth will remain a dream.
Let us not forget the role played by banks in bankruptcies. A few
years ago, when I was working in a workers' co-operative, I was able to
see firsthand small and medium size businesses going bankrupt. It was
common knowledge that when a small or medium size business was
experiencing difficulties, the entrepreneur would often first pay a
visit to his or her bank manager. We used to say that this was the last
thing to do, because the bank manager would deal the final blow to the
entrepreneur.
This measure is not provided for, but we will have to take a look
at it. Banks do their job, and it is up to us to do our job and to be
critical.
Bank officials told the committee that small and medium size businesses
were perfectly happy with the services provided to them, and that there
was no problem.
This assessment was based on an annual survey. However, the
businesses that may have gone bankrupt because of problems with their
credit are no longer there to criticize the banks. I asked bank
officials why they did not conduct a longitudinal survey and have
certain questions answered by the same businesses year after year. This
would provide a more accurate picture.
Their most recent survey also showed a high proportion of rejects
for start-up loans. We were told that these were young businesses, that
they were not fully prepared. The fact is that, to start a business, one
must be very tenacious. It is normal to be tenacious and to be prepared.
Still, the requirements imposed on entrepreneurs are much greater than
any kind of assistance we are prepared to give them, and I am not
referring to loans.
1305
I am happy to say that, in Quebec, the expertise developed in every
region is being offered to established and fledgling businesses alike,
across the province; we are trying to develop a spirit of co-operation
and to make management tools available to businesses. They are informed
of every kind of loan available to them, especially through the SBLA.
They get management advice.
I think something important has been initiated and must be pursued.
But because the Small Business Loans Act is limited to assets, it is
difficult for small businesses that have access only to the SBLA
program, and for Quebec businesses that need complementary programs, to
develop.
In spite of all this we will support this bill for a very simple
reason. It is a start. The minister should have thought about it before.
The minister knew the auditor general was reviewing the SMEs. If we did
not support the bill, it would not be the minister we would be
punishing, but the SMEs, which have already had it up to here.
We should push for a new bill to be introduced in the House. It
would really be helpful in this information age and knowledge-based
economy and would take into account all the constraints facing SMEs.
We must not, however, cut off whatever little help they are getting now.
I say this particularly because we can keep an eye on how the
department is being managed. Nothing can prevent us from tracking down
what it is doing through the House of Commons and the Standing Committee
on Industry.
I would invite my colleagues from the Reform Party, some of whose
criticisms I agree with, to speak more often about what is being done to
help SMEs. SMEs must have access to loans. But it must be more than just
credit for assets. Nor can it be limited to businesses in the
information and knowledge sector.
I believe it would be important for the government, in its upcoming
budget, to set the credit for workers' funds at $5,000 per person and
for all of us in this House to do as we did in committee and urge
workers' funds to invest in very small businesses.
We were told in committee that the age and size differences among
the various funds make it difficult for them to lend too much of their
money to SMEs. We were also told that in Quebec, at least, things were
moving very fast. The solidarity fund is well established. We also have
SOLIDE, small business banks located across the province that make money
available to small businesses needing small loans, and the same is
happening in Ontario and western Canada.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): Resuming debate with 20-minute
speeches followed by a 10-minute question and comment period.
[English]
Mr. Chris Axworthy (Saskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar, NDP):
Madam Speaker, I am pleased to participate in the debate on Bill
C-21, a debate which with one exception has been measured,
careful and non-ideological.
That exception was the speech of the hon. member for
Saskatoon—Humboldt, another ideological rant against anything
governments might do which might be of benefit to anyone.
1310
If we look around the world we will see that there is not one
successful economy in which government and business do not work
together for the benefit of all. The question that arises of
course is whether or not intervention by the government in the
marketplace is beneficial in the long term.
We know from all analyses, from all work done on small
businesses that they have some initial problems in particular
with raising capital. We also know that their ability to create
jobs in this economy is unsurpassed by any other sector of the
economy. Large business is downsizing. Mega mergers are costing
Canada thousands and thousands of jobs. However small businesses
are working hard and are generating jobs right across the
country, from the east coast to the west coast and all parts in
between.
It is the small and medium size business sector which is driving
the Canadian economy. It would only be proper for us to look at
ways in which we can assist that sector to do the job which it is
doing. That job is not only to pursue the interests of the
owners of those businesses but it is also to create jobs across
the country.
We know that small businesses experience significant
difficulties in raising capital from financial institutions. The
banks have begun a process of trying to persuade Canadians how
oriented they are toward public interest and how they do what
they can to assist wherever they can. However the fact of the
matter is that banks have not been very helpful to small
businesses. Across the country concerns have been raised by small
businesses about the treatment they have received from banks and
other lending institutions.
In order for the small business sector to thrive, to create
economic activity and to create the jobs which are so vital to
Canada, we need to ensure that impediments in their way are
removed. The small business loans program is a small step but an
important step in removing one particular impediment to the
establishment and certainly to the growth of small businesses.
That impediment is the difficulty experienced in raising capital.
Under this program the federal government will provide loan
guarantees to assist in the marketability of small companies as
they go to financial institutions seeking financial assistance. I
am a member of a party which is committed to assisting small
businesses in whatever way is possible. This is a legitimate,
sensible, rational, logical program to assist small businesses.
Our economy is becoming increasingly globalized. If we listen
to the Minister of Finance, foreign banks will be coming to
Canada to generate competition in our banking sector because
Canadian banks do not do that very well and in any case are more
interested in expanding overseas. Our economy is increasingly
affected by competition from overseas.
Indeed it is the small and medium size business sector which has
an important part to play in Canada's economy. It is the one
part which is and will remain Canadian owned and which is and
will remain committed to the community within which it operates.
That is critically important as our economy becomes increasingly
globalized and as our economy becomes increasingly threatened by
outside pressures and by corporations on the inside which are
focusing more and more on overseas investment. The small and
medium size business community plays a critically important role
in ensuring some Canadian ownership of our economy and some
commitment to the communities within which they operate.
We know the devastation caused when a company ups and leaves a
community because it can no longer make the kinds of profits it
wants to make in that community.
1315
Often it is not because it cannot make profits but because those
profits are not large enough. Those employees who worked for the
corporation, perhaps for years and years and maybe even
generations, are thrown away as irrelevant to the corporation's
needs. The community in which that business operates is ignored
in terms of its interest. The corporation goes off, makes money
somewhere else and continues that cycle.
The devastation which takes place in many of our communities is
a serious and significant problem for those affected and for the
country as a whole. It is vital that we do what we can to ensure
that small and medium size businesses thrive and counter to some
extent those particular trends.
It is important for it to be noted that New Democrats support
Bill C-21 and have done from the beginning. It is important to
extend the program for one more year while serious review of the
program is taking place. I will come to some of the concerns in
a moment. It is important to continue the program while we are
assessing its strengths and weaknesses and how to make it a
better program.
Were it not as successful as it has been, perhaps it would not
be necessary to extend it for just one more year. It has been a
successful program. Indeed all studies of the program show it to
be one which is particularly well regarded when matched up
against those of other OECD countries, for example the United
States, the United Kingdom, Germany and Japan.
Our program has been shown to be one of the better programs with
administrative and default costs much lower than those in other
countries. That is not to say there have not been problems, and
I will come to those in a minute. It is a program which has
proven to be successful and useful to small business.
The government could prevail upon its friends in the banking
industry, many of whom contribute significantly to the Liberal
Party's funds and I am sure would be only too open to that kind
of ministration by the government. It could work with the banks
to ensure that the banks put the public interest in the mix when
making the decisions it makes.
The banks can afford to pay their chief executive officers
millions of dollars a year but yet cannot afford to commit
themselves to helping a small business in any significant way. I
think that would be another way in which the government might
assist.
We are still wrestling with the GST and so on. Lack of any real
commitment to job creation on the part of the federal government
and all such things hurt small business as well.
As I said, I am only too pleased to support Bill C-21 which will
extend and enhance slightly the Small Business Loans Act. It is
worth pointing out that the auditor general has suggested that
some loans are made without a proper review by Industry Canada,
that the government has paid out default claims to banks for
loans not eligible under the program, and that banks are
sometimes charging user fees to small businesses in violation of
the act.
There is also concern voiced by the auditor general and by
others that the jobs claims, the numbers of jobs created as a
result of the loan guarantees contained in the small business
loans program, have been grossly exaggerated by those who wish to
support, sustain and encourage the program to continue.
None of those things are useful as elements of this debate. It
is only proper and I am glad to see the government is pursuing a
full review of the legislation. I hope at the end of the review
we will end up with a better small business loans program to
support small businesses which fulfil a critically important role
in our economy.
We will be supporting the legislation. We hope the government
will treat it as a priority and do more to ensure that the
conditions necessary for small business to thrive are in fact
implemented in the budget and in economic and industrial policies
in years to come.
1320
Mr. Jerry Pickard (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Public Works and Government Services, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I
thank the previous speaker for his comments on the SBLA presently
before the House.
The member has been here for many years and has probably gone
through the process more than many of us as far as reviewing acts
is concerned. We extend the act for a year. We review it in the
standing committee. We take into account the auditor general's
comments and all information from opposition parties and the
government to research how we can improve it.
This has been done before and the effectiveness is usually good
because it provides the time and ability to do research in more
depth. I ask the member for his comments.
Mr. Chris Axworthy: Madam Speaker, I thank the hon.
parliamentary secretary for his question and for all the work he
does on the industry committee to ensure that we all have our say
and that our points of view listened to. I appreciate that has
not always been the case.
In response to the member's question there can be no doubt that
we should not continue present programs or introduce new ones
without a thorough review of their effectiveness. In particular
when we are dealing with government intervention into the
marketplace it is absolutely critical that intervention actually
helps matters along rather than make them worse.
We have seen programs galore which actually make matters worse.
We have to focus on the role government can play in the context
of the economy as a whole to do things that other stakeholders
cannot do.
In the context of this piece of legislation it is clear that
financial institutions are not fulfilling their responsibility
toward small business. It is therefore important for the
Government of Canada and society as a whole to push the banks to
fulfil that responsibility. After all, they make profits out of
us. They should recommit those profits to the communities and to
the people from which they make those profits. It is their
responsibility to do that. It is their right to make a profit
but they have a responsibility to contribute too.
In addition to forcing the issue and using all the good offices
of the government to ensure that banks fulfil that
responsibility, it is appropriate the government on behalf of all
of us provide some small assistance to small businesses because
of the critically important role they play in our economy as they
struggle to obtain the capital investment they need.
It is critically important that we review all these things and
that we do not, as the Reform Party would do, dismiss every
government program as irrelevant, as a nuisance or as something
that cannot help without actually reviewing it.
The Small Business Loans Act is plainly one of those pieces of
legislation that actually helps. Surely we should not let
ideology blind us to common sense programs which assist those in
need.
Mr. John Herron (Fundy—Royal, PC): Madam Speaker, it is
with pleasure that I rise today to debate Bill C-21, an act to
amend the Small Business Loans Act.
This bill would extend the Small Business Loans Act for another
year, until March 31, 1999. It will also raise the ceiling of
the total amount of loans that may be outstanding to $15 billion
from $14 billion.
The legislation has always operated with a sunset clause to
ensure periodic review for improvement and assessment of whether
the bill is meeting the needs of the small business sector and
not merely renewal.
However the government has yet to make up its mind on what it
wants to do with the act. As a result of its indecision it has
requested parliament to renew the act for another year while it
continues the program.
We support the legislation only because without it the current
lending period as of March 31, 1998 will cease and SMEs will not
have access to capital under the Small Business Loans Act.
1325
However the government should not expect the same support from
my caucus colleagues or, for that matter, from the small business
sector unless it begins to review, improve and update the act to
ensure that appropriate access to capital is afforded to the real
engines of job growth, the small and medium business sector.
It comes as no surprise the government has not decided what to
do. It has done little more than pay lip service to the concerns
of small business over the past four years. It has forgotten
about the promises it made in the 1993 red book.
The government often claims to be an advocate and supporter of
small business. If this were true, why has the government not
addressed the deficiencies of the act and not even attempted to
act on the series of observations and recommendations in the
auditor general's report.
The primary objective of the Small Business Loans Act is to
increase the availability of loans for establishing, modernizing
and improving small business enterprises by offsetting a portion
of the lender's net losses in the event of a default by a loan
guarantee program.
I would hate to sound cynical, but I am really worried given the
government's reluctance to establish specific debt reduction
targets. As well, it is reluctant to reduce taxation for both
consumers and small business. The government's plan is to create
more small businesses and to continue to tax us to death so that
large and medium companies wither into small companies.
The government has missed a real opportunity to show SMEs that
it is serious about the concerns SMEs face today. I am not alone
in my views. The auditor general pointed out in his recent
report on this piece of legislation in section 29.87:
New lending under the program will end 31 March 1998 unless the
government decides to renew it. This presents an opportunity to
review the program's contribution to filling current financing
gaps and stimulating economic growth and creating jobs.
He went on to say:
The review would also enable Industry Canada to assess whether
the program meets the needs of small business in a rapidly
changing economy.
There are others that believe we should not have wasted this
opportunity to improve the act as well. The government was
criticized for this broken red book promise by its own rank and
file in the preamble to a priority resolution passed at its
October 1996 convention as follows:
The banks and other financial institutions have not taken enough
concrete steps to alleviate the hardships faced by small and
medium size firms in obtaining investment capital.
In the time that I have been allowed I will attempt to address a
number of the observations and recommendations within the report
of the auditor general. In addition, it would be appropriate for
us to remind the government of two other documents that must be
considered once it gets around to improving the act. These two
documents are committee reports, one from the department of
finance entitled “Growing Small Businesses” and the other is an
industry committee report entitled “Taking Care of Small
Business”. I will refer to these documents often during my
remarks.
Before we further discuss the necessary initiatives required to
improve the bill, it would be useful for us to remind ourselves,
and in particular those on the opposite side of the floor, of the
impact of small business on the Canadian economy. More than 98%
of businesses in Canada are small businesses with less than 50
employees. Half of Canada's workforce is employed in the small
business sector. It is relatively recognized that the small
business sector has had the greatest proportion of new job
creation in the past four years.
As the auditor general pointed out, small businesses play a very
significant role in the economy. They are the heart of economic
activity and community development. In addition they sometimes
develop into the large firms of the future. Small businesses
contribute 43% of Canada's private sector economic output.
The overall theme of the auditor general's report and my
principal concern is that Industry Canada does not have the
performance indicators and benchmarks to properly assess whether
the act is actually accomplishing its objectives. The objective
must be to ensure that lenders make capital available to firms
that they may not have without the government guarantee.
The program's raison d'etre is to help to fill existing program
gaps for small business. Instead it seems the government
guarantee is not used to increase availability of credit. Rather
it allows lenders to reduce the risk on loans they would have
made without the guarantee.
1330
A small business person brought this quote to me the other day
concerning the Small Business Loans Act, that there should be a
loan guarantee for small business and not a loan guarantee for
the banks.
The AG highlights this fact in referencing a 1994 study showing
that between 30% and 40% of Small Business Loans Act loans were
made to firms that would have received financing from lenders
anyway. Without true financial support and adequate financing
for growth of our small business sector, growth will be stunted
and the future prosperity of Canada threatened. Those are the
words of the auditor general, not mine.
The government's 1993 red book promised to exercise leadership
and challenged the banks and other financial institutions to
develop concrete ways to help small businesses find the capital
they need. Given that nearly 40% of the loans that are
guaranteed would have been guaranteed anyway, I would say that
more work needs to be done before the government can claim any
degree of success on this matter.
As I indicated earlier, the principal problem of the act is that
it lacks clear objectives, performance indicators and benchmarks
to measure the success and effectiveness of the legislation.
The government could benefit from the old adage that what gets
measured gets done. The origin of this act dates back to 1961.
In 1961, before I was born, the type of business that would
likely get started was usually retail based or linked to light
manufacturing. Things have changed since the retail shop and the
light manufacturing era. The Canadian economy today has greatly
evolved since that time. The legislation governing the act has
remained essentially unchanged with respect to the types of
assets eligible for financing.
The service sector and the knowledge and information sector form
a much greater part of the economy today, with the latter sector
having a high net employment growth potential. It is imperative
that when the act is indeed reviewed the government ensure there
are innovative solutions and commitments from lenders to address
these needs.
No program can be effective unless there are clearly stated
objectives to clarify expectations and to develop performance
indicators concerning establishing, expanding, modernizing and
improving small business.
To date, for the most part Industry Canada merely tracks the
activity of the program, tying it to job creation. However, this
approach does not provide us with other critical indicators such
as the effect a loan has on the level of sales, profitability,
productivity, competitiveness, levels of exports, product
development, net employment impact and overall business success.
These are critical indicators that most SMEs employ within their
own operations.
We suggest the program adopt methods to track these criteria in
their own programs and their own departments in order to properly
assess the impact of this program.
As the auditor general pointed out, the net job effect, as
stated in the 1995-96 annual report, indicated that 37 jobs were
created per $1 million worth of loan guarantees. However, the
auditor general goes on to point out in a follow-up report that
given the recently completed Industry Canada study of economic
effects, the program shows that the government's numbers were
merely seven jobs created per $1 million guaranteed.
When this bill is reviewed all parties would expect more rigour
in evaluating the job creation impact of the program for the
purposes of parliamentary and public review and scrutiny.
Perhaps the greatest concern we have today is that the original
intent of the program was to provide access to capital to start
up ventures or small firms that would not otherwise have been
granted a loan from a lender. The relative size of the loans was
intended to be small so that the borrowers could have handled a
higher rate or fee in exchange for a loan that did not leverage
their personal guarantee.
The result today is that given the expansion of the program, the
program is now beginning to displace traditional lending rather
than enhancing marginal loan volumes and filling gaps where small
venture loans are required. Given that 90% of the loan was to be
guaranteed, the lending institution would then consider engaging
the loan.
1335
I would like to ask the government what is the average size loan
it guarantees. The fact that the program has now been expanded
to include loan amounts of over a quarter of a million dollars
should concern us. I speculate that 30% to 40% of loans
guaranteed under the program, which the auditor general pointed
out would have been approved anyway, relate to the higher sums
and not amounts that reflect the original need for the program.
The SBLA is a good program. In its conception it was supposed
to be small and responsive to the needs of small business. It
has grown excessively so that today it displaces traditional
lending.
The Progressive Conservative Party believes this program needs
to be tightened up and the focus must return to smaller lending
with less focus on personal guarantees rather than sums of
nearing a quarter of a million dollars that would be approved by
traditional lending institutions anyway.
A bigger program does not always make for a better program.
Bigger programs often make for worse programs. A bigger program
would not be as responsive. The fact that the government has
allowed the size of the program to mushroom in sectors where it
does belong is one of the reasons the government has been unable
to monitor and forecast future claims.
The government has a duty to the taxpayer to be able to provide
this function. The auditor general correctly pointed out that
Industry Canada must carry out regular analysis of its guaranteed
portfolio including loans by industry, region, age of business,
lender and type of asset. Overall economic trends need to be
factored into such analysis.
The government also has a responsibility to taxpayers to ensure
the banks and the lenders are fully challenged when participating
in the program. The government must be rigorous in assuring the
lenders comply with all regulations and exercise due care when
making the loans. Industry Canada needs to strengthen its claim
audit procedures to obtain assurance of such compliance. The
government cannot be a loan guarantee program for bankers who
have not made the right choices in the first place. The
government must take steps to minimize the interest it is paying
on claims submitted by lending institutions due to unnecessary
delays in filing their claims.
I will make some more comments relevant to small business given
that we are about to enter into the budget debate. The average
Canadian consumer and small businesses are overtaxed, in
particular with respect to payroll taxes. Canada pension plan
premiums have been increased substantially. We know today's
discussion is in the context of a perceived fiscal dividend given
that the government has stated it will have a surplus. However,
given that the EI fund takes in over $6 billion more annually
than it actually consumes, that is the reason for the surplus.
We also know that if any type of tax kills jobs it is payroll
tax. We advocate categorically that this government must kill
job killing payroll taxes by reducing the EI fund. The chief
actuary pointed out that the employment insurance program is
sustainable at $2 per $100 of insurable earnings instead of the
$2.70 per $100 it is currently set at. Given the hike we have
had in the CPP premiums we must reduce payroll deductions.
There are other initiatives that must come forth as well.
Canadians are poorer than they have been in 15 years. Disposable
income has gone down drastically over the past two decades.
Canadians need disposable income.
To put more money back in consumers' pockets so they can spend
money to help SMEs, we advocate that the government raise the
personal income tax exemption from $6,500 to $10,000. That would
take two million Canadians off the tax rolls overnight. Those two
million Canadians should not have been there in the first place.
Canadians need more disposable income. They need lower payroll
taxes. EI, CPP and payroll taxes kill jobs.
1340
Before we even consider spending a fiscal surplus we need to
look at something that affects my generation as a younger
Canadian, the $600 billion national debt. What this government
has to do is provide Canadians with debt reduction targets to
ensure that we never get caught in this spiral of deficit upon
deficit again.
We do support Bill C-21. We have made some recommendations
which we would like the government to carry forth. We challenge
the government to actually do what is right and kill job killing
payroll taxes, to bring forth to Canadians an agenda for growth
that has less debt, less tax and more jobs. If we had that kind
of foresight from an economic perspective Canada would be heading
in the right direction into the next century.
Mr. Gurmant Grewal (Surrey Central, Ref.): Madam
Speaker, I have been listening to the hon. member. I think we all
agree that small businesses create jobs in this country. The
Reform Party is pro small business. We know that 98% of
businesses in the country are small businesses.
I remember a short story. Once I was arguing with one of my
friends. He said that small businesses are what create jobs in
this country. I asked him how to start a small business when
there is a problem because job killing taxes are so high. It is
very difficult for small businesses to thrive in this
environment. He said it is easy. Start a big business and pay
so much tax that you are left with a small business. That is the
kind of situation we are facing in this country. Job killing
taxes are hard on businesses.
In 1994 the industry committee called for a review to be done of
the Small Business Loans Act. That review has not been done up
to now. The auditor general also points out that a complete cost
benefit analysis has to be done before proceeding further. The
auditor general has critically looked at this issue and has
recommended that a full review of the act be undertaken before an
additional $1 billion is committed to this program.
Since this program is already inefficient and unaccountable, how
can the member support this bill until a complete evaluation is
done and until this bill is efficient and doing what it is
supposed to do? Why would Canadians support this bill?
Mr. John Herron: Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. member
for his question. I will give him a short answer then I will
give him a long answer.
Small and medium enterprises do need access to capital. The
loan guarantee program is actually filling the gaps in marginal
loans which are covered under the Small Business Loans Act.
Without that program certain firms would not have the access to
capital they currently have under this program.
One of the most democratic institutions we have is the Canadian
Federation of Independent Businesses with has 88,000 members. It
is clearly the position of the Canadian Federation of Independent
Businesses that the Small Business Loans Act is a good program.
It is something that should be continued. It should not be
expanded to the degree we currently have for accessing loans of
nearly a quarter of a million dollars. It should be smaller, it
should be tightened up, it should be more responsive to actually
fill the gaps for loans that banks would not otherwise be
granting.
In terms of Reform supporting small businesses, in our platform
we advocated reducing the small business tax rate from 12% to 8%.
I am sure my colleagues to my right remember that.
1345
The Reform Party advocated a flat tax during the last election
campaign. Stephen Harper, who could be the leader in waiting of
the Reform Party, said that small business income could be rolled
into a flat tax income. That means Reform would tax small
business in the neighbourhood of 22%, 23% or 24%. I do not think
that is very good for small business.
Mr. Walt Lastewka (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Industry, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I listened with interest to
the remarks made by the hon. member for Fundy—Royal, a new
member of the House whom I have come to know over the last number
of months.
I detected in his speech some changes from the Mulroney years.
If my notes are correct in following this issue over the last 20
years, during the previous government's time there was an
attitude of increasing the definition of small businesses to
include higher revenues and bigger businesses. However I noticed
from the hon. member's speech that he wants to centre on smaller
businesses under the $250,000 small business target. I am sure
that is a change but I would like the hon. member to confirm it.
I am sure the hon. member knows that of all the SBLA loans, 40%
go to new businesses and almost 60% are in the small business
category which he mentioned.
Mr. John Herron: Madam Speaker, as time has gone by we
have seen more competition in the banking industry and more
banking institutions coming into Canada. Trust companies have
also become involved. The Canadian Bankers Association is trying
to take a more aggressive look at the small business sector,
giving it more access to capital.
However, the financial institutions are still not filling the
void, which was the initial intent of the Small Business Loans
Act. The initial intent was to provide loans to small businesses
which would otherwise not have access to capital without tying up
their personal guarantee.
If it is a shift, it is more of a shift in terms of what is
happening with lending institutions than with respect to the
initial intent of the SBLA.
Mr. Jim Pankiw (Saskatoon—Humboldt, Ref.): Madam
Speaker, I would like to correct the hon. member. When he
started his speech he said that he would oppose the bill except
for the fact that if he does not support it, the Small Business
Loans Act program could not function for another year. In fact
the current amount of extended liability is $12.7 billion which
leaves $1.3 billion in potential liability for the act to extend.
Furthermore if we look at the auditor general's report and
accept the fact that close to half the loans which are
administered through the program are given to businesses that
would have received financing anyway, if the inefficiencies of
the program were addressed, the $1.3 billion liability which
remains could be doubled as opposed to extending a further $1
billion as proposed by the Minister of Finance under the current
system of inefficiencies which would only in effect extend $.5
billion to businesses which really need it.
Therefore the hon. member is mistaken.
Mr. John Herron: Mr. Speaker, in quick response to the
hon. member with respect to qualifying our support for the bill,
we believe that the bill has to be reviewed. Initiatives that
were suggested in the auditor general's report should be
considered and a new Small Business Loans Act should incorporate
some of those initiatives.
1350
We also said that the bill should be tightened up to the
original intent of the legislation. That said, with respect to
C-21 and the lending period, in order to be able to give out any
additional loans, if it were not renewed for another calendar
year, the potential is that some small businesses would not have
the access to capital that they require.
Mr. Walt Lastewka (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Industry, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as was noted in the Speech from
the Throne that opened this session of Parliament, the
stimulation of job creation has, is and will continue to be a
major objective of the Government of Canada.
Over the past four years the government has made progress and
put in place the foundations for economic strength and increased
confidence. The government has regained the ability to address
the priorities of Canadians while living within its means. The
budget will be balanced no later than, we hope, this fiscal year
and the debt to GDP ratio has been put on a permanent downward
spiral. Interest rates are affordable and inflation is also at a
very low level.
The government intends to continue to pursue its successful
course and take further action to encourage new investment to
create new jobs and to generate the nation's wealth necessary to
assure Canadians of a stable and secure future. This is the
context which the government has brought forward Bill C-21, an
act to amend the Small Business Loans Act.
Mr. Speaker, I should mention that I will be sharing my time
with the member for Mississauga West and it looks like I will be
sharing it with question period as well.
We all know the importance of the role that small and medium
size enterprises play in the Canadian economy and the degree to
which they are responsible for the creation of new jobs. The bill
before us is designed to help ensure that the small business
sector can continue to be a vital and dynamic part of the
Canadian economy.
Bill C-21 will increase the authorized lending ceiling of the
small business loans program by $1 billion from $14 billion to
$15 billion. It will extend the current lending period to March
31, 1999. There are no additional program changes contained in
this bill.
By passing this bill we will also be permitting the review
process for the small business loans program to go forward. This
is very much in the best interests of Canadians because the SBLA
program is an excellent one. It is an issue that fulfils a real
need in Canada's business support framework.
As we deliberate on this bill before us, I think it is important
to consider the fact that almost every country in the developed
world has some form of loan guarantee program for small and
medium size businesses. Why? Because these programs are set up
primarily for small young firms, companies that by and large have
not yet had the time to develop a sufficient capital base and
therefore the banks are not generally keen on lending them money.
Yet it is these very firms which create so many of Canada's
jobs.
The SBLA allows the federal government to stand behind loans
made to small and medium size businesses by providing an 85%
guarantee against the individual loan losses. It is important to
note that the government role in this program is as a backup
only.
Private sector lenders are entirely responsible for making loans
under the SBLA program and for evaluating the businesses which
apply. The decision to offer an SBLA loan to an eligible small
business is taken exclusively by the private sector lender.
Lenders are expected to follow normal commercial lending
practices in authorizing SBLA loans. All loans are registered
with the SBLA administration office of Industry Canada.
When a lender submits a claim for loss reimbursement, federal
administrators audit the claim to ensure that the lender has
complied with all the requirements of the SBLA and SBL
regulations.
Let me emphasize that the program is not a subsidization of
business. In 1995 Parliament made changes to the act that moved
it toward cost recovery. Since these changes increase the price
of SBLA loans, it is likely that more of the intended
beneficiaries will access it.
Lenders remit a one time 2% registration fee to the government
which the lenders may charge back to the borrowers.
In addition the lenders pay a 1.25% administration fee on their
SBLA portfolio which may be passed on to borrowers through
interest rates only.
1355
This fee structure is essentially a user pay system designed to
cover any lender's loan losses under the program. Thus the SBLA
program has been reformed to end subsidies and become
self-sustaining. Critics are dead wrong when they try to
characterize it as a handout. The program has been set up to help
small firms and entrepreneurs get over some of the most difficult
hurdles that confront them particularly in their early years.
The average loan made under the program during fiscal year
1996-97 was for $65,000. Most of the firms have fewer than five
employees. The companies that are getting the loans are the ones
that are now creating the jobs in Canada's economy. They are the
young creative companies, not the established big corporations
which have been shedding their employees in the 1990s.
Without this program some of our best and most innovative small
companies would be denied financing, not because they are not
viable but because they are new and young and are seen as
presenting a high risk. In other words they represent precisely
the sort of people and firms that we should be encouraging in
order to provide the jobs needed by Canadians and particularly
Canadian youth. This is especially true in light of the latest
employment statistics which indicate that the SME sector created
81% of Canada's job growth in 1996-97.
I mentioned that Bill C-21 will keep the SBLA program going
until March 31, 1999. The government is continuing to update and
improve the program by carrying out a comprehensive stakeholder
review. The extension under consideration will give us time to
complete this review and further improve the Small Business Loans
Act as we have improved it in the past.
The goal is to make changes to the SBLA to ensure that the
government can continue to address marketplace gaps on a fiscally
sustainable basis while minimizing overlap and duplication with
private sector financial institutions.
In carrying out its comprehensive review, the government will
certainly give full and complete consideration to the
recommendations and suggestions the auditor general has made in
his review of the SBLA, particularly with regard to a more
detailed and updated evaluation framework and the need to
eliminate any loopholes that may permit project splitting. The
auditor general's report pinpointed some program weaknesses and
suggested a number of remedies. Industry Canada has already
implemented many of his suggestions and is in the process of
implementing more.
The government is determined to create a climate in which
Canadian small businesses can thrive. One of our key challenges
in this regard is to ensure that the banks and the financial
institutions become more flexible and open with regard to the
needs and opportunities of small businesses, particularly with
regard to lending practices. By passing this bill the House will
be helping to do just that. During fiscal year 1996-97 more than
30,000 firms benefited from the SBLA program.
The Speaker: My colleague, you still have two minutes
left in your speaking time. If you like, we will cut here
because it is almost two o'clock. You will have the floor when
we come back to finish your speech and take questions or
comments.
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
[English]
ELVIS STOJKO
Mr. Bryon Wilfert (Oak Ridges, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, today
I ask you and my colleagues in the House to join me in sending
congratulations and best wishes for a full recovery to Elvis
Stojko, Olympic silver medalist.
As he said in an interview yesterday “Focus on what you believe
in and remember what the important things in life are”. It is a
simple message and one that we should live by and remember. By
his grit and determination and by giving no excuses, he has led
by his very example and is a role model for all Canadians.
Richmond Hill's own Elvis has demonstrated that commitment to
ideals and goals is something that all Canadians can relate to.
1400
We thank Elvis for persevering and personifying the true Olympic
spirit. Congratulations to Elvis.
* * *
TRANS-CANADA HIGHWAY
Mr. Lee Morrison (Cypress Hills—Grasslands, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, during the Christmas holiday three more people died on
the notorious Trans-Canada death strip in southwestern
Saskatchewan. That brings the death toll to 39 since 1978.
Since this government has expressed no interest in meeting its
obligations with respect to what is laughingly called our
national highway system, I have some modest proposals. First, we
could give the Trans-Canada highway to Bombardier. Then there
would be no limit to the availability of federal funding. Or we
could turn it over to Doug Young and his associates as a toll
road and they could be guaranteed with federal money a reasonable
rate of return on their investment.
Finally, and this is the least likely, we could try to convince
this government that an adequate Trans-Canada highway would be
beneficial to national unity.
* * *
[Translation]
QUEBEC PREMIER
Mr. Guy St-Julien (Abitibi, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, when was Premier
Bouchard's last speech on the importance of education for Quebec?
When was Premier Bouchard's last speech on paying the men and women
who stay at home?
When was Premier Bouchard's last speech on the Quebec mining fund
promised by the Parti Quebecois?
If you cannot remember, do not blame a failing memory; it did not
fail you, as Lise Bissonnette wrote last week in Le Devoir.
* * *
ANNIVERSARY OF CHEVALIER DE LORIMIER'S DEATH
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron (Verchères, BQ): Mr. Speaker, yesterday was
the 159th anniversary of the hanging of five valorous Patriots,
including Chevalier de Lorimier.
On this sad day when the federal government is trying to manipulate
the Supreme Court in order to deny the Quebec people the right to decide
their own future, let us remember that the Patriots fought for freedom
and democracy.
The night before he was hanged, de Lorimier wrote:
I die remorseless. I was only seeking what was best for my
country—Despite my misfortune, my heart still has hopes for the
future. My friends and my children will see better days; they will
know freedom. There is no doubt about it, my clear conscience tells
me so—I have only a few hours to live and I wanted to divide
this precious time between my devotions and my duties to my fellow
countrymen.
For them, I am condemned to the gallows to die the infamous death
of a murderer; for them, I leave my young children and my wife
behind—and for them, I die shouting “Long live freedom, long
live independence”.
* * *
[English]
LITHUANIA
Ms. Sarmite Bulte (Parkdale—High Park, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I rise to pay tribute to the people of Lithuania who
today celebrate the 80th anniversary of their country's
independence.
Since the founding of the first Lithuanian state in 1236
Lithuania has been occupied by the former Soviet Union for a
majority of its history. But with the collapse of czarist Russia
at the end of World War I, Lithuanians took advantage of the
opportunity to regain their independence and on February 16, 1918
Lithuania's independence was restored.
However, with the outbreak of World War II this freedom was
short lived. Lithuania was again occupied for some 50 years
beginning in 1939. However, in the late 1980s, as changes were
taking place throughout the Soviet Union, Lithuanians organized a
powerful independence movement whose protests culminated with the
re-establishment of the independent Lithuanian state on March 11,
1990.
Canada's steadfast refusal to recognize the occupation of the
Baltic states during the Soviet era is greatly appreciated by
people of Baltic origin and among the tens of thousands of
Canadians of Lithuanian heritage.
* * *
[Translation]
RADIO-CANADA
Mr. Mauril Bélanger (Ottawa—Vanier, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, since last
night, French-speaking listeners in Newfoundland have been able to tune
in to Ce Soir Atlantique, which replaced the Montreal edition of the
daily newscast.
I applaud Radio-Canada's decision to give all maritime provinces
access to newscasts depicting the social, economic, political and
cultural realities of their region.
This good news will no doubt increase the supper time ratings of
the French network and supports the efforts made by our government to
promote the development of the French language in Canada by providing
key tools to French-speaking communities.
1405
In closing, I hope that our colleagues from the Bloc Quebecois will
be inspired by this decision and, from now on, make an effort to support
the broadcasting of TFO programming to Quebec households.
* * *
[English]
THE BUDGET
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy (Calgary—Nose Hill, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, budget day is coming and the Liberals are already
announcing how generous they intend to be with the money they
have taken from hardworking Canadians.
Now Liberal generosity with our money is taking on an even more
alarming twist, giving personal credit to the Prime Minister for
the newly minted millennium scholarships. This is supposed to
make us forget that the Liberals slashed money for education and
health care by billions upon billions of dollars.
What else might be unveiled on February 24 besides the Prime
Minister's memorial fund, bargain basement helicopters named
after the defence minister, a new courier company with the name
of the Indian affairs minister, the son of TAGS as a tribute to
the fisheries minister?
Canadians can no longer afford to fund monuments to monumental
Liberal egos. Instead, they demand real tax relief on February
24.
* * *
[Translation]
HERITAGE DAY
Mrs. Sue Barnes (London West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, today is Heritage
Day.
[English]
Canadians know that our nation's diversity is our nation's
strength. Just the very word heritage must in this diverse
Chamber instantly evoke different personal thoughts and memories.
As individual Canadians, the details of our lives, our families
and our communities, our backgrounds are different. But for all
Canadians, our tremendous and unwaivering pride in Canada is the
same.
These are the feelings that every Canadian shares when we think
about our wider heritage which inspires us as individuals,
enriches us as a society and defines us as a nation.
If we were born here, we inherited it. If we chose to come
here, we sought it out. It is ours to remember, to treasure, to
learn from, to draw strength from and to be proud of.
[Translation]
Our Canadian heritage is a binding force which transcends
geographical distances and unites all Canadians.
* * *
REFERENCE TO SUPREME COURT
Mr. Paul Mercier (Terrebonne—Blainville, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
here is a poem on the reference to the Supreme Court:
Nine justices speaking as oracles all,
In answering as one to Jean Chrét-i-en's call,
Will decide if the Constitution doth give
Us the right to depart this old country, to leave.
No doubt, they will tell us with faces not bright,
That to break with the past, we have no such a right,
That while freedom at last is the call we might sound,
Such action cannot in their papers be found.
And so as will tell us these justices all,
While most of us wish to give heed to the call
To freedom for all in this country so right,
We must hasten away and go off fly a kite.
Dear Justices there is no need for such fuss.
Quebec's future rests really and truly with us.
Though high you may be in your privileged pew,
Remember the people are higher than you.
We honour your wisdom given freely and well,
But respect does not yet put us under your spell.
No never before a nine-member wigged band
Shall kowtow all the seven million tuques in the land.
* * *
[English]
OLYMPIC GAMES
Mr. Roy Cullen (Etobicoke North, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, over
the weekend Canada's athletes made Olympic history.
Our women's curling rink, skipped by Sandra Schmirler, made
history by winning the sport's first ever Olympic gold medal. The
men's team, skipped by Mike Harris, won a silver medal.
For the first time ever, Pierre Lueders and Dave MacEachern won
Olympic gold for Canada in two man bobsledding. In another
first, this Canadian team shared the gold with a team from Italy.
Catriona Le May Doan and Susan Auch won gold and silver,
respectively, after setting an Olympic record in the women's 500
meter speed skating event.
Canada's Elvis Stojko, who finished with a silver medal in men's
figure skating, walked away with a world class medal for the
courage he displayed.
[Translation]
The important thing is not that Canada win more medals than in
the last Olympics. What is important is our pride in our athletes,
because they represent the best of what we are and because they
have the courage to give their all in the pursuit of excellence.
* * *
[English]
THE SENATE
Mr. Randy White (Langley—Abbotsford, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
I met a man one sunny day
An executive, I'm sad to say
Who lost his job—a downsizing trend
He was devastated—was this the end?
It's too bad I said to his face
Because he was capable to manage any place
What a great job he could really do
In Canada's Senate for me and you.
But he wasn't qualified—I'm sad to say
He wasn't a Liberal in any way.
In fact, he had no affiliation
Just an outstanding Executive his only station.
Why is it Liberals will throw him to the dogs
Yet turn all their buddies into political hogs?
Is paying off favours and providing the carrot
Better than experience, skills, qualifications or merit?
Some day a new Senate will be the big story
It won't include some Liberal or Tory
It will include people like the man I met
And they will be competent and objective I bet.
* * *
1410
WINNERPEG, MANITOBA
Mr. Reg Alcock (Winnipeg South, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, every
weekend is a good one for Manitoba and this one is no exception.
Two Manitoban Michalangelos, Miguel Joyal and his teammate Denis
Savoie, carved the likeness of Louis Riel, the father of Manitoba,
out of snow. Their work, entitled “The Great Manitou”, was judged to
be the best sculpture in the first annual winterlude snow carving
contest. Not only did “The Great Manitou” beat out entries from 11
other provinces and territories, it was also the people's choice,
the favourite of visitors to the Hill who also cast ballots in
the contest.
On Saturday another Manitoban, Susan Auch, distinguished herself
at the Nagano Olympics by winning the silver medal in the 500
metre speed skating event. Her superlative performance marks the
second time she has won a medal in that event and caps off a long
and illustrious career as a world class speed skater.
I would like to congratulate Susan, Miguel and Denis. This
weekend they proved that my city truly merits the name Winnerpeg.
* * *
WINTER OLYMPICS
Mr. Pat Martin (Winnipeg Centre, NDP): Mr. Speaker, with
yesterday's haul, the greatest day in Canada's Olympic
history, Canadian athletes now have nine medals in Nagano. While
I rise to salute all our Olympic athletes, I cannot help but
notice that even though the prairie provinces make up only 10% of
the population, our prairie athletes have brought home nearly 50%
of all the medals. As of yesterday the province of Saskatchewan
has as many medals as the United States of America.
Prairie people are no strangers to winter weather. We have
always said that it builds character. Apparently it has also
built an incredible generation of Olympic champions: Catriona Le
May Doan from Saskatoon, Susan Auch from Winnipeg, Sandra
Schmirler from Regina and Pierre Leuders from Edmonton. Nine
medals and we still have one week to go.
* * *
[Translation]
HERITAGE DAY
Mr. Denis Paradis (Brome—Missisquoi, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, this
is Citizenship and Heritage Week, and February 16 is Heritage Day,
but Canadian values and traditions can and should be celebrated
daily throughout the year.
If we were to try to give a simple definition of heritage, we
could say that it is everything that is passed on to us by
preceding generations and that we wish to pass on to our children.
It is our culture, our traditions, our customs, and the natural
environment.
Canadians have many reasons to be proud. We have two official
languages, two main cultures, and complementary legal systems. Our
rights and freedoms are unequalled and we are making energetic
efforts to combat racism and discrimination.
That is what our nation and its founding peoples are all
about. That is Canada.
* * *
[English]
NATIONAL UNITY
Mr. Peter MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC):
Mr. Speaker, today's convening of the supreme court hearings on
the question of Quebec's unilateral declaration of independence
proved once and for all that the Liberal government is void of
positive solutions for Canada's unity problem.
The Liberal government, with the support of the Reform Party's
legion of doom and gloom, has asked the Supreme Court of Canada
to lay down the law on what is clearly a political question.
Which difficult political question will the Liberals refer next
to the supreme court, the fiscal dividend, employment, health
care or Iraq?
This reckless referral to the supreme court gives separatists
yet another weapon to hammer the cause of national unity. By
abdicating their basic responsibility, the Prime Minister and the
Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs are simply parroting the
divisive line of Reform. The government must instead display
vision and necessary political steps to ensure that all Canadians
are unified into the 21st century.
* * *
PARLIAMENT OF CANADA
Mr. John McKay (Scarborough East, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
1998 is the 150th anniversary of responsible government in
Canada. In 1848 Messrs Baldwin and Lafontaine told the governor
general of that time that now the Parliament of Canada and the
people of Canada would be responsible for their government, not a
foreign monarchy.
Therein lies the doctrine of the supremacy of Parliament, the
ultimate creator of law in this country. Two developments have
eroded that doctrine and will, if unchallenged, deform the notion
that Parliament is supreme. The first is party politics, the
second charter phobia. The discipline of party politics grants
to the winning party the right to govern. In most instances it
works with an informed opposition.
In 1982 Parliament gave the courts the right to review
legislation pursuant to the charter. This has the unfortunate
consequence of parliamentary deferral to courts where deferral
should not necessarily occur. A lawsuit is a very crude
instrument. There is a winner and there is a loser. There is a
limited view of the issue.
1415
There is no ability to nuance the issue like a legislative
instrument. The year 1998 should be the year that parliament
reviews that doctrine.
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
[English]
NATIONAL UNITY
Mr. Preston Manning (Leader of the Opposition, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, today the supreme court begins its hearings into whether
Quebec can secede unilaterally under Canadian or international
law.
The separatists and some muddle-headed federalists are saying
that it is the democratic will of Quebeckers that needs to be
respected, not the rule of law. The reality is that both have to
be respected.
Why has the Prime Minister failed to make it crystal clear to
Quebeckers, including his federalist allies in Quebec, that it is
both the law and democratic consent that need to be respected?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, we have made it very clear that we respect the
possibility of the government's holding a referendum. It is a
consultation.
We have to make sure that the law of the country is respected by
everybody. We made that very clear in the House of Commons and
in Quebec. Now that the court is looking into the case, we
should let the lawyers argue and the judges decide.
Mr. Preston Manning (Leader of the Opposition, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, according to a recent poll, 88% of Quebeckers believe it
is their vote and not the law that should decide Quebec's future.
In other words, they have been led to believe that it is
eitheror. That is a false choice, like the false choice that
prevailed before the last referendum when thousands of Quebeckers
thought they could vote for separation and still enjoy all the
benefits of being in the federation.
Why has the Prime Minister not done anything to counteract these
false choices which are so dangerous to Canada and so dangerous
to Quebec?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, it is exactly to make sure that everybody understands
everything that we went in front of the court to ask it to rule
now rather than have a ruling after the fact. It is better to
know the system of law before a decision is made, not after.
Mr. Preston Manning (Leader of the Opposition, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, what the government needs to be doing besides pushing
the supreme court reference is to put forward a plan A, a
positive initiative to make the federation work better for
everyone, including Quebec.
The plan A for which there is the most support inside and
outside Quebec is a rebalancing of the federal and provincial
powers, not tinkering with the powers as the government has done,
but fundamentally rebalancing for the 21st century.
When is the Prime Minister going to give as much effort to
developing a plan A for rebalancing the powers as his government
has put into this plan B supreme court reference?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, if the Leader of the Opposition had been listening he
would have realized that in February 1996 we had a plan where we
clearly said what had to be done.
That is why we have settled many of the grievances that existed
before such as manpower training, which had been a problem for 30
years, the questions of mining, tourism, forestry and many
others. We also settled the problem of the school boards in the
House of Commons in December 1997.
We have taken a lot of steps to correct the grievances of the
past.
There is one thing that is clear. We have to make sure that
every citizen in Canada acts within the law of the land.
Ms. Val Meredith (South Surrey—White Rock—Langley,
Ref.): Mr. Speaker, on September 30, 1997 the Prime Minister
said he would consider mailing a copy of the Calgary declaration
to every household in Quebec once he had seen what was happening
with the consultations in other provinces.
Canadians from all across this country have been consulted and
have expressed their desire for a united Canada.
Will the Prime Minister now commit to consulting with all
Quebeckers by mailing a copy of the Calgary declaration to every
household in Quebec?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I said we have not discarded any option like the one
suggested by the member.
As I said, I want all the provinces that have agreed on the
Calgary declaration to proceed with a resolution in their
legislatures. The majority have passed resolutions. We are
waiting to see if they all will pass a resolution.
I am very encouraged by the support the Calgary declaration is
receiving in all the provinces that have decided to consult their
people.
1420
Ms. Val Meredith (South Surrey—White Rock—Langley,
Ref.): Mr. Speaker, all Canadians across the country, with
the exception of Quebeckers, have been able to debate the Calgary
declaration.
Why will the Prime Minister not commit to sending Quebeckers the
Calgary declaration for them to debate? What is the problem?
What is he afraid of?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, just to send the declaration is not necessarily
consultation. We also need a mechanism for them to reply. The
Reform Party did it on its own the other day. The technique it
used was not that effective because it only received a 1% reply.
I do not think it is urgent at this time. This declaration has
been signed by all the premiers. It is being done at the
provincial level. It will be great when all the resolutions are
in and at that time we will advise.
* * *
[Translation]
REFERENCE TO SUPREME COURT
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
yesterday Alain Pellet, President of the United Nations
International Law Commission, made the following statement “You do
not have the right to manipulate a jurisdiction in this way”.
How can the Prime Minister still maintain and justify the
reference to the supreme court when his very intervention, even on
the international level, is clearly perceived as a crude attempt at
political manipulation?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
since 1867, provincial governments have had the right to make
references to their provincial court of appeal, and the federal
government has the same right with respect to the Supreme Court of
Canada.
This is a mechanism which has been put in place, which exists,
which is well recognized in law. Even citizens may exercise it in
Quebec through a declaratory action, since it is sometimes very
wise to seek the court's opinion before acting, rather than trying
to pick up the pieces afterward.
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
speaking of picking up the pieces afterward, the Prime Minister has
been unsuccessfully trying to pick up pieces that have been lying
around since 1982. He keeps on making the same mistakes.
Is the Prime Minister aware that, in his stubborn desire to
impose his own view of national unity, he is putting an indelible
blot on the credibility of the supreme court in the eyes of
Canadians and of Quebeckers, and is seriously discrediting it in
the eyes of all of the other countries in the world?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
these are the same people who, on two occasions—contrary to
everything that is decent in democracy—when the people of Quebec
had spoken freely, even though the question was a confused one, and
decided to remain in Canada, have refused to accept the decision by
the people of Quebec to remain in Canada. They still want to try
one more time with a confused question in order to try to cloud the
issue.
All we are asking is this: Be honest. Ask a clear question.
Mr. Michel Bellehumeur (Berthier—Montcalm, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Prime Minister.
Alain Pellet, the lawyer who chairs the UN International Law
Commission, stated yesterday that, on an issue like the reference, the
answer of the International Court of Justice in the Hague would sound
like this: “You are not in earnest, you are asking leading
questions”.
How can the Prime Minister persist in asking the Supreme Court of
Canada to rule on a political debate in Quebec?
1425
Hon. Stéphane Dion (President of the Queen's Privy Council for
Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
Alain Pellet has written and said many things, most of which would
greatly embarrass the Bloc Quebecois. I will just ask that the Bloc show
respect for the work being done by the court.
The court has work to do this week. Both sides will argue their
case and all the noise and political uproar the Bloc can muster will not
change a thing.
Mr. Michel Bellehumeur (Berthier—Montcalm, BQ): I understand why
the Prime Minister is embarrassed to answer, Mr. Speaker?
Does the Prime Minister, who intensified the Canada-Quebec
constitutional impasse in 1982 by unilaterally patriating the
Constitution, not realize that by manipulating the Supreme Court of
Canada as he has done, he is leading Quebec and Canada straight into
another impasse?
Hon. Stéphane Dion (President of the Queen's Privy Council for
Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
last Friday, the Quebec premier stated that he considered the justices
of the supreme court to be honest magistrates, who have at heart one of
the essential values underlying the operation of a court of law, that is
to say judicial independence.
So, the Bloc should respect judicial independence.
* * *
[English]
AUTO PACT
Mr. Chris Axworthy (Saskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Industry. He knows,
as do Canadians, that the auto industry in Canada comprises
325,000 direct and indirect jobs.
Just before the last federal election the present Minister of
National Defence, when he was Minister for International Trade,
confirmed that the government had no plans to eliminate one of
the linchpins of the auto pact, the 7.3% tariff on new non-auto
pact cars coming into Canada.
Will the minister confirm that there has been no flip-flop on
the 7.3% tariff and that he has no intention of gutting the auto
pact by eliminating this tariff?
Hon. John Manley (Minister of Industry, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the hon. member will know that an automotive
competitiveness policy review is under way at the present time.
That consists of looking at quite a number of elements of
competitiveness in this sector, tariffs being only one of them.
At the moment we are not anticipating any changes in the tariff
rates other than those which are already scheduled in
international agreements.
Mr. Chris Axworthy (Saskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar, NDP):
Mr. Speaker, the 325,000 Canadians who work in the auto industry
need a clearer answer than that.
The 2.5% tariff on car parts has already been eliminated with no
reciprocal deal from our partners irrespective of the
departmental review.
Why will the minister not stand up for these workers, for the
car industry in Canada, and save further embarrassment on the
part of his Liberal colleagues from Windsor, Oakville, Oshawa and
throughout southern Ontario? Will he stand up for the auto pact
and the tariff today? Why will he not tell us that it is here to
stay?
Hon. John Manley (Minister of Industry, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I am delighted that the NDP has finally found some
virtue in international trade agreements. This time it is the
auto pact.
Let me tell him we understand that not only are there a lot of
jobs in this area but that one in six jobs in the province of
Ontario depends on the automotive sector. It is a crucial sector
for Canada. It is a crucial sector for Ontario. We are going to
see that it gets stronger, not weaker.
* * *
[Translation]
REFERENCE TO SUPREME COURT
Hon. Jean J. Charest (Sherbrooke, PC): Mr. Speaker, my question is
for the Prime Minister.
Following the questions asked by members of the Bloc Quebecois and
the Reform Party, does the Prime Minister not realize that the
government is playing the game of the extremists in this country?
Does the government not realize that if the Supreme Court must make
a decision, it will tell us what we already know, namely that no one can
provide a definite answer should the country separate?
Does the Prime Minister not recognize that it would be better to
propose a plan A, that is a plan acceptable to those who want a
consensus on change, including as regards Canada's economic and social
union?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we
did not want to just roll the dice. We prefer to deal with one issue at
a time. I just listed the issues that we managed to settle.
One thing is clear in my mind: If one wants to become prime
minister of the country, one should pledge to ensure compliance with the
law of the land.
[English]
Hon. Jean J. Charest (Sherbrooke, PC): Mr. Speaker, the
Prime Minister is in a bad position to give anyone a lesson about
rolling the dice after what he did in the 1995 referendum, after
he said to Canadians in the 1995 referendum that everything was
fine. As a result he almost lost the country. Has he not
learned anything from that referendum?
Quebeckers and Canadians want the country to work. They do not
want the extremes of the Reform Party. They do not want the
extremes of the Bloc. They want a solution which makes the
country work, not a recipe on how to break it up.
1430
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I think the first thing is that someone who believes in
Canada does not vote with those who want to break Canada up.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien: I would like to say to the
leader of the Conservative Party that when we campaigned in the
referendum we had a joint program that was signed by me and by
him. If he wants to give me some responsibility, he should be
honourable enough to take some responsibility too.
* * *
THE BUDGET
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, last
spring the finance minister had his wrists slapped by the auditor
general when he cooked the books to the tune of about $800
million, contrary to the stated accounting policies of the
Government of Canada. Now we hear he is at it again with the $3
billion memorial fund to the Prime Minister.
Will the finance minister assure Canadians he has learned his
lesson and will not be loading the spending of future year into
the upcoming 1998-99 budget?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, when we took office in 1993 one thing we found was that
in fact a number of commitments which had been taken by the
previous government had not been booked in the statements of
account. As a result the deficit was in fact larger than the
Canadian people understood it to be.
We took the decision at that point that we would always book any
obligations of the Government of Canada so that Canadians could
see them up front and they would not be hidden.
That is the process we followed in this case and we will
continue to follow it.
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, it
sounds more like the Bre-X approach to me. The fact is the
auditor general chided the government for not following its own
policies with respect to accounting.
My question is again for the finance minister who was very
evasive the last time. Will he assure Canadians that he will not
make that surplus disappear before we get it by hiding future
spending in this year's budget?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, we have made it very clear that the government will
operate in an open and transparent way.
We simply do not believe that when somebody goes out for dinner
they should leave it for somebody else to pick up the cheque.
* * *
[Translation]
REFERENCE TO SUPREME COURT
Mr. Pierre Brien (Témiscamingue, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my question
is for the Prime Minister.
In August 1987, Yves Fortier, now the federal government's
counsel in the reference to the Supreme Court, stated in connection
with the Constitution of 1982: “Politically, and I would go so far
as to say morally, the Constitution Act, 1982, does not apply to
Quebec”.
Is the Prime Minister aware that his spokesperson, the
government's lawyer, that same Yves Fortier, is today saying
precisely the opposite of what he was saying in August 1987?
Hon. Stéphane Dion (President of the Queen's Privy Council for
Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I do not know why the Bloc Quebecois is again asking a
question I answered last week.
At any rate, Mr. Fortier is now pleading his case before the
court. The court is listening to his case, and that is where the
situation stands as of today.
Mr. Pierre Brien (Témiscamingue, BQ): Mr. Speaker, when he
stated that the 1982 Constitution did not apply politically or
morally to Quebec, Mr. Fortier added that “those who claim
otherwise are guilty of constitutional heresy”.
Can the Prime Minister tell us what credibility people can
assign to this masquerade when there are such contradictions coming
from the very person currently defending the position of the
federal government?
Hon. Stéphane Dion (President of the Queen's Privy Council
for Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, for the response to that question, I would refer the Bloc
Quebecois to the record of last week's question period.
* * *
THE BUDGET
Mr. Jason Kenney (Calgary Southeast, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, a recent
national poll shows that nearly two-thirds of Canadians believe the
government should make deficits illegal from now on.
Close to three Quebeckers out of four want the government to pass
balanced budget legislation.
When is the finance minister going to protect Canadians against
future excessive spending through balanced budget legislation?
1435
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, there is
no problem, since the government wants to avoid any future deficit.
The problem is with the Reform Party asking for huge exemptions.
Such exemptions would invalidate the act.
[English]
Mr. Jason Kenney (Calgary Southeast, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
five out of ten provinces have balanced budget laws and all of
those provinces have balanced budgets. Eighty-five per cent of
Canadians in the same poll say they think the federal government
is big enough today and should not get any bigger.
The Minister of Finance is preparing with his spendaholic
colleagues to increase the size of government with new Ottawa
style, big government programs.
Why is the minister ready to make government bigger in this
budget when Canadians want it to become smaller?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, we would far prefer to be judged by our results than by
rhetoric.
I simply remind the hon. member that when we took office the
deficit was $42 billion. Today the deficit is on the cusp of
being eliminated. I think we will have to let Canadians judge
that result.
* * *
[Translation]
REFERENCE TO SUPREME COURT
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the Minister
of Intergovernmental Affairs earlier wanted to talk of the
independence of the judicial process. Now we are going to be
speaking about independence.
In 1992, in the referendum on the Charlottetown accord, Yves
Fortier, counsel for the government, and Mr. Justice Bastarache,
recently appointed by the Prime Minister to the Supreme Court,
jointly chaired the yes committee, a yes that all Canadians,
including Quebeckers, rejected.
Does the Prime Minister not consider, given the two are
working side by side in the same political case, that this casts a
shadow on the Supreme Court?
Hon. Stéphane Dion (President of the Queen's Privy Council for
Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I will repeat the words of the former leader of the Bloc
Quebecois, the Quebec premier. He said: “I consider the justices
of the Supreme Court to be honest magistrates, who have at heart
one of the essential values underlying the operation of a court of
law, judicial independence”.
The prestige of the Supreme Court of Canada is recognized
worldwide. We have no reason to think that the court will not do
an honest and competent job, or lose sight of one of the values
essential to a court of law: judicial independence.
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval, BQ): Mr. Speaker, for the
benefit of the minister, justice must not only be done, it must
also appear to be done.
Does he not consider, given that the experts agree the
questions asked by the federal government will provide the response
the government is after and that, in the light of the complicity
between Justice Bastarache and counsel for the government, would
there not be reason to think this case has already been heard?
Hon. Stéphane Dion (President of the Queen's Privy Council
for Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the court will give an opinion, which will be available
for examination by all legal experts in Canada and around the
world. I am sure that the aim of the court is to give an opinion
that meets all the criteria of judicial jurisdiction.
* * *
[English]
HEALTH
Mr. Keith Martin (Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, today provincial health ministers are gathering together
to determine a compensation package for victims of Hepatitis C.
Of the 90,000 people who have been infected half are dead. The
provinces have already dismissed outright the offer by the
federal government. What will the minister be bringing to the
table tomorrow?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
I will be joining my provincial counterparts this evening and all
day tomorrow to discuss the very matter. I assure the hon.
member and my colleagues on all sides of the House that we will
be making our very best efforts with the provinces to find some
way of dealing with the matter.
From the perspective of the victims of the tainted blood tragedy
it is important that we have a co-ordinated response. We, along
with our provincial counterparts, will be doing our very best to
achieve that.
Mr. Keith Martin (Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I am very glad the health minister spoke about a
co-ordinated approach and about his care for the victims of this
terrible problem. The solutions, though, have been on the table
for a long time and the government has continued to dither.
1440
The Hepatitis C Society has put forth constructive, fair,
equitable and doable solutions. Will the Minister of Health
implement those solutions as soon as possible?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the hon. member is quite right to say the Hepatitis C Society has
made some constructive suggestions in this regard.
Since the receipt of the Krever report and the careful analysis
of the history and the recommendations for the future, we have
worked with the Hepatitis C Society and other interested groups
to prepare ourselves for this meeting tomorrow. I very much hope
that by the end of the day tomorrow we are going to be able to
announce that the provinces and the federal government can
approach this difficult problem with a common answer.
* * *
[Translation]
BILL C-28
Mr. Yvan Loubier (Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, BQ): Mr. Speaker, as
regards Bill C-28, sponsored by a minister who is both a legislator and
a shipowner, the four opposition parties are joining their voices in
unanimously asking that a special committee be immediately established
to shed light on the real, potential or apparent conflict of interest
involving the Minister of Finance.
If the Prime Minister wants to protect his government's integrity,
should he not accept the unanimous request made by all opposition
parties to shed light on the dangerous position in which the Minister of
Finance put himself?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
apologize for always saying the same thing, but the member keeps asking
the same question.
When the bill was tabled, the work relating to the specific clause
was done by the Secretary of State for International Financial
Institutions. When the Minister of Finance was appointed to his
portfolio, he followed the very clear rules and put all of his assets in
trust. The ethics counsellor established all the rules, and the Minister
of Finance has complied with them at all times.
Again, I have confidence in the Minister of Finance. He is an
honest man, as he has clearly proven since being appointed to his
position.
* * *
[English]
INFRASTRUCTURE
Mr. Steve Mahoney (Mississauga West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
my question is for the President of Treasury Board.
The Canada infrastructure works program was a very successful
federal initiative that created thousands of jobs across the
country and provided much needed funding for infrastructure
development. Many people in our communities are anxious to know
if we are going to extend this program again.
Can the minister make a commitment today that he is prepared to
extend this highly successful program?
[Translation]
Hon. Marcel Massé (President of the Treasury Board and Minister
responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the Canada
infrastructure works program has been and continues to be successful.
The federal government invested $2.3 billion in more than 16,000
infrastructure projects that have created over 125,000 jobs.
The program was implemented in co-operation with the provinces and
municipalities, and we intend to pursue it until March 31, 1999.
* * *
[English]
ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Mike Scott (Skeena, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, Bruce
Starlight wrote to the minister of Indian affairs last fall. His
privacy was breached and his letter leaked to the chief, Liberal
Roy Whitney. Chief Whitney is now using taxpayers' money provided
by the minister of Indian affairs to sue Mr. Starlight.
The Deputy Prime Minister said last week that he is looking into
paying for Mr. Starlight's legal fees because he recognizes that
this is a breach in confidentiality. Is he now prepared to assure
Mr. Starlight that his legal fees will be paid?
[Translation]
Mr. Bernard Patry (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Indian
Affairs and Northern Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, an investigation
is under way. It is conducted by Mr. Newman, who is an experienced
investigator. I can assure the hon. member that the minister will act
responsibly once she is informed of the findings of the investigation.
[English]
Mr. Mike Scott (Skeena, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, just so that
we are clear, the Deputy Prime Minister and the minister of
Indian affairs have already acknowledged that this is an
unacceptable breach of confidentiality. Mr. Starlight wrote a
letter and as a direct result of this government's failure to
respect his private and privileged correspondence, he is being
sued.
I am going to ask one more time: Will the Deputy Prime Minister
please commit here and now to paying for Mr. Starlight's legal
fees?
1445
[Translation]
Mr. Bernard Patry (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Indian
Affairs and Northern Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, based on the
available information, it appears that the band council will pay for the
legal fees of both Mr. Whitney and Mr. Starlight.
* * *
EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Mr. Yvon Godin (Acadie—Bathurst, NDP): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Human Resources Development.
The number of unemployed workers eligible for EI has dropped
from 87% in 1989 to less than 40% today. The EI commission's first
report indicates that the intention of changes was not to reduce
the number of claimants.
That being the case, is the minister prepared to revise the
eligibility criteria immediately?
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew (Minister of Human Resources
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for his
extremely relevant question.
In fact, the number of unemployed workers participating in our
system is of great concern to us. It has dropped very
significantly.
I do not, however, think I can go along with the member's
conclusion that this is entirely the result of the eligibility
criteria. That is why I have asked my officials to look into the
matter in order to find out why there are so many workers no longer
covered by the system, so that appropriate decisions can be made.
Mr. Yvon Godin (Acadie—Bathurst, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I invite
the minister to come to Acadia to see what is happening in the
fishery. Perhaps he would then be able to understand.
The report says it is too early to assess the impact of EI
changes. I would like the Minister of Human Resources Development
to tell the thousands of seasonal workers who are suffering that
there is insufficient data to assess the situation. Are the
reality and the facts not enough?
Is the government prepared to revise the criteria governing
eligibility and duration of benefits so that they are more
consistent with the needs of seasonal workers?
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew (Minister of Human Resources
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I would point out that anyone who
has read the complete report will also have seen that workers,
particularly those in the Atlantic region of Canada, came up with
additional weeks so that they could maintain their level of
benefits.
The reform is beginning to produce results because, when
motivated to come up with more weeks, these people did. Now we are
making the right decisions because we understand what is going on.
Is it because there are a greater number of self-employed workers
on the market who are not covered by the system, and not just the
eligibility criteria?
* * *
[English]
TAXATION
Mr. Scott Brison (Kings—Hants, PC): Mr. Speaker, the
Prime Minister should be put in the penalty box for joking about
his salary when Canadians have had a 6% drop in disposable income
and a 15% increase in income tax over the past several years. Our
most talented Canadians are leaving Canada to work elsewhere.
Is the Prime Minister's policy of continued high income taxes
and a weak Canadian dollar part of his plan to reduce the pay gap
between himself and the NHL players?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, it was not this Prime Minister's policy. It was the
previous Prime Minister's policy that brought us high income
taxes.
In fact since this government has taken office we have not
raised income tax rates. We have brought down the deficit. We
have brought down interest rates. A million Canadians have gone
back to work and this country is now imbued with an optimism that
it has not seen in over a decade and a half.
Mr. Scott Brison (Kings—Hants, PC): Mr. Speaker, the
Minister of Finance needs to be briefed a little better. Between
1989 and 1993 the Conservative government reduced income taxes as
a per cent of GDP by 1%. Since 1993 this minister has increased
income taxes as a per cent of GDP.
The Globe and Mail on Saturday reported that the heavy tax
burden combined with overall income taxes in Canada is putting in
motion a brain drain that is taking our most productive workers.
Over 80% of Waterloo graduates are going to the U.S. When will
this finance minister act to end the brain drain and bring broad
based tax relief?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the hon. member wants to talk about the Tory record
while in power between 1989 and 1993: employment down by 100,000
jobs; real disposable income down 8.1%; net worth of incomes
down; consumer confidence down 6.9%; housing starts down 26.4%;
vehicle sales down 16.6%. I have a whole book about the Tory
record.
* * *
1450
AFGHANISTAN
Ms. Aileen Carroll (Barrie—Simcoe—Bradford, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, we are all concerned about reports of the recent
earthquake in Afghanistan. Four thousand people have been killed
and thousands more have been left homeless. Can the minister
assure this House that Canada is doing everything possible to
assist with this catastrophe?
Hon. Diane Marleau (Minister for International Cooperation
and Minister responsible for Francophonie, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the Government of Canada extends its condolences to the
people of Afghanistan as well as to the victims' families. I am
pleased to announce that the Government of Canada will be
contributing $300,000 to the victims in the regions of
Afghanistan through the International Committee of the Red Cross.
* * *
JUSTICE
Mr. Chuck Cadman (Surrey North, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I am
glad we are concerned about earthquake victims in Afghanistan but
10 days ago near my home two 15 year olds were shot. Last week
the father of one of them buried his young son. I am angered
because I know that pain.
What we hear from this justice minister are warm and fuzzy words
about youth violence like partnerships and stakeholders. Without
a sermon on gun control would she please tell us how many more
parents must put their children in the ground before this
government stops tinkering and does something?
Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Justice and Attorney General
of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for
his question. He raises a very serious issue.
As I believe the hon. member knows, I have made a promise that I
will be tabling in this House in the coming weeks a response to
the report of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights
on youth justice. The hon. member raises a very important point.
I hope he will work with us when I table the response. We in
this country are all very concerned that we ensure we have a
youth justice system that first and foremost protects the public
of this country.
* * *
[Translation]
SMALL BUSINESS ASSISTANCE PROGRAMS
Mrs. Francine Lalonde (Mercier, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my question is
for the President of the Treasury Board.
Last Friday, in a joint statement, the President of the Treasury
Board and his colleague the secretary of state announced a federal
compensation program for small businesses affected by the ice storm, a
program established unilaterally, without any harmonization with Quebec.
Will the minister admit that all he is trying to do on this issue
is to enhance the government's visibility at the expense of the
effectiveness of small business assistance programs?
Hon. Marcel Massé (President of the Treasury Board and Minister
responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have met with my
colleague Mr. Brassard, Quebec's intergovernmental affairs minister,
four times in three weeks to try to find a basis for an agreement to
provide assistance to small and medium size businesses, which are
currently facing considerable financial hardship. I met the business
owners themselves and they told me action was urgently needed.
After meeting with Minister Brassard on Wednesday, I followed up
with a phone call on Friday to remind him he had told me he would give
me an answer—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Palliser.
* * *
[English]
NATIONAL DEFENCE
Mr. Dick Proctor (Palliser, NDP): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of National Defence.
As the minister knows firsthand from his meeting with the folks
in Happy Valley-Goose Bay, alternate service delivery means
slashed salaries, devastated communities, massive job losses and
the Canadian military being deprived of the tools and talents it
needs to do the job. Now other communities appear to be subject
to this ASD flu as well.
Why will the minister of defence not order a halt to this race
to the bottom before it destroys thousands more lives and several
more communities?
Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton (Minister of National Defence,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member has the wrong focus on
the program. We are attempting to save money for the Canadian
taxpayers and to do it in a way that treats our employees in a
fair and humane way.
In the case of Goose Bay, if we did not put this program into
effect we would be too high in our costs. That means we would
lose some of the air forces we have in foreign countries which
are vital to the economic well-being of that community.
1455
I know that concerns have been raised by people in that
community. The hon. member knows that I have met with people
from Happy Valley-Goose Bay in an effort to resolve them.
* * *
[Translation]
INCOME TAX
Ms. Diane St-Jacques (Shefford, PC): Mr. Speaker, according to
figures released by Statistics Canada last week, while wages have
practically not increased since 1992, Canadians are paying 15% more in
income tax.
This means less money left over at the end of the month to pay for
groceries, clothing and housing. As a result, there are 1.5 million
children living in poverty in Canada, or 500,000 more than in 1989.
Could the Minister of Finance help Canadian families by increasing
the amount of the basic exemption, which would be a direct benefit to
low income families and their children?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I remind
the hon. member that, last year, the Minister of Human Resources
Development proposed to the provinces and to this House—in fact, it
will become effective in July—the national child benefit, specifically
designed to help children living in the conditions described by the hon.
member.
At the same time, the Prime Minister announced in June our plans to
double the amount earmarked for the national child benefit by adding a
further $850 million because we can clearly see how difficult a
situation many Canadian families are in.
* * *
[English]
COMPUTERS FOR SCHOOLS
Ms. Bonnie Brown (Oakville, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Secretary of State for Science, Research and
Development.
The computers for schools program is supposed to prepare
Canadian students for success in the knowledge based economy. I
want to know when this program will benefit the students in my
riding and those right across the country.
Hon. Ronald J. Duhamel (Secretary of State (Science, Research
and Development)(Western Economic Diversification), Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, it has already started. Last Friday in Winnipeg at
Grant Park secondary school the Prime Minister delivered the
50,000th computer. The Minister of Industry in fact has
challenged the business community to provide 250,000 computers to
schools and libraries by the year 2000.
Computers for schools, with the help of organizations such as
Telephone Pioneers, has collected, repaired, upgraded, packaged
and delivered $25 million worth of computers to schools
throughout the country.
* * *
REVENUE
Mr. Howard Hilstrom (Selkirk—Interlake, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, first the minister of Indian affairs failed to tell the
House how and why the contents of a confidential letter of
complaint were released. Now five years of personal income tax
returns of Mr. John Thiessen of Winnipeg were released to the
Manitoba Public Insurance Corporation without authorization,
contrary to section 241 of the Income Tax Act.
I would like the Minister of National Revenue to tell all
Canadians why personal tax returns are being released without
authorization and if these are the only ones.
Hon. Harbance Singh Dhaliwal (Minister of National Revenue,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I want to assure the member that personal
tax information is not released. In fact at national revenue we
ensure that all information of taxpayers is kept confidential.
No information is released. We value that confidence which we
maintain. I want to assure the House it is something we value
very much. We do not release the confidential information of
taxpayers.
* * *
[Translation]
ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Claude Bachand (Saint-Jean, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my question is
for the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development.
The federal government took part in two referendums in relation to
the Manitoba Hydro project affecting the Norway House Cree. It so
happens that the voter's guide, written in co-operation with the federal
government, says very clearly that if the proposed agreement is
approved, each voter will receive an amount ranging from $700 to $1,000.
Is that the federal government's new way of holding referendums, by
buying votes in its favour?
The Speaker: My colleagues, I would ask you to be a little more
careful about how you phrase your questions.
I will allow the parliamentary secretary to answer if he so wishes.
Mr. Bernard Patry (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Indian
Affairs and Northern Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the member knows
full well that this is an agreement between the federal government, the
Manitoba government, Manitoba Hydro and the Norway House First Nations.
This means that his question is purely hypothetical, and I do not
think this is appropriate here.
* * *
1500
[English]
RAILWAYS
Ms. Bev Desjarlais (Churchill, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the
parliamentary secretary explained the process for abandonment of
rail lines of which most of us already are already aware. He did
not answer my question.
The Minister of Transport has asked for a review of the grain
handling and transportation system from farmer to port. If this
review is to have any credibility, all options including the
railways must be available.
Will the Minister of Transport ensure that not one more
kilometre of track will be torn up, allowing time for Judge Estey
to report?
Hon. David M. Collenette (Minister of Transport, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the railways have assured me that they are indeed
very sensitive to the point raised by the hon. member.
It is very important that we allow Judge Estey the freedom to
conduct his commission in an unfettered way. I am sure the
result will be beneficial to everyone in western Canada.
* * *
[Translation]
CHILD POVERTY
Ms. Diane St-Jacques (Shefford, PC): Mr. Speaker, in a recent
interview conducted for World Economic Affairs, the finance minister
stated that child poverty is a disgrace in this country and that a
national effort is needed to solve this problem.
Will the Minister of Finance promise today that he will index the
national child benefit? I should remind him that the number of children
living in poverty has reached a record high of 1.5 million.
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew (Minister of Human Resources Development,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, thanks to the excellent work that was done over the
years, we were able to inject $850 million. Together with the provinces,
we set up a national child benefit system. The budget will increase by
$850 million as of July 1, 1998, and by another $850 million during this
mandate.
This is a lot more important than indexing the benefits. We are
working on improving the system itself and not only on indexing the
benefits. This is a much broader initiative.
* * *
[English]
PRESENCE IN GALLERY
The Speaker: I draw the attention of hon. members to
the presence in the gallery of His Excellency Vladimir Kuramin,
Chairman, State Committee of the Russian Federation on
Development.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
The Speaker: My colleagues, some time before Christmas a
question of privilege was raised in which the Minister of
National Revenue was named, or at least his department was, and
he is going to make a statement today.
Before I give him the floor I would like to point out to the
House that this would seem to be a very long time for anyone to
get back to the House with the other side of the story on a
question of privilege. I would hope that we could cut this time
down in future.
The hon. Minister of National Revenue, in response to a question
of privilege.
* * *
PRIVILEGE
DEPARTMENT OF NATIONAL REVENUE
Hon. Harbance Singh Dhaliwal (Minister of National Revenue,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I rise today to respond to a question of
privilege raised on December 11, 1997 by the hon. member for
Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough.
1505
I thank the Speaker for reserving judgment on the matter raised
and providing an opportunity for me to provide information
regarding the matter of the payroll deduction tables which
appeared on the Revenue Canada website prior to approval of the
rates in Bill C-2.
It was not the intent of my department to compromise or negate
the member's privilege to consider amendments to the proposed
bill by publishing these new tables on its website prior to
approval.
While it is true the payroll deduction tables were placed on the
Revenue Canada website prior to the approval of Bill C-2, the
release of these rates was clearly accompanied by an appropriate
disclaimer indicating to employers that the tables were based on
proposed legislation. The disclaimer noted:
This publication contains proposed changes to the Canada pension
plan for 1998, as provided in Bill C-2. This bill is currently
before the Senate of Canada and, if passed as proposed, will
become law.
The payroll deduction tables were placed on the website in
December as a public service to employers who need this vital
information in order to prepare their payroll systems for the
year that began January 1, 1998.
This information was particularly important for employers at
that time because of the change in the Canada pension rate that
was announced in November 1997. The rate change resulted in a
delay of the production of the 1998 tables. Knowing that the
printed version of the tables would not reach employers until
January, Revenue Canada published the tables on its website and
included an appropriate disclaimer.
The actions of my department in this regard do not constitute a
contempt of the Parliament of Canada but rather provide a
valuable public service for employers.
The Speaker: I want in no way to question the veracity on
both sides but would like to satisfy myself. Because there was a
disclaimer, as the hon. minister said, I will order my officials
to download it and will get back to the House if necessary.
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
[Translation]
GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO PETITIONS
Mr. Peter Adams (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, pursuant to
Standing Order 36(8), I have the honour to table, in both official
languages, the government's response to five petitions.
* * *
[English]
COPYRIGHT ACT
Mr. Steve Mahoney (Mississauga West, Lib.) moved for leave
to introduce Bill C-358, an act to amend the Copyright Act.
He said: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of the bill is to amend the
Copyright Act to allow educators in Canadian school boards to
photocopy works for classroom purposes free of charge.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed)
* * *
1510
PETITIONS
NUCLEAR WEAPONS
Mr. Bob Mills (Red Deer, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, it is a
pleasure to rise today to present a petition signed by 72 people
from B.C., Saskatchewan and Ontario.
The petitioners pray that parliament support the immediate
initiation and conclusion by the year 2000 of an international
convention which will set out a binding timetable for the
abolition of all nuclear weapons.
I believe all of us would support the long term elimination of
nuclear weapons.
CRIMINAL CODE
Mr. John O'Reilly (Victoria—Haliburton, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, it is my pleasure to present a petition under Standing
Order 36 signed by 392 people from the riding of
Victoria—Haliburton.
They call on parliament to amend the Criminal Code to ensure the
right of all Canadians to die with dignity by allowing people
with terminal, irreversible or debilitating illness the right to
the assistance of a physician in ending their lives at a time of
their choice, subject to six strict safeguards to prevent abuse
and to ensure that the decision is free, informed, competent and
voluntary.
PUBLIC SAFETY OFFICERS
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
have the pleasure to present a petition signed by a number of
Canadians including from my own riding of Mississauga South.
The petitioners would like to draw to the attention of the House
that police officers and firefighters are required to place their
lives at risk on a daily basis and that when one of them loses
life in the line of duty the public also mourns that loss.
The petitioners therefore ask parliament to establish a fund
known as the public safety officers compensation fund for the
benefit of families of public safety officers killed in the line
of duty.
YOUNG OFFENDERS ACT
Mr. Keith Martin (Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, it is my privilege to present to the House a petition
from Rena Harvey and a number of other constituents in
Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca.
They call on parliament to enact legislation to repeal the Young
Offenders Act and replace it with an act that will provide
penalties for violent crimes committed by young people, will act
as a deterrent to such actions and will provide safety and
security to the general public.
OLD AGE SECURITY
Mr. Paul DeVillers (Simcoe North, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
pursuant to the standing orders of the House I present two
petitions on behalf of 79 and 75 constituents respectively.
The first petition requests that parliament refrain from any
action on the proposed changes to the old age security.
CRTC
Mr. Paul DeVillers (Simcoe North, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the
second petition requests that parliament review the mandate of
the CRTC and direct it to administer a new policy which will
encourage the licensing of religious broadcasting.
* * *
[Translation]
QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
Mr. Peter Adams (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the following
question will be answered today: No. 37.
.[Text]
Mr. Gilles Bernier:
What is the gouvernment's estimate of the dollar value of second
tier benefits from the contract to purchase EH-101 helicopters as
detailed by the Department of National Defence including: the
creation of 40,000 person-years of employment, benefits to
Canadian businesses involved in the contract, additional tax
revenues generated by those businesses and employees, a 10%
royalty on all future international sales of EH-101 helicopters'
and, in particular, how many EH-101 helicopters have been purchased
around the world since 1993 and at what cost?
Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton (Minister of National Defence, Lib.):
The two prime contractors, Paramax and E.H. Industries Limited,
committed to providing $3.2B, 1992 dollars, in industrial
benefits from the contract to pruchase 50 EH-101 helicopters.
Since the contract for the acquisition of helicopters was
subsequently cancelled, it is not possible to determine the exact
value of the indirect industrial benefits out of $3.2B 1992
dollars that would have accrued from this contract.
E.H. Industries Limited advises that there are currently firm
orders for 83 aircraft. The date of award of these orders is not
known. The cost of the purchases is also unknown as it is
priviledged information between E.H. Industries Limited ans its
customers.
[Translation]
Mr. Peter Adams: Mr. Speaker, I would ask that the remaining
questions be allowed to stand.
Mr. Guy St-Julien (Abitibi, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, early in December
1997, I had three questions placed in the Order Paper and Notice Paper,
namely Questions Nos. 53, 62 and 63, about the construction of some RCMP
detachments in Rouyn-Noranda that would cost more than $1 million to
accommodate only one secretary.
The 45-day period has expired. When can the people of
Abitibi—Témiscamingue expect answers to my questions?
[English]
Mr. Peter Adams: Mr. Speaker, I have made a note of the
question. I will look into it and get back to the member.
The Speaker: Shall the remaining questions stand?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[English]
SMALL BUSINESS LOANS ACT
The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-21, an
act to amend the Small Business Loans Act, be read the second
time and referred to a committee.
The Speaker: The hon. member for St. Catharines has two
minutes remaining, followed by questions and comments.
Mr. Walt Lastewka (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Industry, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I would like to inform you that
I am splitting my time with the member for Mississauga West.
Further to comments made on Bill C-22, I would like to point out
that by extending the lending period and by raising the loan
ceiling period we will be ensuring that more of these businesses
will have continued access to the financing they need to grow and
create jobs.
The SBLA program compares very favourably with similar programs
that have been set up in other countries. A recent study was
conducted by Dr. Alan Riding of Carleton University entitled “On
the Care and Nurture of Loan Guarantee Programs”. The study
examined many international programs similar to the SBLA program.
In it Dr. Riding concluded that the SBLA scheme has much to
recommend it. Among its more attractive features are its
extraordinary low administrative costs and low costs associated
with honouring guarantees.
1515
Administrative costs and the costs of default associated with
any other national approaches, whether it be U.S., U.K., Japan
or Germany, are many times greater than those of the SBLA.
Clearly the SBLA is doing its job in support of Canada's small
business sector and doing it well. The bill before us will
permit the time needed to review the program as contemplated by
Parliament when it provided for the current five year lending
period.
I humbly request that the House of Commons pass this bill so
that we can get on with the next phase which is a comprehensive
review of the SBLA.
Mr. Werner Schmidt (Kelowna, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
listened with interest to the member's statements about Bill
C-21. I think he made a point in the remarks to the effect that
this is not a subsidy.
I could not help but think about who it was who might be
receiving this subsidy or for whom it was not a subsidy. It
could not very well be for the applicant of the small business
loan but it could be the bank.
It seems to me that one of the discoveries that the auditor
general made was that somewhere between 30% and more recently up
to 46% of the loans actually granted under the SBLA program would
have been granted without the provisions of the SBLA.
If that is the case, that means 46% of the loans actually
granted to business were guaranteed by the Government of Canada,
loans that these institutions would have lent to the individuals
anyway. Therefore, rather than the bank being on the hook and
taking the risk, it is the taxpayer who is taking the risk up to
85% of the principal value of these loans.
I ask the member whether he could please clarify for whom this
is not a subsidy.
Mr. Walt Lastewka: Mr. Speaker, I understand where the
hon. member is coming from. Since we made changes in the 1995
proposal, the objective was to make the SBLA program more and
more self-sufficient.
The hon. member knows, coming from western Canada, that the four
western provinces have used the SBLA to a very high extent, in
fact more than any other part of Canada.
By using the SBLA program, what in effect we are doing is more
and more new and young businesses are into it and especially
under three years. As I mentioned earlier, almost 60% of the SBL
applicants are under the three year mark as firms and almost 40%
are starting companies.
The objective there is to continue to push the banks, which I
know the hon. member does in the industry committee, to loan to
small businesses. I think we both have the same objective, more
money available for firms, especially the start-up firms, and
more jobs created in Canada.
Mr. Werner Schmidt: Mr. Speaker, maybe the hon. member
did not understand my question. I will put it very simply and
very quickly. Is the SBLA a subsidy to the banks?
Mr. Walt Lastewka: Mr. Speaker, no. I think the SBLA
program is an efficient, effective program to help start-up
companies, to help young companies and expanding companies to
expand.
Yes, we need to review small business loans. The auditor
general made some comments. We will have a comprehensive review.
However, I do not believe, as the member opposite and his party
do, that we should stop it at this time. Comments were made by
the member for Saskatoon—Humboldt that the SBLA program should
be stopped until we have the review. I do not believe that
should be done.
I believe that we should extend it, that the review should
continue and that the hon. member will have a chance to come to
the industry committee to see whether it is a subsidy. I do not
think it is. I think it is part of making things happen in our
country.
1520
Mr. Steve Mahoney (Mississauga West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
I am pleased to talk about this issue because I have some
background in the area of small business. For a year during the
late eighties when the Peterson government was in power in
Ontario, I had the privilege of being the small business
advocate. I travelled around the province and met with small
business people. They were men and women starting new small
ventures, men and women working on family businesses that had
been around for many years but still retained the category and
the true definition of small business.
It is interesting that the Reform Party can speak against a
small business loan program. This program has existed for 37
years. All parties that have formed a government in this place
have supported it. They recognize the importance of the small
business sector to real growth and job creation.
When you think about what happens when a loan is arranged under
this program, there is truly a snowball effect that sees
tremendous benefits not only in the private sector but also for
governments at all levels because of the taxes that would be
generated from a small business.
What happens when a small business makes an application under
this act for a $200,000 loan? That loan cannot be for purposes
of debt consolidation. It cannot be for anything where there is
no security. It must be for items like real estate or equipment,
leasehold improvements, things that are tied directly to the
business and that have some asset value.
At the same time, the business person involved in applying for
this loan must go through a business plan with the bank. This is
not a slam dunk by any stretch of the imagination. The bank will
take your business plan into account when it decides whether to
approve the loan. The process of filing the business plan alone
will help to ensure your business is a success.
With the $200,000 loan the small business will acquire assets.
Those assets are in many cases manufactured by other small
businesses. There is a snowball effect when a purchase is made
for equipment or whatever is needed to assist the small
business. This gives business to the producing companies which
allows for job creation and the people who work for the producing
companies pay taxes.
It is interesting that Reform would try to paint this as a
subsidy. If we add up the benefits that the various levels of
government would receive for one transaction, it would be quite
enormous. Government would benefit from the income tax paid by
employees of the producing companies that supply the small
business. It would also benefit from the income tax paid by
employees of those small businesses. That does not sound like a
subsidy to me, especially when we consider that the default level
is under 5% for a very strong program with a lot of uptake across
Canada.
Think about the benefits to women entrepreneurs. Historically,
women, young people and others just starting out get caught in
the catch-22 that they do not have the necessary personal assets
to qualify for bank loans. We all know how the banks operate.
They will lend you money only when you do not need it. This bill
says to the banks that we will put in place a business plan that
will help the small business entrepreneur, be it a young person,
a woman starting a new business or a family starting a new
business. We will make sure they have all the data they need.
It is interesting to hear the Conservative Party talk about
reducing the size of the loan. Currently the level is $250,000.
The average loan is $65,000. In starting a new business with any
kind of substantive investment I suggest that $250,000 as a
capital investment in the infrastructure of that new business is
not a substantial amount of money.
1525
If someone wants to start a business they have to buy equipment.
Perhaps it is a trucking business. Perhaps it is a restaurant
which requires refrigeration equipment. They do not buy this
kind of equipment for $20,000, $30,000 or $50,000. It is highly
capital intensive.
In my role as the small business advocate, when I travelled
around the province, we asked business people what some of their
biggest problems and concerns were. The first one—
An hon. member: Taxes.
Mr. Steve Mahoney: The member says it is taxes. It is to
a degree. I do not disagree with that. They are concerned about
taxes, but they also want to pay their fair share of taxes. They
want to know that they have a government willing to back programs
like the SBLA and not simply throw it out amidst a bunch of
Reform Party rhetoric as some kind of subsidy.
They want to ensure that the tax money they pay to the
government is used properly to generate growth, create jobs and
help them succeed.
Anyone in business today in this country would tell us they are
doing reasonably well. Can they do better? Absolutely. Can we
have lower taxes? We have already heard the Minister of Finance
make a commitment that indeed once we have eliminated the deficit
we will start to pay down the horrendous debt which the country
has been saddled with and at the same time look at selective tax
reduction. It would be my hope that it will be directed in some
way toward business.
I often tell the story of the mobile sign that I saw in the
province of Ontario when I was the small business advocate which
was outside Paul's garage. It said “Our price includes the PST,
the GST, the EHT, the MBT, the MPT, the UIC, the WCB and the
CPP”. At the bottom it said “We would have included profit but
we ran out of room”. I have some sympathy for Paul's garage and
for small business.
We have to recognize as a government, as a body politic at all
levels of government, that it is our responsibility to make sure
the taxes we charge or the fees we charge for workers
compensation or for employment insurance are used to the benefit
of all Canadians. I believe this government is striving to do
that.
I would hope that through programs such as the SBLA, which is
being extended by one year with this bill, we will see more new
businesses being created which will share the tax burden and
provide for the safety net that we have, for our health care
system, for the quality of education that we enjoy in this
country and for the many benefits that we are so blessed with,
which we take for granted.
Members opposite rise in the House every day to tear down those
particular programs and institutions. It is their own personal
ideology. I understand they are in opposition and they feel they
simply must oppose for the sake of opposing. However, I find it
amazingly strange that members of a party which considers itself
on the right wing of the political spectrum would oppose helping
small business. What is the matter with them? There are small
businesses in western Canada which would benefit from this very
positive program.
This program shows the way governments should operate. Indeed it
is not a subsidy. It is a program which says to small business
if you are prepared to invest, if you are prepared to work hard,
we are prepared to make access to capital a reality in this
country. We are prepared to work with the banks and the private
sector to allow you, the small business person, to create the
jobs, to buy the products and to generate the tax revenue which
we all need as Canadians to keep this country going and growing.
I support this bill. I am pleased that many members of the
House support it. However, I am saddened that some see it as a
political opportunity to make hay and simply oppose what indeed
is a financially sound and very important program for all
Canadians.
1530
Mr. Jim Pankiw (Saskatoon—Humboldt, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
what we are witnessing here from the previous two speakers from
the Liberal Party is typical: out of touch Ottawa politicians
who do not have a clue. I on the other hand come from the real
world. I am not a career politician and I am here advocating on
behalf of ordinary Canadians.
I personally applied for and received a loan from a financial
institution under the Small Business Loans Act. What happened to
me is despite the fact that I had ample security, the bank
required me to put it through the Small Business Loans Act. That
is one example of the type of abuse lenders are implementing upon
the Small Business Loans Act. Other abuses by borrowers and
lenders were illustrated in my speech earlier.
Mr. Steve Mahoney: Mr. Speaker, I think the myopic
viewpoint just put across clearly indicates a lack of
understanding. I can appreciate that the hon. member had ample
security. My point very simply is that there are thousands of
Canadians who do not. They have no opportunity to put up that
ample security and this program ensures that they will have
access to capital.
I take some exception to being referred to as an Ottawa
politician. My roots go very deep in the community, very deep in
the small business community and very deep at the municipal level
in the city of Mississauga.
The member should speak about the little bit of what he knows
and a little less of that nonsensical rhetoric.
Mr. Peter Stoffer (Sackville—Eastern Shore, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, today we are debating a bill that will affect the
accessibility of small and medium size business to financing from
commercial banks.
The proposed merger of the Bank of Montreal and the Royal Bank
also threatens to have a huge and negative impact on the
accessibility to financing by small business across Canada. I
wish to ask the member what he thinks about the three following
questions: Does he believe that the merger would benefit small
businesses in his riding? Does he agree with the Minister of
Finance that the entry of more foreign banks into the Canadian
market would make the mega merger acceptable? Does he think the
Minister of Finance should say no to the merger right now?
Mr. Steve Mahoney: Mr. Speaker, I am sure if you were to
give a ruling, you would probably say that the questions have
nothing to do with this particular bill, but let me just attempt
to answer the hon. member.
I believe that the banking industry has not been co-operative
with small business and particularly with women and young people
attempting to start up a small business which in many cases in
our new economy is the only avenue they have available to them.
It is incumbent upon the banking industry to work with small
business to make sure that not only is capital accessible, but
that the people the banks are making the loans to have done the
business plan and understand what they are doing. Often the best
loan that you will get is the one that you get turned down on.
The banks have a responsibility to make sure that they are doing
their homework on this to help people run successful businesses
when they make those loans.
Mr. Jason Kenney (Calgary Southeast, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
the hon. member said in his remarks that small businesses do not
just want tax relief, they want big government programs and
subsidies like this.
For seven years I worked with the Canadian Taxpayers Federation,
an organization largely supported by small business. I spoke
personally with thousands of small business people across the
country, surveyed tens of thousands of them, as have groups like
the Canadian Federation of Independent Business. I have never
once encountered a small businessman who said to me that they
wanted more big government handout loan programs. What I heard
again and again from groups like the CFIB is that they want lower
taxes. Will the member respond?
Mr. Steve Mahoney: Mr. Speaker, perhaps we could get
instant Hansard and see where it is that I said that
businesses want more big government subsidized programs. I do not
think you will find that anywhere in my comments.
What I did say and do stand by is that this is a program that
makes accessibility of capital available to the people who in
other cases would simply not get it. It is a highly successful
program. If the hon. member were to do the balance sheet, he
would see that the revenue this government and all businesses
gain from this program would be dramatically higher than the
cost.
1535
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
will be splitting my time with the hon. member for Kelowna.
I rise today to speak to Bill C-21, the Small Business Loans
Act. I want to make it clear that Reformers oppose this
legislation. We think it is wrong headed. We think it goes in
the wrong direction completely. I want to start by outlining some
of the concerns Reformers have with this piece of legislation.
What is happening here is the government is proposing to raise
the liabilities that taxpayers are on the hook for up to $15
billion, a $1 billion increase. We have to stand four square
opposed to that. We do that for a number of reasons.
We point out that the auditor general has been extraordinarily
critical of the Small Business Loans Act. Taxpayers are already
on the hook for $210 million in loans that have gone bad. Because
the point of this program is to underwrite loans, inevitably
Canadian taxpayers are going to end up on the hook. In this case
it is $210 million. Studies done between 1994 and 1996 indicate
that 40% of these loans would have been made anyway. I want you
to hold that in your head for a moment, Mr. Speaker, and I will
come back to it in a moment.
We also point out that job creation figures under the Small
Business Loans Act have been grossly inflated. We should not be
surprised by that. We have seen it already in programs like the
infrastructure program. In fact I heard the treasury board
president talking about that today. He was spreading more of
that misinformation. The auditor general actually denounced the
government for inflating the job creation figures of the
infrastructure program. The government has done it again with the
Small Business Loans Act.
The final point is there is very little accountability to
Parliament.
I want to go back to the point that I asked Mr. Speaker to
consider very carefully, the fact that 40% of these loans would
have been made anyway. What that tells me is that we are in a
situation where the people of Canada are providing backing for
loans the banks would have been making anyway. In other words
essentially what we are doing is providing a subsidy to the big
banks.
The last time I checked it was the Government of Canada that was
in the red and it was the banks that were making $7 billion a
year in profits. Why in the world is the guy who is in the red,
the Government of Canada, subsidizing the banks that are making
$7 billion in profits? I do not see any sense in that. I would
argue that it is completely contrary to common sense. If we put
that proposition to Canadians today, and I guess that is what we
are doing, I can guarantee they are going to say that is
absolutely insane.
But does the government turn around and say “Well, we made a
mistake. We are not going to do that any more”? No. What it
wants to do is increase the liability by $1 billion to $15
billion. What is the sense in that?
I can guarantee that Reformers will not support legislation like
this. We believe it is completely wrong to start subsidizing some
people with the tax dollars of other people only to have those
people who are being subsidized turn around and compete against
them. That does not make any sense. It is why we oppose some of
the regional development programs, the ones with the inflated job
creation numbers, the ones that the auditor general has
excoriated in the past. We have to get away from that type of
thinking. It does not work.
I want to talk for a moment about what does work. We do not want
to be negative here. I do believe that the government has fallen
prey to the law of unintended consequences. Perhaps the auditor
general has pointed the way for it but of course one can only go
where people are willing to follow. Let us hope if the
government does not heed the auditor general it will heed some of
our advice but I am not counting on that.
Let us figure out how we can help small business. There are a
number of things.
The first thing is we need more competition in the banking
industry. If there was more competition in the banking industry
and it was not just the big six banks being able to skim the
cream off the top and take the best and the safest loans to help
them get those big profits, then they would have to really
explore whether or not they should take a bit of a chance on some
of the small businesses out there, the ones where people do not
have collateral, the ones where maybe their collateral is in
their head. It might be one of the high tech companies.
1540
If there was real competition, if we had banks within Canada
facing competition from banks outside of Canada or from other
institutions such as insurance companies that got into banking,
it would force all of those different institutions to look for
ways to provide more credit so that they could continue to make
profits. That makes sense. More competition is one way that
will provide credit for small business.
Another point we want to make, and this is an important one in
light of the fact that we have a budget coming up, is we would
like to see the debt paid down. People are going to ask what
that has to do with providing help for small businesses. The
fact is when the government has a debt of $600 billion and when
industry can go wherever it wants to invest, chances are they are
not going to come to the country that is most indebted. We saw
that in the Asian crisis. When there was a flight to quality did
they come to Canada? Hardly and we have seen our dollar fall as a
result of that. They went to the United States.
We need to attract those people here. When they come here they
bring investment. We have to start paying down the debt to
attract those people. By doing that we also start to lower our
interest rates. The government all of a sudden is no longer the
one that holds all the money and credit is available for other
businesses, for instance small businesses. I know that is not as
sexy as getting some kind of a small business loan from the bank
with the name of the Government of Canada on it. It probably
does not get as much political credit, but it works. That is
what is important.
Let us start to pay down the debt. Reformers have laid out a
plan where we would lower the current debt to GDP ratio from over
70% debt to GDP down to 20% over a period of about 20 years. In
the course of that we would save taxpayers about $20 billion a
year in interest. It is a good deal all around.
The other thing is, and my friend from Calgary Southeast has
mentioned it, we must start to lower taxes. My friend has
pointed out and he is absolutely right, that when we talk to
small business people they do not say “Boy I wish we could have
the Small Business Loans Act liability raised $1 billion”. We do
not hear that. But they sure do say “Let us lower payroll
taxes. Let us get payroll taxes down so that there is no longer
a disincentive for us to hire people”. They point out that
payroll taxes are not profit sensitive. If they are in a loss
position they are still paying taxes. In fact they could
literally be taxed out of business. Let us get those payroll
taxes down.
We talk about the small business exemption of $200,000 which
should be raised. My friend from Saskatoon pointed this out
earlier. If we allowed it to be indexed to inflation it would be
up over $300,000 right now. I think he said $315,000. That
would help small businesses tremendously.
Let us look at some other alternatives. If we really want to
help small business in this country, let us not fool around by
raising liabilities by $1 billion and putting taxpayers on the
hook for another $1 billion. Let us get away from that central
planning thinking which went out with the fall of the Berlin
wall. It is time to embrace market liberalism. It is time to
embrace the ideas that really do create wealth in this country.
That means lower taxes, lower debt, an atmosphere where people
are encouraged to invest.
One of the things we advocate is cutting the capital gains tax.
We believe that it makes sense to offer people incentives to
invest. That would do a tremendous amount to help people who
want to start their own small business. All of a sudden there
would be all of these people who have a real incentive to invest
in a business.
I talked about the folly of Bill C-21, the Small Business Loans
Act and some of the particulars in it. More than that we have
offered some positive alternatives, some alternatives that will
help Canadians, that will give them some opportunity, something
they have been missing for a long time.
I encourage my friends across the way to consider closely what
we have said and my colleagues on this side to vote against Bill
C-21.
1545
Mr. John Maloney (Erie—Lincoln, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
listened with interest to the remarks of the member for Medicine
Hat. He understands that there are some 1,500 letters when it
comes to the SBLA. I noticed with interest that about 11% of the
small business loans are in his province alone.
I have a question for the member. Since the Alberta treasury
branch's group also participates in the SBLA, would the member
and his leader from that province be willing to suggest that all
the people in that province should not be participating in the
SBLA?
Mr. Monte Solberg: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member
for his question. I would respond by simply saying that instead
of that we should have lower taxes, lower debt and more
competition in banking so that people have other access to
credit.
Not only does the auditor general think this does not work. Some
40% of the loans that were made were ones where the Small
Business Loans Act backing was not necessary. In other words, we
are subsidizing the banks.
Does my friend across the way think it is necessary to subsidize
banks that make $7.5 billion in profits?
Mr. Peter Stoffer (Sackville—Eastern Shore, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, I have two quick questions for the member. Does he agree
with his party leader that the banks should merge? Is it okay
for foreign banking competition to come into the country carte
blanche?
This has to be the first time a western populist party has sided
with the interests of big banks from Toronto over the interests
of small businesses in their own communities.
Would the member explain why the Reform Party has been so ready
to betray its populist routes in this case? Could it be that the
Reform Party is now so interested in winning votes in Ontario
that it is ready to support Bay Street over Main Street in its
own communities?
Mr. Monte Solberg: Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for
his question but his premise is wrong. My leader pointed out
that we wanted to see more competition in banking before we would
even consider a merger.
What is important here is how the consumer is served. We are
certainly standing up for the people of western Canada when we
say that. We believe their considerations should come first and
that is why we want more competition and more access to capital
than we currently have.
That is where we come down on the issue. The real question is
where do the NDP come down on the issue of the Small Business
Loans Act.
I have a question for my friend in the NDP. Do they continue to
support a system that effectively subsidizes big banks that made
$7.5 billion in profits last year? Certainly that cannot be the
position of the New Democratic Party.
Mr. Jim Pankiw (Saskatoon—Humboldt, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
to conclude the point I was making earlier, I am a living example
of an entrepreneur who was forced by a financial institution to
participate in the Small Business Loans Act despite the fact that
I would have qualified for the loan anyway.
That seems to be falling on deaf ears on the Liberal side. It
is a lesson that they should take to heart, because the criticism
of the auditor general is that close to half of the loans
administered by the program would not have to be given.
Why would they not want to address the inefficiencies in the
program and thereby not require an additional billion dollars,
half of which would be wasted because it was not required anyway?
By streamlining the program they could free up many more billions
just by administering the program efficiently.
Mr. Monte Solberg: Mr. Speaker, I think that is an
excellent question. My friend had collateral. Did that matter?
No. He got the small business loans backing anyway because the
banks wanted him to take it. In effect, they were double
guaranteeing a loan and Canadian taxpayers were therefore
subsidizing him. That does not make any sense.
Why do my friends in the Liberal Party not address this glaring
problem with this piece of legislation? Not one of them has
stood to say that it is wrong and needs to be addressed.
I have a rhetorical question for my friends across the way. Why
do they not address this? Everybody knows it is wrong. Why do
they not do something about it?
Mr. Werner Schmidt (Kelowna, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I wish
to enter the debate on Bill C-21 with a series of questions
designed to give direction to the government in the
administration of this program.
1550
We on this side of the House have been accused of being totally
and unalterably opposed to granting capital to small business and
making it available for them to access business. That is not the
point at all. There has been a total and complete
misrepresentation of what we are talking about.
We are talking about the 40% or 50%—in fact the most recent
study says about 46%—of the loans granted under the SBLA that
would have been granted in the normal course of events. I am
talking about the other part and will ask questions about it.
The study on access to capital by small business asked whether
the Department of Industry would do a cost benefit analysis of
the Small Business Loans Act. Why is it that since 1995, when
the first set of amendments were proposed by the Department of
Industry, no such study has been done? That is the question.
The particular program is supposed to increase jobs. I have a
question to ask that is similar to the one asked by the auditor
general. He asked how many jobs were created. Is the number of
jobs created simply the number that the applicant writes on the
piece of paper, or have they actually been verified as the number
of jobs created? How many jobs were lost because a particular
loan was granted to one business and not granted to another?
These are very significant questions.
The program is supposed to help small business improve. How
does the act propose that the business be measured? What is the
improvement? There are no statistical indicators of what
constitutes improvement.
Some obvious measures could be level of sales. Has the level of
sales risen? Is the profitability of the company a little
higher? Is its productivity higher? Is it more competitive?
What is the level of exports compared to before the loan was
given and later? How many products were developed? What is the
net employment impact? What is the overall business success?
These suggestions ought to be made and ought to be included.
I want to raise another point which has to do with a grave
injustice and grave abuse of the provisions of the program. The
program was supposed to be there to help small business. My
colleagues across the way have made a big point about small
business. I draw attention to a paragraph found in the auditor
general's report. It is a rather significant one.
The Small Business Loans Act puts a ceiling of $250,000 on an
individual loan. In his sample of loan files the auditor general
noted some cases in which a number of individual corporations
with substantially common ownership had collectively obtained
more that $250,000 in loans to operate the same business. In one
particular case a group of 23 corporations obtained more than $4
million in SBLA financing.
That is a blatant abuse of the provisions of the act. Yet there
was no indication as to why this was done. Nor was there any
action taken to prevent this from happening. Nor was there any
consequence as a result of it having happened. The least I would
suggest to the Minister of Industry is that kind of a thing
should not happen again.
The Income Tax Act has a provision that does not make it
possible for corporations with essentially the same ownership to
bundle together to get particular advantages. Why does this act
not have that provision? That was well known since 1966 yet
there is not even a hint of that happening.
Instead of us perpetuating the act indefinitely, the Department
of Industry should have a year to study it in great detail. It
should have done it already. Since it has not been done we will
give it the benefit of the doubt and give it another year.
In no way should the department be given any authority to spend
more money than is already in the provisions in the act, which is
$14 billion. It does not need the $1 billion. We heard the
minister this morning say that the commitment at the moment is
$12.7 billion.
1555
There is a cap now of $14 billion, which is a $1.3 billion
difference. The government wants another $1 billion on top of
that. If the pattern remains the same as it was 46% of that
would be granted anyway. If we take that out, there is more than
enough money left to meet the real intent of the Small Business
Loans Act. I suggest that we change the act so that it does one
thing and not the other. That is the gist of that provision.
There is more. We need to ask ourselves why the SBLA program
has not been adjusted to be more accurately reflective of the
economy around us. It is interesting that there is no change in
this regard at all. The program still focuses on land, premises
and equipment. Yet where is the economy going? The economy is
going into high tech, into knowledge based industries. It is not
going into land, premises or equipment in the first instance.
If the minister were really concerned about meeting the needs of
small business, he needs to do not only the things that have been
discussed already with regard to tax reduction but to make money
available in those areas that will bring forward our
competitiveness as a nation. I think that needs to be addressed
as well.
I also want to ask the minister if his officials have projected
the possible risk of new failures. About 75% of the defaults of
the loans under the SBLA come from businesses that are new
enterprises. Three-quarters of the defaults are in new
enterprises. Has that been figured into the risk situation? We
have no indication that is in fact the case.
The auditor general goes so far as to say there is no figure
that we as parliamentarians can look at to say what is the
projected default rate or cost in terms of actual dollars of this
program. The auditor general's estimate stands at $210 million.
That is a figure of cold, hard cash which he believes the
taxpayers of Canada will have to fork out.
Why does the Department of Industry not come clean and tell
parliamentarians that Canadian taxpayers are on the hook for a
minimum of $210 million in predicted defaults in this area? That
says nothing about some other areas that could come into
question.
Another thing really bothers me. Does the department have
enough information? What happens if a lending institution, say
one of the big banks, says that a loan is in default? The
auditor general makes a rather interesting observation in section
29.64:
This means that the department does not know whether the lending
institution observed all the requirements of the act. There is
some indication that some lending institutions did not. They
charged the borrower fees, which was contrary to the provisions
of the act. These very serious questions have to be addressed.
That is why we are not prepared to give to the Department of
Industry one cent more than it already has.
Mr. John Solomon (Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, the member for Medicine Hat and now the member for
Kelowna are quite unsupportive of Bill C-21 as it applies to the
financing of small businesses around Canada.
The premise of the argument of the member for Medicine Hat was
that there was a lot of abuse by the banks of the SBLA.
1600
Members who have been in small business will know that the banks
administer the provision of the SBLA loans. The members for
Medicine Hat and Kelowna have said that 40% of the loans under
the SBLA would have been approved anyway by the banks. Their
approach in respect of small business is not to look at the
program and its abusers and to try to figure out how the program
could work to the benefit of Canadian small business. Their
approach is to kill the program.
Can the member for Kelowna tell me why you feel we should kill
the program while we let the banks get off scot free? They are
the ones that are abusing the program. You said the banks are
allowing these loans to go forward. Why will the Reform Party
not say that one of the solutions could be to look at the banks?
The Speaker: I would ask hon. members to please address
your questions and your answers to the Speaker.
Mr. Werner Schmidt: Mr. Speaker, the member who referred
to me said that the Reform Party wants to kill the SBLA. That is
not what we said. That is not what my hon. colleague said. That
is not what I said. It is not the case at all.
I asked a series of questions about what is wrong with the act
and I suggested how it could be improved. I thought I made that
quite clear. If I did not make it clear then, I will make it
clear now. We are talking about that section of the loans
program that would have been served regardless of the SBLA. Let
the SBLA do what it was intended to do. But that is not the
issue. Our concern is not with what it was intended to do but
rather with the abuses that exist. I want to make that
abundantly clear.
Mr. Keith Martin (Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, my colleague from Kelowna gave an excellent speech in
which he illustrated some of the problems with the SBLA.
I am curious about the aspect of the lender. There seem to be
numerous loopholes within the act which enable the banks to
engage in what may be termed as less than attentive policies
toward what they are lending and the conditions under which they
are lending. We found one of the problems is that the act enables
the banks to lend to people without due care to the criteria upon
which they apply.
I am sure the hon. member has read the auditor general's report
on the Small Business Loans Act. Could he provide the House with
any constructive suggestions for how the government could change
the SBLA to ensure the lender is taking due care?
Mr. Werner Schmidt: Mr. Speaker, some very simple things
could be done.
One is that the government could make sure there are no
loopholes in the act that would allow companies with the same
ownership to bundle their stuff together. There should also be
concrete and specific measures of productivity, ability for
expansion, profitability of business, things of that sort. If
those things were done, then it would work. It is very simple.
There are no deep secrets here at all. All the government has to
do is apply some common sense and good sound business principles
and it will work.
Mr. Maurizio Bevilacqua (Vaughan—King—Aurora, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I wish to address the House with regard to Bill C-21, an
act to amend the Small Business Loans Act. The support for small
and medium size businesses provided by the SBLA is integral to
the government's jobs and growth agenda which is reducing the
deficit, creating the conditions for strong and sustainable
economic growth, and helping Canadians get back to work.
I will engage in this debate by giving a larger scope and a
broader framework to the issues we are debating. I will also
illustrate that the SBLA is part of a larger strategy presented
to Canadians by the government.
1605
The strategy basically deals with four overarching themes: to
make Canada the most connected country in the world; to enable
Canada to realize its international potential; to invest in
innovation and knowledge; and to increase the participation of
Canadians in the new economy. All of these themes are highly
relevant to Canada's small business community which indeed must
adapt and innovate to thrive in the new information economy.
Over and above the benefits that our renewal of the Small
Business Loans Act will confer on small and medium size
enterprises, many Industry Canada programs are designed
specifically to increase the participation of small businesses in
the new economy. These programs complement the way in which the
SBLA supports small businesses and innovative new companies in
particular by making it easier for them to secure debt financing.
Recent developments with regard to connectedness are
particularly exciting and relevant to the field under discussion.
Let us take some examples.
As part of small business week recently, the Minister of
Industry launched three new Internet web sites designed
specifically for small business. The sites are located on
Strategis, Industry Canada's interactive web site. The new
Strategis sites continue Industry Canada's efforts to connect
Canadians, increase support for small business and move Canada
ahead in the knowledge based economy.
The first, Sources of Financing, is a new leading edge product
based on a sophisticated and powerful search engine. Through the
site small businesses can access information on a wide range of
information about traditional and alternative sources of
financing. These sources include the SBLA and run the gamut from
the familiar debt financing arrangements available from the major
financial institutions to services offered by micro lenders or
venture capital companies.
The second site is designed to complement the Canada community
investment plan, CCIP, an initiative which was started in 1996.
It is an innovative program to help businesses with potential for
growth gain access to existing private sector sources of risk
capital. The program which has a special focus on small and
medium size businesses is designed for communities which exist
outside the orbit of Canada's major financial centres. Twenty-two
communities across Canada are taking part.
Steps to Growth Capital is the Strategis web site which has been
created as a companion information site to the CCIP. Steps to
Growth Capital will help growth oriented firms prepare themselves
to find outside investors and close a deal. There are eight steps
covered in the program which address a whole range of investment
capital issues, from identifying capital needs to managing a
relationship with an investor.
It is becoming quite clear from the comments I have made that
the SBLA should simply not be viewed in isolation but rather as
part of a larger strategy presented by the Government of Canada
under the leadership of the Minister of Industry, who has really
taken upon himself to provide the type of programs and tools to
the small business sector so that it can grow in a growing
economy. We could look at this perhaps as the creation of a tool
kit for small businesses so that they can generate the type of
wealth and the type of jobs our economy needs.
These three sites have come on line in addition to the wealth of
small business information already available via Strategis
through Contact!, the Canadian management network. This site is
one of the busiest on Strategis. It provides entrepreneurs with
access to information on where to find out about management
skills, locate outside advice and take part in extensive on line
business to business discussion forums.
Contact! makes available many, many resources.
For example it provides extensive data on more than 1,500
Canadian small business support organizations. It also includes
an all in one business support centre with more than 450 on line
how to publications and descriptions of more than 300 business
management software tools.
1610
It is clear from the type of material and programs the
Government of Canada is providing small business that we are
doing our part and our share to make sure that they can grow to
their potential.
The government's goal in making Canada the most connected
country in the world is to ensure that Canadians wherever they
are can have access to the information highway by the year 2000.
This is perhaps the single most important action the government
can take to ensure that we succeed in the knowledge based
economy.
I think members of Parliament on both sides have a full
understanding that there has been quite a transformation
occurring in this economy. The role of government as a
facilitator is to provide these opportunities for small business
so that we are well equipped for the challenges of the 21st
century. May I say it is not so much the 21st century that we
really have to get ready for. We have to be ready because the
so-called 21st century telecommunications systems and networks
are here already.
This is why Industry Canada is working with private and public
sector partners to ensure that all of Canada's 16,500 schools and
3,400 libraries are connected to the Internet by 1998. That is
the type of leading edge work we need to engage in. Just think
about the fact that 16,500 schools and 3,400 libraries are going
to be connected to the Internet in 1998.
What does that mean? It gives us a competitive edge as a
nation. We will be ahead of most if not all industrialized
countries in the world in this particular sector. Why is that
important? Because it speaks to competitiveness in the ever
growing competitive global marketplace. It provides our people
with the human resources required, the potential to expand this
country's human resources and to make sure that we get our fair
share.
It is also why we are connecting rural and remote communities
through public access sites across Canada. It will give them the
tools to further their economic and social development. For
rural communities, technology is their friend. It brings them
closer to the centres and makes them connect not only with people
within Canada but throughout the world.
My colleagues will continue on stressing some of these points. I
am sure they will dedicate the majority of their speeches to the
issue of how this bill we are examining is part of a larger
strategy the government has in mind. I have touched upon some of
the key issues in my 10 minutes. My hon. colleagues will touch on
some of the other overarching themes in the Minister of
Industry's strategy for a more connected society.
Mr. Roy Cullen (Etobicoke North, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased to participate in the debate on Bill C-21, an act that
will extend the lending period of the Small Business Loans Act
for another year, until March 1999. It will also increase the
aggregate funding ceiling under the program by $1 billion, from
$14 billion to $15 billion. I can say with some conviction that
any program that helps small business raise capital is something
this House should support.
1615
Again I am amazed by the rhetoric of members of the Reform
Party. I do not know where they have been. In my riding I have
talked to small business people and they have told me about the
difficulty they have in attracting capital. This program would
give needed capital to small business.
Reform members say that small business will look at the balance
sheet of Canada and say that the Government of Canada owes all
this money, has all this debt, and therefore they will not invest
in Canada. Where have they been? We are talking about small
businesses with one to twenty employees. Do they really believe
those people will sit down to look at the balance sheet of the
Government of Canada and say there is all this debt and therefore
I am not going to start a business in Canada? Where are they?
Maybe that is what big business would do. Maybe medium size
business would do that. But it is certainly not the drivers of
economic growth in Canada, the businesses with one to twenty
employees, the businesses which are creating all the jobs in
Canada which would do that. Do those members really think that
small businesses sit down to analyse the balance sheet of the
Government of Canada? I am not saying that we do not have to
deal with the national debt, but they are getting caught up in
their own rhetoric.
Recently we have seen data which indicate that small businesses
are driving the jobs in this country.
A couple of years ago members of the Reform Party said that we
had to deal with the deficit. Our government dealt with the
deficit. They were saying that we must decrease taxes. Now they
are saying forget about decreasing taxes, eliminate government
debt. If we ask them how they can argue both sides, they say we
want it all.
We have to make choices and our government is making choices. We
are dealing with the debt. I would like to see income tax
reduction in Canada. We are dealing with that in a targeted way.
We will be in a position in the not too distant future to give
Canadians some general tax relief.
I have talked to business people in my riding as well as the
banks. The finance critic for the Reform Party said that the
auditor general has criticized this program because 40% of the
loans would have been made anyway. The whole idea behind the
small business loans program is to provide incremental funding.
I am a chartered accountant and I have the greatest respect for
the work the auditor general is trying to do. He criticized
other programs such as TAGS. I am wondering, with the greatest
respect, what methodology the auditor general used to establish
that so many of these loans would have been made anyway. Does he
have a crystal ball? Can he look into the future and say that
these loans would have been made anyway?
I would like to know his methodology. It is unfortunate that
the finance critic for the Reform Party is not here. I am sure
he has studied that methodology in some depth and understands
clearly how the auditor general can make that assertion.
How can he make the assertion that these loans would have been
made anyway? I challenge that. I have talked to small business
people who very much like this program. It is a way for them to
get capital which otherwise they would not be able to obtain.
I have talked to bankers. The member opposite intimated that
the banks like the program because it means more profits. The
day Reformers start attacking profits is another day. I wish they
would make up their minds.
The bankers say this is an incredibly good program. It helps
them to package financing. It helps them to help small
businesses when often they would not be able to do that.
I have been critical of the banks. I was at the Bank of
Montreal last week and I met with small business loans officers.
I said how are you rewarded? Are you rewarded based on how many
new loans you give to small business or are you penalized for how
many bad loans you make? I would have to say, in fairness, they
do have some criteria for new business. They are rewarded or
judged on the volume of new business they are able to generate.
But they are also judged on how many bad loans they make. I
submit that we still have in our Canadian banking system the
culture that we do not want to make too many bad loans. That
culture is changing.
1620
We have seen the banks get into the high technology sector. They
know they are not as qualified or as experienced with the high
technology sector as they could be so they are trying to gear
programs to the high technology sector where they do not have the
fixed assets or the collateralizing of loans that was possible in
years past. They are talking more about loaning on a good solid
business plan and managerial abilities. They are making progress
but we have a long way to go.
Last year in the finance committee I supported a new entrant,
the Wells Fargo bank. It works on a very simple model called
risk and return. When there is a higher risk it will charge more
interest. It makes sense. Why have the Canadian banks here not
embraced it? I do not know. A certain threshold is met at a
Canadian bank it says sorry, if you do not meet that hurdle rate
we are not dealing with you. We are letting Wells Fargo in
because it says that if it is a riskier loan it is going to
charge more interest. What can be more realistic or more
reasonable?
It also says that it is going to loan on a good business plan.
It realizes that the world is changing. We have more technology.
We have businesses that need capital but they do not have the
equipment, the land or the buildings to offer as collateral. They
have a very good idea and a sound business plan and it loans on
that. Therefore we are letting it in.
I believe we need more of this kind of competition in the
Canadian banking system because some of these banks that have
come in from the United States are very aggressive with small
business. When I talk to constituents in my riding sometimes
they say they have been to a Canadian charter bank, the Bank of
Montreal, TD bank, the Bank of Nova Scotia, CIBC or whatever, and
they will not look at them.
I ask them if they have been to the Business Development Bank of
Canada, a federal bank which is meant to be a lender of last
resort. It will take a slightly bigger risk. My constituents say
they have been there and it will not look at them either. I then
ask them if they have been to the venture capitalist. They might
be in that situation because our Canadian banks are struggling.
We are sending some signals that they should be more supportive
of small business. They are doing things but they have to do a
lot more. They have to stretch a lot harder.
They say “yes, we have been there but it wanted 35% of my
business. It is my idea. I put all the work into it. I
developed the business plan. I want to make it work and it is
saying it can loan me some money but it wants 35% of the
action”.
My constituents are telling me they are not prepared
to do that. I tell them frankly that with the way things are now,
until we have more competition such as U.S. and foreign banks,
they are going to be stuck. We are working on it but they had
better think about giving up 35% equity maybe with a buyback
later on. They are telling me that they are just at their wit's
end.
I went back to a number of those small business people and told
them there is a bank coming into Canada called the Wells Fargo
bank, by way of example, and there are going to be more. I tell
them this bank will sit down with them. It will be slightly
riskier and it will not be prime plus 3% or 4%. It is going to
be prime plus 7% or 8%. I ask them if they think that is a good
idea and they tell me it is an incredible idea. I ask them if
their business can carry it and they tell me that they will rejig
the numbers but they think it will work. They know they will
then still own their business.
That is when I came back here to Ottawa to get in on the finance
committee discussions. I told them we were going to let banks in
like the Wells Fargo bank. I think we can do more with the Wells
Fargo bank because it has to support start-up businesses as well
right from scratch. It cannot cherry pick. It has to be with
start-up businesses right from day one. With the more
competitive environment in Canada, which we are creating through
some of the moves that we are making, and with more aggressive
lending to small business we will all be better off, including
small business which will be creating more jobs.
I therefore urge members of the House to support this bill which
will provide an important source of capital to small business.
Mr. Gary Lunn (Saanich—Gulf Islands, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I am glad to observe that my friend from across the
House was taking notice of Reform so much, accusing us of
rhetoric, although I do not know if he is concerned.
Listening to this debate, what concerns me is that it goes back
to the same old Liberal ways of doing business. Their way to
solve a problem is to throw money at it. They do not think
beyond the first level. They say they are going to solve this by
throwing more money at it and the problem will go away.
1625
If any party has supported small business, it is the Reform
Party. We have worked very hard toward that.
The problem here is not giving more money to the small business
program. It is the taxes that have been imposed on the small
businesses. That is where the real problem lies.
Look at the employment insurance provisions and the taxes there.
The Canada pension plan is the single largest tax grab in the
history of this country. Who does it affect the most? It affects
small businesses. Their premiums will go up significantly. If
the tax structure were made a lot more friendly especially for
small businesses starting out, they would have a much better
chance of being successful.
Their idea is to throw money at them and hope that the problem
goes away. We all know in that when businesses are starting out
they have a very difficult time, especially in their infancy,
when they are starting out, in their first year. The percentage
of businesses that go under is very high.
I suggest to this government that it look at the tax structure
and at providing incentives for these businesses as opposed to
just throwing money at them. Too often we have seen examples of
this government, how it gets itself out of messes and again it is
the old spend, spend, spend.
We are very concerned on this side of the House that as we
approach a balanced budget, and we know we are getting there, we
may be there now, the shopping lists are coming out from all the
ministers. We know they are lined up at the Prime Minister's
door and this is just an example of one of them.
Yes, we have some grave concerns. Let me give a few examples of
how the Liberals just throw money at problems. We have seen the
Airbus scandal. How did they solve that? Pull out the cheque
book and keep offering more and more until they finally accept.
There is the solution.
Look at the Pacific salmon dispute on the west coast. We saw
all these lawsuits coming forward and the government trying to
broker a deal. Alaskans have lawsuits against Canadian fishermen
to the tune of $3 million. Our government's solution is to offer
them a $2.7 million settlement.
Again, just throw money at it instead of really going to the
heart of the problem and trying to find the solution. It has not
done anything. It is the same situation there.
Again I suggest to the members opposite that throwing another
billion dollars into the small loans program may be great for a
few businesses that will have access to more money, but if they
have sound, viable business plans and they go to the banks, they
will have no problem securing financing.
I will sum up in a few words. Do not throw money at the problem
like always, look at the real problem, cutting taxes.
Mr. Roy Cullen: Mr. Speaker, I truly hope the
constituents of the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands are
listening to this debate. There are many small businesses in the
creative field such as artists and other small businesses. If
they could hear what he just said in this House. If someone goes
to a bank with a good business case, they can get a loan. I do
not know where he has been. He is just not listening or he has
not been out there talking to people.
Talk about the rhetoric of Reformers. It looks like they get
their speeches by cutting and pasting. They talk about subsidies
to business. What we did as a government is to say that big
business and medium size businesses do not need us as much.
Frankly, we cannot afford it any more.
We took a major effort to reduce or almost eliminate grants or
loans to big and medium size businesses. In fact, Industry
Canada was reduced by 40% or 50%. All the granting and loan
programs when it came to medium and big business were essentially
cut out.
What we are talking about here is small business, the people who
need us, those who need our help. We should be supporting
financing for small business.
The member opposite also talks about payroll taxes as he calls
them. Our government has reduced employment insurance premiums
while the previous government increased them significantly. I
think this is an incredible program that helps small business
with access to capital. I think everybody in this House should
support it.
1630
[Translation]
Mr. Antoine Dubé (Lévis, BQ): Mr. Speaker, as a member of the
Bloc Quebecois and the Standing Committee on Industry, I am pleased
to speak today on Bill C-21, which addresses loan guarantees or
loans to small businesses.
I am a bit of a newcomer to this role, dating only from my
second mandate. We are looking at a bill that is, when it comes
right down to it, rather easy to examine, as it contains but two
clauses. It is a pretty thin bill.
The first clause extends the application of the old act by one
year to March 31, 1999. The second one increases the ceiling for
guaranteed loans by $1 billion,
that is from $14 billion to $15 billion.
Despite the thinness of the bill, we in the Bloc Quebecois are
in favour. Opposition to it would mean the premature end of a
program that is good for Canadian businesses, and for Quebec
businesses as well. Until something better comes along, until
there is a more complete bill, a revised one which could better
help Quebec and Canadian businesses, we have to be in favour. We
are of course at the second reading stage, so when it goes to the
Standing Committee on Industry we will make our suggestions known
to the government, to the representatives of the party in power.
It will not be very hard to make some good suggestions. I was
looking just now at the report on the work of the industry
committee.
I notice the member who represented our party during the Liberals' first
mandate and recall that he had tabled a dissenting report because, while
supporting the legislation, he could already see that the eligible
amount or the portion of the loans that was guaranteed by the government
was down to 85% from 90%.
At the time, based on comments and representations made by
businesses in his region, and across Quebec and even Canada, the hon.
member for Trois-Rivières, suggested the status quo in this regard. But
the government nonetheless reduced the eligible portion from 90% to 85%.
Is this indicative of a trend? I would not want to be unduly
pessimistic but this is certainly something we in the Bloc will keep an
eye on in committee to ensure this downward trend does not continue.
As we saw earlier, the auditor general too was critical. It is
important to look at his recommendations.
He found that, in some respects, control was lacking. While only 5% of
businesses default on their loans, care must be taken not to squander
public funds. The auditor general made a number of suggestions, which
will naturally be taken into consideration in committee.
Basically, if I summarize his comments, the auditor general said
that the government did not think enough of small business, did not
regard their activity as important and was paying attention mostly to
big business.
I agree with him on this because, while attention should be paid to
big business and give it assistance as required, at least through
legislation, it is clear that the largest number of jobs is being
created in small and medium size businesses.
I would now like to address the situation of small business in
Quebec in particular.
Members of the Liberal Party and other parties from other regions of
Canada outside Quebec have been given the mandate by their constituents
to represent their particular region.
We cannot blame them, and I should not be blamed for talking about
Quebec.
1635
In 1996, there were 173,704 small and medium size businesses. Based
on Quebec's criteria, these are businesses that have less than 100
employees. In Quebec, 98% of companies are small and medium size
businesses. It is all these small and medium size businesses—we could
even say very small businesses—that provide work for people. Indeed,
45% of all jobs in Quebec are in small businesses. This is very
important.
These figures are interesting.
There seems to be a pattern whereby, since 1989, the fastest growing
industries in Quebec have been those—and this came as a surprise to
me—in the education sector, with 20.7%. This sector was followed by
the transportation and storage industry, with 20.3%. The hon. member for
Drummond will be interested to know that private businesses providing
health care and social services experienced a 19.8% growth. So, Quebec
society is undergoing some changes. An increasing number of people work
in these sectors, for private sector companies, small and medium size
businesses are active. These are employment sectors to be considered,
like the others.
As we all know, small and medium size businesses play a major role
in the agri-food industry, which includes agriculture and fisheries.
We often think of production, but there is also the whole processing and
tertiary sector, that is the agri-food marketing industry. Small and
medium size businesses account for 91.4 % of jobs in that sector. In the
construction sector, it is 89.4%; in the real estate services, 74.1%; in
food and accomodation, 73.2%; in the wholesale sector, small
and medium size businesses account for 70.4%. This is a very significant
contribution.
There is something important to watch for. Bloc Quebecois members
and people in Quebec believe that while it is all right to try to help
businesses by providing loans or loan guarantees, the number one
criteria should be the number of jobs. Does the loan help create or
maintain jobs?
A business may be able to provide a guarantee, but employ very
few people. We have to look at priorities.
In retail trade, 221,300 people are employed; in
manufacturing, 189,000 people; in food and accommodation, 121,900
people; and in wholesale trade, 105,600 people.
I was interested in analyzing past trends in net job creation.
An analysis in terms of net job creation since 1981 reveals that
SMBs have created the most jobs. There is only one year since 1981
where big business created more jobs than SMBs, and that was in
1991.
I can talk about the situation in Quebec. I cannot talk about
the other provinces, because I did not look so closely at them.
Despite the difficulties between 1989 and 1994— The situation was
particularly difficult for business.
1640
Quebec SMBs experienced an annual increase in jobs of nine
tenths of one per cent even during the period when the job rate
declined everywhere and when SMBs in Ontario, by way of example,
under the same conditions and economic factors, experienced a
reduction of 13.2%. A considerable amount. We can see that SMBs
in Quebec are dynamic and play a major role.
Between 1989 and 1994, times changed. The SMBs in Quebec
started less than five years previously accounted for 422,000 jobs
in Quebec against the 51,000 jobs lost, and obviously there are
losses.
It is small, not large, businesses that are creating new jobs in
Quebec.
I do not want my remarks to be interpreted as an attack on
large businesses. We need them. I had one large business in my
riding called MIL Davie. When times were good, that company
employed 2,500, and sometimes as many as 3,000, people. Now it is
limping along at 500, and great effort is required by the various
levels of government, particularly the Government of Quebec,
because in this case the federal government has not yet done
anything. But keeping the number of jobs at 500 is a major
undertaking. My region of Chaudière-Appalaches has the lowest
unemployment rate in Quebec because new job creation is coming from
SMBs.
I may be a sovereigntist, but as long as we are in a federal
system, I have nothing against federal legislation or programs to
help Quebec businesses, unless of course they cancel or duplicate
existing services. On this note, it would be good, and I often
mention this to the regional development critic for Quebec, if
there were some co-ordination so that we could avoid certain
situations such as those we saw during the ice storm.
In his quest for visibility in Quebec, the President of the
Treasury Board, along with the Minister of Intergovernmental
Affairs, is doing everything he can to one up the provincial
government and look like he is the saviour of business, when he is
in fact refusing to do his share, as he did in the case of
Newfoundland and Manitoba, to compensate Hydro-Québec for its
losses.
That is serious for the Government of Quebec, because Hydro-Québec
as a crown corporation, hands over its profits to the provincial
government and therefore helps to lighten the burden of Quebec
taxpayers.
Another reason I support the continued existence of this
system for guaranteeing loans to small business is that figures for
Quebec indicate that 6,000 loans totalling $321 million were
granted under this legislation by the caisses populaires to SMBs.
The banks gave out 5,600 loans worth $385 million, for a grand
total of $732 million. In this context, it is impossible to oppose
a service that provides loans for so many businesses, different
businesses.
Nearly 11,600 businesses benefited in one year. My sample was
for one year. That is a lot, that is significant. This is why
these loans must continue to be granted in this context, with the
average loan being for $60,000. Unfortunately, I repeat that the
government guarantees only 85% now and not 90% as in the past.
Another reason is that 66% of new loans were granted to new
businesses or those operating for less than three years. That is
when businesses are in need. As the Bloc members at the time
pointed out—and the member for Trois-Rivières spoke to me of it,
I recall, he reminded me of it just before I rose to speak—the
program is too limited, however.
1645
There is nothing in this for the working capital. There is nothing
in this to add true liquidity. So, some improvements will have to be
made.
To be sure, we are in favour of maintaining this program. However,
we in the Bloc Quebecois—and I am talking to business people who may
be listening to us—will seek improvements to this program, while
making sure it complements Quebec's policies, in the interest of
businesses.
We will pay particular attention to jobs, perhaps because I sat on
the human resources committee and spent a lot of time reviewing the
Employment Insurance Act, which would be more appropriately called the
Unemployment Insurance Act. If the government wants to help businesses,
it should pay special attention to creating and maintaining jobs. I
think that, in this day and age, employment should be the prime concern
of governments. I am sure you will agree with me that, in helping
businesses and guaranteeing loans to them, the government should be
obsessed with creating jobs.
[English]
Mr. Keith Martin (Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I have a few questions for my hon. colleague in the Bloc
Quebecois.
A couple of years ago the PQ, under its current leader, did an
economic study of the impact of separation on the people of
Quebec. The study was commissioned by its current leader, Mr.
Bouchard. It demonstrated conclusively that separation would
dramatically and adversely affect the people of Quebec
economically.
When that study came out it was forced under the carpet. The
individual member of the PQ, an ardent separatist at the time,
quit in disgust.
The member cannot sit in the House and talk about how well
businesses are doing in Quebec. One needs only to go to Montreal
to see the economic devastation wrought on that once beautiful,
gorgeous and vibrant jewel in the crown of Canadian cities.
There are few points I would like the hon. member to think about
and then to remark on after my comments.
Separation will adversely damage the economy and therefore the
people of Quebec. Does the hon. member feel businesses in Quebec
will have access to the SBLA if it separates?
Will he also comment on the fact that net flow of money does not
go out of Quebec but into Quebec and therefore is a direct
economic benefit to the people of Quebec.
When it comes to business, in North America who is our biggest
trader? It is the United States. Of all countries between the
United States and Canada, clearly the United States is more
ethnocentric than Canada. If Quebec separates who will be its
biggest trading partner? The United States. What language will
they be doing business in? Will it be French? I do not think
so? It will be English.
The impact of doing business, the economy, trade and social
relations with people south of the border will not be a profound
positive effect on the French language. It will be a profound
negative effect on the French language. Therefore separation
will not strengthen French within the province of Quebec. It
will weaken it.
Does the hon. member think separation will improve the economic
welfare of the people of the province of Quebec? Will it improve
the business community in Quebec? Or, will separation remove the
benefits Quebec currently has in Canada and therefore weaken the
economy of Quebec and weaken the strength of French in Quebec?
The Deputy Speaker: The Chair has reservations about the
question, given the nature of the bill under discussion. In any
event it is a comment on the speech of the hon. member for Lévis.
1650
[Translation]
Mr. Antoine Dubé: Mr. Speaker, the Reform member's reaction to
the bill as introduced is somewhat surprising. He is asking about
the post-sovereignty period. Today we will not be the ones accused
of bringing up the subject, for we are being asked for a
response.
First of all, there was the 1995 referendum. It was lost by
about 50,000 votes, or in other words, it was nearly 50-50. The
federalists predicted the consequences of not voting against the
project presented by the Government of Quebec.
What was involved was to say yes to sovereignty, but with an offer
of partnership to continue economic relations, and so on. The
situation has remained unchanged on the constitutional level, since
Quebec is still within Confederation. I therefore find the hon.
member's comments, particularly those on the situation in downtown
Montreal, somewhat confused.
He has just told us that federalism is serving Quebec badly,
Montreal in particular, at this time. One of the reasons why
Quebecers wanted to vote yes was, precisely, in order to acquire
more autonomy, more means of controlling their economy, in order to
be able to live better.
But the situation is still there. The federal government is
still interfering in the same areas as the Quebec provincial
government, and more often than not in areas of jurisdiction which
belong exclusively to the provinces under the Constitution.
Quebec is not the one involved in messing with areas of federal
jurisdiction. Quebec is trying to extricate itself as best it can,
for example in health or education, because it has shared the same
fate as the other provinces, federal government slashes to funding.
Quebec is doing all it can to get by.
It is doing so within the framework of a provincial state,
without all of the means it should have available to it:
legislation, programs, money, among other things.
I am not saying that such was the intention of the Reform
member who just spoke, since he generally weighs his words and is
extremely respectful of others' opinions, so I shall be equally
respectful of his, but I do find that somewhat condescending.
As for the cost, it is as though we Quebeckers were lucky to be in
confederation and looked after by all the other provinces, who are
supposedly paying our way.
I heard reactions about EI. It is true. One third of EI
benefits go to Quebeckers. But why is this, dear colleague? It is
because there is more unemployment, because the economy is in worse
shape as things now stand in the Canadian confederation.
What you are telling us is we will be worse off if we leave.
That is the message you are giving us, instead of telling us you
will do everything you can to help Quebec catch up with British
Columbia, Ontario and Alberta. Yes, unlike those provinces, we get
equalization payments. But, instead of telling us that, you are
condescending.
We are asking for more flexibility, more freedom. We are
saying “Give us the means and you will see. We will continue to be
economic partners, to have economic relations”. Then you tell us
about the north-south direction of trade. It is no different in
Quebec.
I do not have all the figures with me. We could discuss this
another time, but it is clear that the trend you are seeing in your
province is one we are also seeing in Quebec, and that the economy
is increasingly along north-south lines. This is an advantage to
Quebec, and does not necessarily put British Columbian at a
disadvantage with respect to California or Oregon, but we are in
the same situation.
Sometimes I want to ask you “If we are costing you so much,
why not let us leave? That is all we are asking”.
Mr. André Harvey (Chicoutimi, PC): Mr. Speaker, we will
certainly not be holding the constitutional debate here this
evening because the government, with the support of the Reform
Party, has decided to refer it to the supreme court.
1655
I wish to point out to my hon. colleague from the Reform Party
that the best way to work constructively is certainly not to run
election campaigns as racist and provocative as theirs was this
past May.
I would like to congratulate my Bloc Quebecois colleague for
his speech, and to tell him that I am sure he will do a good job in
committee to improve all of the aspects of this measure.
I would like to raise the following point with him. In
developing a business, there is the whole aspect of financing,
particularly for small and medium size businesses. There is also
the whole aspect of training.
Tens of thousands of jobs in this country are unfilled because
companies cannot find the appropriate human resources for the
available jobs. This means quality manpower is a key element in a
company's future.
I would like to ask my hon. colleague whether, because of the
billions of dollars cut from education budgets across the country,
and the excess burden placed on small business and on workers
through the employment insurance program—the government has built
up $15 billion in the fund—he is not concerned about these cuts,
which were made without consulting the provinces. Student debt—
The Deputy Speaker: I am sorry, but there are only ten seconds
left for questions and comments. The hon. member for Lévis has the
floor for a very brief response.
Mr. Antoine Dubé: Mr. Speaker, I would just like to say that I
would not go quite as far as the hon. member for Chicoutimi did in his
comments on the Reformers.
Regarding manpower, I think the problem will be resolved to some
extent come April 1, when the Government of Quebec will have access to
part of the EI fund and have a single window to manage the whole area of
active employment measures. I think that will make a substantial
difference.
Cuts were made of course, but at least, from a sound management
point of view, they were called for. We know that there was a consensus
in Quebec; all political parties agreed that the Quebec government
should look after manpower training itself. In that sense, I am rather
optimistic.
[English]
Mr. Jerry Pickard (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Public Works and Government Services, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, at
the outset I would like it known that I will be sharing my time
with the member for Etobicoke—Lakeshore.
As we look at the economy of Canada and as we think about the
changes that have occurred in the last four years, we can be very
proud that the tremendous potential in moving forward to make our
economy much better is critical.
I look at the employment figures. Some million new jobs have
been created. That is a net gain. That is a very important
aspect for all of those who have been looking for employment
opportunities. It a very important aspect for our country's
growth and country's potential in the future. There is no
question the government has done a tremendous amount to move
forward an agenda of job creation along with business promotion.
The Prime Minister took on the role of Captain Canada, as many
have called him. He took on the role of going abroad into Asian
countries and South American countries to expand our trade
potential. He took our business partners and our provincial
partners and made certain the message he was bringing forth was
heard throughout the world. Throughout countries it was heard
that we had a great potential to work with, not only today but
also in the future.
We have had an opportunity to look at youth programs and move
that agenda forward. The bill is looking at the important issue
of the finances of small business.
I have no question in my mind that the engine of the economy is
business itself. Let us not sell short big business. It is as
important to the country as small business. Small business
happens to be the generator of jobs in today's day and age; the
niche market; the market in every town, every community and every
area of our country; the fellow on Main Street who makes sure
that everyone is supplied with products they need and with
products they desire.
1700
One of the biggest obstacles to business today in our society is
availability of capital. There is no question availability of
capital is an absolute must for business.
Why are we talking about small business loans and amending the
act to make another billion dollars available in the next year?
It is so vital. Small business contributed to 81% of new job
creation in 1996. With four out of every five jobs being created
by small businesses we must ensure they have all the tools and
mechanisms in place in order for them to prosper.
We know that more than 2.5 million small businesses exist in
this country today. They employ well over 50% of Canadians.
Everyone who realizes these conditions knows that we must make
the loans and support for those loans available to small
business. Any dollar spent by the Canadian government to make
certain loans are available is a well spent dollar. We are
repaid in many ways.
Some have called it a subsidy to business. We have put in
place charges for those services and those charges were there to
cover the costs of any losses that occurred within the programs.
As time goes on, any cost to that small business program will be
covered by the fees that are charged for small businesses
entering those loan programs.
Some were critical of the administrative costs to the federal
government. We introduced fees to cover the administrative costs
within the small business loans sector. Any costs that may be
attributed to the Canadian government in the form of covering
loans or in the form of administration are retrieved by the
programs that have been put in place and the charges that have
been levied according to the provisions of the act.
It is important for us to realize that as we review this program
it needs to be updated. The auditor general has made suggestions
that we need as a government to re-examine the whole spectrum of
how the Small Business Loans Act operates. The government has
taken on that responsibility. It is doing a comprehensive review
of the small business loans program. While this review is going
on we need a bit of time to ensure the availability of loans.
That is why these adjustments are being introduced in the act
today. They are adjustments to make certain there will be
capital available for small businesses, those starting up and
ready to move forward. There is capital available for those that
may not be quite at the point where a bank would be willing to
lend them money but the potential is so great that for that
community, for that group of people it is a very vital
investment.
There is no question when we look at the issue it is very
important to realize this is an act that supports the grassroots
of our communities. This is the act that supports all those
small businesses on the streets of Toronto, on the streets in
Leamington in my riding, on the streets of Chatham in my riding.
It is the act that supports those rural community operations that
are required in order to make certain we get fair and equal
treatment right across this land.
Think of the kind of supports there are. Every one of the
Reform ridings has thousands of small businesses in it. Each one
of those small businesses needs the support that is offered
through this act. That is how important it is.
1705
I would also suggest that we consider others who are talking
about this program. The Canadian Federation of Independent
Business strongly supports this plan. Why? There is no question
that if these loans are available they will allow the
organizations to grow. They will allow the communities which
require services to have those services. These loans will allow
entrepreneurs to begin businesses. They will stabilize a lot of
businesses having problems with cashflow at the present time.
I suggest that the costs are horrendous for someone to get into
business today. They have to buy equipment. They have to buy
stock to sell to their customers. We need to have financial
mechanisms in place to support those businesses. Without that
support we are certainly not going to see the growth which we
have seen over the last few years.
It is not just the growth we are seeing in the Small Business
Loans Act. This growth has to do with other programs that have
been put in place as well.
Today interest rates are at the point where small businesses can
survive, go forward and achieve a lot of their goals. Four or
five short years ago, when interest rates were three and four
percentage points higher, that put a tremendous burden on small
businesses. They were unable to compete. They were unable to
turn a profit in the first few years.
When my son looked at the cost of getting into business, the
interest on the capital he had to put out represented a huge
portion of the revenues he took in on an annual basis. There are
many businesses in that position.
The lowering of interest rates and making loans stable gives
tremendous support to small businesses and enables them to
thrive.
We know that in 1996-97, 30,000 small and medium size businesses
used this program. They accessed some $2 billion in financing.
That alone tells us how important those dollars are in enabling
small business to move forward in this country. That alone is
the key measure in why we need to increase that funding by $1
billion today to make certain those dollars are available.
I strongly support the minister's position to go forward with
the view of reviewing the entire policy to ensure it is fair and
supportive of business.
Mr. John Herron (Fundy—Royal, PC): Mr. Speaker, I have
a couple of comments with respect to the remarks made by the hon.
member.
As we stated earlier, the Progressive Conservative Party will be
supporting this legislation. However, we believe it is incumbent
on the government to react to a number of the initiatives put
forth in the auditor general's report, as I outlined earlier.
I am very pleased that the Minister of Industry stated: “I am
pleased that the auditor general noted that we have made
considerable progress toward increasing productivity and reducing
the overall cost of the program. The auditor general's report
will be a very useful tool as we review the SBLA”.
However, there is one principal issue which has to be addressed
and that is the issue of incrementality. The hon. member
mentioned different criteria in terms of where the access to
capital would be provided to certain types of small businesses.
Then he went on to another aspect of it and said that loans would
also be given to companies and ventures where loans would not
otherwise be given.
1710
Is it the member's understanding of the legislation that its
original intent was to provide incremental loans of a smaller
nature, not to compete with the larger amounts of money?
As the auditor general pointed out in his report, 30% to 40% of
the loans approved by the SBLA would have been approved anyway.
I think it is incumbent on this government to actually ensure
the incrementality type loans, loans for start-up ventures or for
expansions that do not tie up the small business person's
personal guarantee.
That is supported by the 88,000 members of the Canadian
Federation of Independent Business. Is that the intent? Do they
want to approve other loans?
Mr. Jerry Pickard: Mr. Speaker, the point I was trying to
make was that most loans in most of our communities across the
country are controlled by one or another financial institution.
In those financial institutions there are certain criteria. We
know the criteria, depending on the security, depending on the
amount of money coming in, depending on a lot of factors.
Someone can borrow money for a start-up business at a certain per
cent.
If they cannot get a loan from a bank, they might then go to
another financial lending institution which may lend them that
money. Often that money is at a higher rate, a rate that makes it
very difficult for that business to operate.
Someone can have a tremendously great business plan. They may
have a lot of factors involved that would make this business a go
and people sitting down and analysing it can give them a
tremendous amount of support.
They still may not have any reserve capital that would allow a
bank to say it will lend them that amount of money.
My point in suggesting this is that I believe at the outset
often businesses do need a little extra support. Government
programs giving an 85% guarantee is giving that support to those
businesses. The track record of the lending pattern has been
very good.
We know the costs in that program. We have laid on fees that
match the costs. If the bank would lend that money without the
support of the Small Business Loans Act, fine. We support that
very much.
All we want to do is make certain that for those folks who do
need that bit of support it can be there and it can be
helpful for them and it will not put them into a situation
where they cannot go ahead with that small business.
The program allows a lot more people to enter the business
sphere. It also gives guarantees that people need within that
structure.
Ms. Jean Augustine (Etobicoke—Lakeshore, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I am pleased to join in this discussion to the
amendments to Bill C-21, the Small Business Loans Act which
provides loans and guarantees to small businesses.
The amendments to the act would extend the current lending
period, as most of my colleagues have stressed, to March 31, 1999
and raise the program's total lending ceiling by $1 billion,
taking us to $15 billion.
During this period of extension Industry Canada will have the
opportunity to work in consultation with our stakeholders to
review and give consideration to the sustainability of the
program.
This review will investigate ways to sustain self-financing, to
improve accountability and to verify the conditions stipulated in
the act.
In my riding of Etobicoke—Lakeshore there are over 3,600
businesses. Many are small and medium size business. They are
an integral part of the economic infrastructure of
Etobicoke—Lakeshore.
The operation of these businesses cuts across the manufacturing
and service sectors of the economy. To use the oft used phrase,
they are the main engine of employment in my riding.
1715
Maintaining a strong economy is vital to the success of our
economy. Providing opportunities whether through financing,
technology or whatever assistance we can give to small businesses
will give the Canadian economy the energy it needs to grow.
Canada has more than 2.5 million small businesses. Small
businesses created 81% of the new jobs in 1996-97.
In recent consultations with businesses in my riding, the one
concern I heard from small business owners over and over is the
difficulty they face in obtaining financing. Access to capital
is their number one problem. The Small Business Loans Act
addresses the problems of these constituents.
There is a history to the Small Business Loans Act. It was
passed in 1961 to provide loans to small and medium size
businesses which would otherwise not have access to conventional
financing. In 1996-97 approximately 30,000 small and medium size
businesses used the Small Business Loans Act to access roughly $2
billion of financing.
The importance of the $2 billion in financing to those 30,000
small and medium size businesses has been stressed over and over
again. I can say to the House that without access to these
financial resources, the small businesses in my riding would not
be operational today nor would they have the success that they
have had.
The program under the Small Business Loans Act is consistent
with the Liberal government's commitment to assist small and
medium size businesses adapt to new technologies, to produce new
goods, to be innovative, to reduce costs and to increase their
productivity.
Through this program we are working with stakeholders in the
banking industry to foster a prosperous economic environment in
Canada where businesses are provided with a chance to take
advantage of opportunities in the global market.
The government has followed through on the commitments we made
at the doors of our constituents. We have followed through with
initiatives such as Strategis, an Industry Canada interactive web
site aimed at increasing support for small businesses.
For the benefit of those of my colleagues on the other side who
would question this, I think it is important that they note that
the federal government shares the risk of loans to small business
by paying 85% of the loss sustained by the lender. The lender is
responsible for the rest. The loans are made by banks or other
institutions which assess the eligibility of applicants. All
businesses with sales not exceeding $5 million are eligible,
except for farms, and religious and charitable organizations.
The Small Business Loans Act program is not a subsidy to
business. I stress it is not a subsidy to business. In 1995
when the act was revised it moved toward covering the cost of
loan losses. Lenders pay for the cost of the program through a
one time loan registration fee. In short the majority of these
loans are repaid. To date, loans under the Small Business Loans
Act are approaching $14 billion, the total lending ceiling for
the program. Very few of those loans are in default.
Changing economic conditions in Canada and global economic
trends, not to mention the growing demand on the program by
companies have given us some indication that this program needs
to be maintained. The $1 billion addition to the program is
necessary at this point in time.
Providing support to this sector of our economy will enable it
to continue to support jobs and economic growth which is so
necessary in our communities.
1720
Recent studies have found that the small business loans program
is one of the best programs compared to other available programs.
Administrative and default costs are low. The government
instituted a 2% registration fee and in 1995 legislated a 1.25%
annual administration fee on lenders on the outstanding balance
of loans which again were appreciated. Those fees are aimed at
moving the small business loans program toward cost recovery over
a 10 year period.
We have heard about the support this program gives to small
businesses. At the same time we know in talking to our
constituents there are other ways in which they are looking for
assistance. I speak of the individuals who look to what we call
micro credit. That is the very, very small seed money which is
necessary for a business to start up.
Every effort is being made to ensure that there is fiscal
prudence in the program and that we exercise that kind of
management. Earlier one of the members made reference to the
auditor general's report. The minister, as he said in his
statements, is giving full consideration to ensuring good fiscal
management.
Small and medium size companies do not exist in a vacuum in the
marketplace. They need government and private sector assistance
to expand, to remain competitive, to build a solid economic
foundation and to do all the things that are necessary to
sustain, to grow and to have those jobs in our communities.
I support the amendments put forward by the Minister of
Industry. I remind my colleagues on all sides of the House that
this is an important issue for the small businesses in our areas.
I call on all my colleagues to support the amendments to the
Small Business Loans Act.
Mr. Pat Martin (Winnipeg Centre, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I
find it easy to agree with most of member's remarks. Previous
speakers on behalf of our party have already voiced their support
for this bill and we will be looking forward to doing that.
I would like to remark on some of the things that were raised in
regard to the current situation that small businesses face when
looking for venture capital. They lack support from the banks
which leads to the need for the Small Business Loans Act. It is
quite common knowledge that many small businesses that wish to
grow or create jobs or to build their base have been flatly
turned down by the conventional lending institutions.
In my own province of Manitoba, over 80% of all the venture
capital given out last year was given out by the Crocus labour
investment fund and not by the banks. In other words, small
businesses wishing to access venture capital or any type of a
business loan, even if they do have a good business plan and even
if they do have the equity necessary, are not getting the help
they need, which leads to the importance of things like the small
business loans program.
What does the member think of the current situation? Banks are
not meeting the needs of small businesses with the capital that
they need. Does she think the merger of the major banks is going
to lead to better service, or should her government be looking
for ways to curtail these mergers? Maybe the member could speak
to the impact these mergers might have for small businesses
looking for business loans or venture capital.
Ms. Jean Augustine: Mr. Speaker, I know my colleague
supports the amendments to the Small Business Loans Act.
I agree with him that the average loan made under the act is in
the range of $60,000. To many small businesses it is a large
amount. We have to look at avenues and ways in which we could
support the small micro businesses in their challenge to find
seed money, the start up money.
1725
In reference to the merger, the question has been answered in
the House time and time again. This government has a committee
which is presently at work. We are waiting for the
recommendations to come forward.
The finance minister has been quite clear that at this point the
merger of the major banks is a concern to us. My colleagues on
this side of the House are working to find ways in which we can
respond and deal with the issue when it does present itself to
us. We still have a whole series of avenues, the caisses
populaires, the credit unions, micro credit, community economic
development. A whole series of issues has to be put in the mix as
we discuss the question of mergers and other questions as to the
direction in which our banks are heading.
Mr. Jim Pankiw (Saskatoon—Humboldt, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
my question is why the Liberal rhetoric does not include any
reference to the numerous problems that have been outlined in the
auditor general's report.
I have not heard any acknowledgement from any of the Liberal
speakers about the fact that close to half of the loans are given
to companies that would have secured them anyway. Between 1993
and 1995, taxpayers were on the hook for $210 million in
defaulted loans. The evidence is that lenders and borrowers have
been abusing the SBLA program, that job creation figures have
been exaggerated and that there is little accountability to
parliament. Would the hon. member like to comment on any of those
deficiencies of the Small Business Loans Act?
Ms. Jean Augustine: Mr. Speaker, it is very easy in this
House to throw the negatives around and it is also very easy in
this House to oppose when one sits in opposition.
The positive aspects of this bill, the amendments as laid out
and the initiatives as recommended provide the assistance small
and medium businesses require. The minister has addressed the
auditor general's report. The member is fully cognizant of the
government's response in this regard.
The Deputy Speaker: I wish to inform the House that the
announcement pursuant to Standing Order 38 is late but
nevertheless I will make it. I am sure hon. members who are
preparing to speak on the late show this evening will have that
opportunity and will want to take it.
It is my duty pursuant to Standing Order 38 to inform the House
that the questions to raised tonight at the time of adjournment
are as follows: the hon. member for Halifax West, Shipbuilding;
the hon. member for Calgary Southeast, Taxation.
Mr. John Solomon (Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, I am very pleased to rise in the House of Commons as the
New Democratic Party spokesperson for small business to debate
the merits of Bill C-21 at second reading.
This bill as has been outlined increases the total loan pool
offered by the Small Business Loans Act from $14 billion to $15
billion. This bill is before the House because the small
business loans program is set to expire in about six weeks, on
March 31, 1998.
In existence since 1961 the SBLA is a small business loans
guarantee program which increases the availability of loans for
establishing, expanding, modernizing or improving small business
enterprises. We believe that this bill is necessary in the
greater picture because the review of the entire SBLA is
necessary considering what has come out of the auditor general's
report.
The SBLA provides another alternative source of funding for
businesses in this country. It is a program which many people in
the Reform Party do not understand and actually which I do not
think anybody in the Reform Party understands.
The SBLA is a leveraging program.
It leverages billions of dollars out of other sources for
business people to invest in their businesses. It is only one
small component of the financing requirements of the business
community. It is a very unique and very important because of the
leveraging factor.
1730
If Reform members had any business experience they would know
that leveraging in business is extremely important when accessing
capital either to establish a business or to increase
manufacturing capacity or to improve and modernize as the case
may be.
The NDP has supported the Small Business Loans Act program in
the past. Although we believe it is unfortunate that Canadian
banks need the incentive of a government guarantee to do their
job and service their small business customers, we will continue
to support the program with certain conditions and with certain
improvements required.
The conditions are related to the auditor general's review of
the SBLA and Industry Canada's handling of the SBLA. We are
concerned about a number of the auditor general's findings in
last December's report about abuses by some of the bankers that
are registered lenders under the act and about the tendency of
bankers and the industry department to inflate the program's job
creation numbers.
As a result of that audit the government has brought forward
Bill C-21 as an interim measure to extend the SBLA for one year
while the industry department conducts a program review. We are
informed as well that the standing committee on industry of
parliament will be conducting as parallel review. My NDP
colleagues and I intend to be active in that process when it
shows up on the order paper of the House of Commons.
Before I get into the substance of the bill I want to mention a
couple of points. Reform believes that there is one engine. The
Liberals believe that there are two engines, but the NDP actually
believes there are three engines of our economy.
The first and most important engine of our economy is the
business community. Members of the business community risk the
capital. They are the ones who have the ideas and bring their
ideas to fruition by investing money in them, creating jobs and
producing a product or a service which is needed or purchased in
Canada and in other parts of the world.
This is a very important component of our economy. They truly
are the entrepreneurs that show how people can create jobs. They
are the people who risk their lives in terms of their finances
almost on a daily basis. We feel this is a very important
component of our economy. However this component would not work
very well without the other two components, the other two engines
of the economy.
The second engine of our economy is the co-op sector. An
example of that is the Saskatchewan Wheat Pool or Federated
Co-ops. Co-ops are very important, as is the credit union sector.
There are caisses populaires in Quebec, parts of Ontario, British
Columbia and Atlantic Canada. There are significant co-op and
credit union sectors.
The reason co-ops are an important engine is that groups of
people have come together to do things in their communities or
regions that business would not do or that government could not
do. That is where people underestimate how important the
Canadian economy is in terms of its uniqueness.
We have business as one of the major engines of the economy. We
have co-ops as another major engine. The third engine of our
economy is the government sector.
The government sector is obviously not supported by Reformers.
They want to see the elimination of police services in our
communities. They want to see the elimination of fire
protection. They want to see the degradation of education and
health care. They want business to run the whole shebang.
Canadians see through their very transparent policy situation.
They see the Reform Party as being the party that says
“Government does not work. Vote for Reform and we will prove
it”.
Mr. Howard Hilstrom: Mr. Speaker, I have a question. When
the member who is currently making his speech says something that
is absolutely and totally wrong or false, is it allowed?
The Deputy Speaker: Hon. members sometimes say things
that other hon. members disagree with. It is not uncommon for
that to happen in the Chamber. The fact that some member may
regard what the other member is saying as wrong, false, incorrect
or whatever is ground for debate but not for a point of order or
an interruption in the hon. member's speech.
1735
I have no doubt the hon. member for Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre
is saying things that perhaps some members would disagree with,
but in the circumstances I do not think we need to get into a
point of order on it.
Members will have an opportunity to reflect on what they have
said and on what he has said in questions and comments and later
in debate on the bill.
Mr. Jim Pankiw: Mr. Speaker, I rise on on the same point
order. If it is a deliberate attempt to mislead the House, does
that still qualify under your comments?
The Deputy Speaker: All hon. members are taken to be
speaking of things they believe to be true. They are not taken
to be deliberately misleading to the House.
If the hon. member feels something so serious has happened, he
can check with the rule book to see what steps he should take. It
is not appropriate to interrupt on a point of order with such an
allegation without quite serious consequences ensuing.
Mr. John Solomon: Mr. Speaker, it is interesting to note
that Reform members are standing in the House and feeling a bit
touchy about the fact that people see through their policies.
There is an old saying in Saskatchewan which my colleague from
Saskatchewan who just stood on a point of order that was out of
order would know about it: if you throw a rock in the dark and a
dog yelps, you hit a dog. That is what we have here.
When the Reform policy is exposed Reformers start yelping,
whining and hissing from their seats. In their dictatorial,
philosophical unbending drive to eliminate government from
people's lives, they feel any criticism based on fact and on
thousands of examples is not something they want to debate. They
do not want to talk about the truth or things that are accurate.
They prefer to talk about things that are fictional and perhaps
less important to people.
There is an important situation in Canada with respect to the
SBLA. I just went over the three engines of the economy which
are very important and which the New Democratic Party and
millions of Canadians believe in with all their hearts.
I remind my colleagues in other parties about the importance of
small business. The NDP is very supportive of small business.
The small business community in Saskatchewan supports the NDP in
a very broad way. Many small business people are active in my
executive and in my campaign. There are about 1,200 businesses
in my constituency. There are approximately 39,700 small
businesses in Saskatchewan that employ about half of the
population of Saskatchewan, a very significant number. The New
Democratic Party Government of Saskatchewan would not be elected
or re-elected if it did not have small business community
support. I am grateful for the support of the small business
area over the years.
About 98% of the businesses in Saskatchewan employ 50 people or
less. That is the same as the average. About 98% of small
businesses in Canada area actually employing 50 people or less.
That means there is a large number of small businesses in Canada.
The SBLA is one very important component of their equity and debt
to acquisitions for business purposes.
Members of the House might not know, although some on the
government benches might, that 98% of the approximate 975,000
business in Canada employ 50 people or less. That is a very
significant number. About 861,000 or 90% of that figure employ
20 people or less. This is the type of business that looks for
alternative financing in Canada. This is where the SBLA is very
important.
In 1995 small business represented 43% of GDP in Canada. In
1997 one out of two Canadians were employed by or owned a small
business. In 1997 paid employment actually declined by 0.4%
while self-employment and business ownership grew by 11.5% from
January to August.
One in five of the labour force is now self-employed, which is up
from about 12% twenty short years ago. In the province of
Saskatchewan, as I indicated, over half of the people who are
employed are employed in a small business or own a small
business.
1740
The small business loans program has been around since 1961 but
assumed growing importance with these new trends in the early
1990s. It provides a government guarantee of registered business
improvement loans which have been approved by registered lenders
to qualified small businesses. Some two-thirds of the approved
loans go to businesses less than three years old. The default
rate of 4.5% is among the lowest of similar programs in OECD
countries, compared with 19% in the United States and a high of
40% a few years ago in the United Kingdom.
In 1993 a number of amendments were made to the program,
including an increase in the loan cap from $100,000 to $250,000.
The concern was that during the height of the recession it would
be particularly important to promote new sources of employment
within the small business sector, especially given the loss of
tens of thousands of manufacturing jobs that followed Canada's
signing of the free trade agreement and the NAFTA, which by the
way was supported by the Reform Party.
Some recent studies indicate a slightly higher default rate on
the higher value loans. A few critics have suggested that the
higher loan cap may have enticed some banks to skirt the rules
and allow related businesses to assemble several quarter million
SBLA loans into a government backed financing package of up to $4
million each, as the auditor general has discovered. This is an
abuse by the financial institutions which must stop or the SBLA
program will die.
It has also been pointed out that Industry Canada does not
review loan applications but only claims submissions. On the one
hand this has allowed the banks to charge user fees not permitted
in the act and to get away with other abuses. On the other hand,
as some of my constituents in Saskatchewan credit unions have
complained, it also means that Industry Canada has rejected
lenders' claims for occasionally quite picky reasons which may be
viewed as being contrary to the spirit of the act.
These are all issues that we will want to see reviewed over the
next year in anticipation of some major amendments to the
legislation governing the SBLA.
While my party supports the speedy passage of Bill C-21, it is
without prejudice to views that we may express on how the program
might be improved on the next round of amendments.
The Small Business Loans Act is not the only element of
government policy which affects small businesses in Canada. My
colleagues on the government side are rather selective when they
trumpet the government's record in the field. It is because they
are too embarrassed to remember what they said in opposition
about issues affecting small business.
Here are a few quotes of Liberals in opposition on one business
issue. I ask all members and people of the country to guess what
small business issue the following quotes concern.
The current Minister of Public Works said in 1989 “It is a
burden on all small businesses in this country”.
A current Liberal senator who was a former member of Parliament,
Shirley Maheu, in 1989 called it “a nightmare for small business
and Canadians don't want it. The message is loud and clear”.
The current Minister of Western Economic Diversification, the
hon. member for St. Boniface, claimed in 1993 that it was
particularly onerous for small business. He said that some of
his constituents told him daily that they felt like giving up
their businesses and finding another job in order to escape the
heavy burden imposed by government.
The then member for Parkdale—High Park reported that it was
“killing his small business constituents with red tape, the
paperwork and the taxes”.
The current Minister for International Trade said that it had
deflated businesses and marketplaces in his constituency.
What were they talking about? Were they talking about the SBLA
or other issues? They were talking about the GST, the read my
lips campaign of the Liberals in the last two elections. “We
hate it and we will kill it” they kept saying. They said that
in the 1993 election and ever since they have been trying to
defend breaking their word.
However they are still collecting it. They have even worked out
with their Liberal friends in Atlantic Canada, Nova Scotia, New
Brunswick and in particular Newfoundland, to harmonize it. They
are calling it the BST, the blended sales tax. That shows us how
trustworthy Liberal government commitments are to small business.
Another government policy which has hurt small business is high
interest rates. The SBLA charges floating interest rates that
are pegged to the prime or fixed rates which are pegged to
prevailing mortgage rates. When the Bank of Canada needlessly
raises interest rates, it immediately hits small business owners
that are struggling to meet their loan payments, as well as their
payrolls and all the other expenses of keeping their businesses
afloat.
1745
As if small business owners did not have enough to worry about,
there are always the banks, the good friends of the Liberals and
of course the Reform Party.
Business loans under $100,000 account for just 3% of business
loans made by the big six. A recent CFIB study says that small
business loans are now more expensive and harder to get.
Furthermore, it estimates that service charges to small
businesses have increased on average, 12% over the past year
alone.
Some 44% of small businesses were forced to use credit cards to
finance their operations in 1996 but the government refuses to
regulate the exorbitant credit card interest rate being charged
by the banks. Of course, the government is very heartily cheered
on by the Reform Party.
There are plenty of challenges facing the small business sector
in Canada, one of the three engines of the Canadian economy I
referred to earlier. They need all the help they can get.
That is why, although we have some questions that should be
addressed in the forthcoming review of the small business loans
program, we are anxious to ensure that the program does not
expire on March 31, 1998, jeopardizing literally thousands of
businesses in this country.
We have agreed to co-operate with the government to pass Bill
C-21 and to extend the program at least for one year until March
1999.
I take this opportunity to thank all the business people I have
met with over the past number of weeks with respect to this bill.
I would also like to thank the auditor general's department and
the CFIB, Credit Union Central, Professor Alan Riding of Carleton
University, and Keith Nixon of the Saskatchewan Credit Union
Central who advised me on all issues with respect to the SBLA.
Mr. Walt Lastewka (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Industry, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I listened to the last message
very clearly. I agree with a lot of what the member said, except
for a few parts he probably went off script for.
There have been some comments made about the banks and about
lenders. I remind the member that in addition to the six or
seven banks there are 1,490 members who are lenders on SBLA,
whether they be credit unions, caisses populaires, credit
societies and so forth.
This bill basically is an extension of the SBLA for one year and
the addition of $1 billion, from $14 billion to $15 billion.
I understand my colleague supports the bill. Could he expand on
items? In addition to the banks, he has I am sure in
Saskatchewan other lending institutions that are very key. They
use the SBLA but perhaps they have not been mentioned here today.
They are part of the SBLA program.
Mr. John Solomon: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon.
parliamentary secretary, the MP for St. Catharines, for that
question. Of course, the credit union system in Saskatchewan is
quite significant with respect to agriculture, small business and
personal financial matters.
The credit union system in Saskatchewan has been involved with
about 25% of the SBLAs that have been provided. They have
approved somewhere in the vicinity of 300, which is about 25% of
the 1,200 SBLA loans outstanding in Saskatchewan.
The average coverage for the credit unions across the country is
about 20% but in Saskatchewan it is much higher than that.
Mr. Leon E. Benoit (Lakeland, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the
member has just spoken in favour of this bill and in favour of
increasing the potential taxpayer liability of this bill.
I would like the hon. member to comment on what history has
shown us about this type of lending. In particular, if he could
think about the Farm Credit Corporation in Saskatchewan and the
kind of liability that taxpayers took on so that farmers who
could not otherwise get loans would be able to get loans.
There was an impact of that program on taxpayers through the
amount of money they had to pay to support loans that were
defaulted, which were unbelievable in proportion. Also there was
an effect on agriculture.
When loans were defaulted on, the impact on agriculture in his
province of Saskatchewan was indeed incredibly negative.
1750
Therefore not only did the taxpayers take a huge hit with
defaults on thousands of loans through the Farm Credit
Corporation, but the agriculture industry was actually in worse
shape than it was before the loans were made. A large portion of
the farmers who took these loans that they apparently could not
get from the banks, although in some cases that was not the case,
were worse off than if they had never received the loans.
I would like the member to comment on that because the record in
his province on this type of program is clear. The record is
very poor and, in the case of a decline in the economy, we are
setting ourselves up for a huge hit with this legislation as
well. The expansion in this legislation will allow for an even
larger liability on the part of taxpayers. I do not believe the
demonstration of the benefit from this legislation, which has
been talked about by other members in the House, is really there.
Mr. John Solomon: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the
question from the MP for Lakeland with respect to the Reform
style government that we had in Saskatchewan between 1982 and
1991. By the way, one of his colleagues is a former member of
that Reform style government right here.
For the record, let me make two points. First, if Reform
opposed and killed this bill there would be $14 billion in loans
to small business people in this country that would be in
default. They would have to pay back that money. It would put
tens of thousands of businesses out of business right now. It is
in support of putting small business people out of work, having
its big business friends take over all the equity and jobs and
send the money down to the States to their friends the Republican
Party.
The second point is with respect to the FCC and the debt. We
have the Reform Party of Saskatchewan that instituted a $16
billion debacle. It bankrupted the province of Saskatchewan in
nine years under the Reform style government of Devine who
promised the same thing the Reform Party has been promising for
the last two years, less government, less tax and more jobs
for people.
There was less tax and fewer jobs in Saskatchewan all right.
The province is bankrupt because of the bloody policies of the
Reform Party.
I say to the member who just asked the question that if we
undertook in this country to follow Reform style policies with
respect to small business there would be no small business. We
would just have the Wells Fargo, the Cargills and the huge
international conglomerates like Exxon running this country
without any kind of opposition whatsoever.
Mr. Jim Pankiw (Saskatoon—Humboldt, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
the member suggested at the opening of his speech that Reform
members of Parliament have no business experience.
The popularity of Reform stems from the fact that we are in
touch with ordinary Canadians and with small business owners. We
are in touch with the people who take risks and are burdened by
big government policies. Many Reform members have a lot of
business experience. Prior to entering politics I owned four
businesses and employed over 20 people.
How many businesses has the hon. career politician from
Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre operated?
Mr. John Solomon: Mr. Speaker, I have operated two
businesses, one a Dairy Queen brazier store which employed about
29 people full time and part time. I also had a consulting
business on two separate occasions. I made my livelihood from
those two businesses, unlike certain acupuncturist claims that
members of the House might make from time to time.
Mr. Howard Hilstrom (Selkirk—Interlake, Ref.): I
apologize to you, Mr. Speaker, for rising on a point of order. I
am new to the House and I do not understand the rules fully. As
a result, I apologize.
I suppose that a statement calling an hon. member a liar would
also be out of order.
The Deputy Speaker: Very much so.
Mr. Howard Hilstrom: It would be out of order and so I
will not do that.
1755
I would like to ask the hon. member for Regina—Lumsden—Lake
Centre just where in Reform policy, where in the Reform meetings
that he has maybe attended or spoken to Reform members about has
it ever been said that the Reform Party does not want the police
services and the fire departments run by government? That is
specifically what he said to this House and I would like to have
him clarify whether he is telling the House the truth on that
matter. Does he stand by those statements?
Mr. John Solomon: Mr. Speaker, the Reform member who just
intervened comes from a district that probably has not had a
history of Reform style politics.
In Saskatchewan, for the member's benefit, we had a Reform style
government under the name Grant Devine. Many of those people
who were involved with the Reform style government of Grant
Devine—
Mr. Jim Pankiw (Saskatoon—Humboldt, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
rise on a point of order.
The hon. member is purposefully trying to link a party based on
fundamental values of truth and honesty and democracy with a
criminally—
The Deputy Speaker: I think the hon. member is suggesting
the hon. member for Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre has ulterior
motives for making a speech, but this is a debate. The hon.
member for Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre is free to express his
views and this is a debate. Hon. members can participate in the
debate and the hon. member for Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre has
the floor.
Mr. John Solomon: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member who just
rose on a point of order would not know that his colleague from
Souris—Moose Mountain was a member of the Devine party. He was a
member of the party that bankrupted the province. It went to the
polls and said “government does not work, vote for us and we
will prove it”. The Reform Party is saying “government does
not work, vote for us, we are going to prove it”.
We have had that experience in Saskatchewan and it will never
get elected in Saskatchewan as a government. That is the way it
is, because people have memories about $16 billion in debt. The
Reform Party does not seem to get it. It figures it can hoodwink
or trick people in Saskatchewan once and maybe it can do it
twice. I do not think that is the case. We will let the people of
Saskatchewan decide whether what it is talking about is truthful
or not.
Ms. Sarmite Bulte (Parkdale—High Park, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for
Waterloo—Wellington.
I am rising in the House today to address Bill C-21, an act to
amend the Small Business Loans Act. I rise today not only as the
member for Parkdale—High Park, but I wish to address this bill
as a woman entrepreneur, a founding member of the Women
Entrepreneurs of Canada and the former Canadian representative to
the World Association of Women Entrepreneurs, les Femmes chefs
d'entreprises mondiales.
I commend the government on its proposed amendments, first to
extend the lending period from April 1, 1998 to March 31, 1999,
and second to increase the aggregate lending ceiling by $1
billion. I do so for one reason and one reason alone, because it
is good for small business, and what is good for small business
is good for Canada, Canadians and this economy.
Small business is the growth engine of our economy. In the last
three years, 80% of new jobs were created by small and medium
size businesses in Canada. But small businesses need access to
capital.
During the summer I held focus groups on job creation as what
the government needed to do to assist small business. One of the
things I heard time and time again was “we need help, we need
access to capital, what can you do about that?”
One of the focus groups was with the Women Entrepreneurs of
Canada, and this concern came up time and time again from women
entrepreneurs, all sorts of women entrepreneurs, women
entrepreneurs who work out of their homes to women entrepreneurs
who have $20 million companies. Yet women entrepreneurs, of all
the people in Canada, have had the hardest time accessing
capital.
1800
Hon. members across the floor have said that this is just giving
money away to the same people who would have qualified for loans
anyway. The truth and the reality of it is women have a
difficult time getting access to capital. It was not so long ago,
30 or so years ago, when a woman could not get a loan from the
bank without her father's or her spouse's signature.
Unfortunately a lot of things have not changed. Women still have
a difficult time getting access to capital. We as a government
must do something to help them.
A young woman in my riding called me in August asking for my
assistance and help. She had a great idea. She had contracts
that she could bring to the bank but the bank was not willing or
able to lend her money. Why? Because she was young, she did not
have a spouse, she did not have a father and she did not have
heavy duty capital to offset or help with her loan. With my
intervention we were able to bring the banks together. I am
happy to report that my constituent was able to get a loan.
There is not always a member of Parliament to assist the woman
who needs a loan. And it is not just young women. It is also
newly separated women and women who have decided to go back into
the workforce after having raised a family. One of the best ways
they see of doing that is by turning a great idea they have into
a million dollar business. But that idea cannot be turned into a
business without having access to the capital that is first
needed.
Let us not underestimate the value of women entrepreneurs in
Canada. As a founding member of the Women Entrepreneurs of
Canada association, I personally know the strength of women owned
businesses.
Women owned businesses employ more than 1.7 million people in
Canada which is more than Canada's top 100 companies. Women own
700,000 businesses in Canada. They create businesses at four
times the rate of their male counterparts and create jobs at
three times the rate of their male counterparts. Women
entrepreneurs are an economic phenomena to be dealt with and
recognized.
We must also remember that those 700,000 women who do own those
businesses, they are the lucky women, the women who had access to
capital. There are many, many other women who have not had that
opportunity and have not been able to get that financing.
In my job creation focus groups, many of the women entrepreneurs
I spoke to said “The small business loans program works. I have
benefited from it”. The numbers I heard varied. It was not
always a $250,000 limit. It was $60,000, $50,000 even $15,000.
Most people would say “That is nothing. What is $15,000?
Anybody can get a loan for $15,000”. That is not the case. For
a lot of those women $15,000 was the first loan they ever had to
secure by themselves. Perhaps the marriage they were in had ended
and they had not had the ability to establish their own credit.
This program helped those women take an idea that they had
germinated in their own home and turn it into a small and very
successful business.
One of the things I have always heard about women entrepreneurs
is that women entrepreneurs do not make a lot of money, that they
only generally earn between $250,000 or $500,000. That may very
well be the case, but these businesses are also stable
businesses. While some women entrepreneurs may have businesses
around the $500,000 gross revenue mark they still provide
employment. They are stable and they do not take risks that
easily. They grow slowly but they are there for the long term
not for the short term. They will be there for years. They may
not be worth $20 million today, but they will be one day.
When we look at the small business loans program we cannot
ignore what it brings.
It brings investment to this country.
1805
We as a government are investing in jobs. Statistics alone show
that in 1996-97 more than 73,000 jobs were created because of
this program. In the Globe and Mail this morning one of the
headlines was “Small firms providing big job gains”. Statistics
Canada has released its results that in fact jobs are being
created in small businesses, with the self-employed.
Interestingly enough the other thing Statistics Canada pointed
out is that the small business sector is where wages are
increasing. Employees working in small business are getting the
benefit of the growth in small businesses. Little by little the
parity between the large corporate employee and the small
business employee is coming together. It is a complete success
story.
The priority of this government is job creation. One of the
things this government is trying to do is target youth
employment.
One of Canada's chartered banks not too long ago undertook a
comprehensive study of the attitudes of Canada's nexus
generation, young people between the ages of 18 and 35. It
revealed that this group is much more entrepreneurial and
positive than usually depicted. One-third of the nexus
respondents stated that their most desirable profession was
entrepreneur. This suggests that young Canadians are determined
to turn their innovative ideas into business realities.
But how do they do that unless we give the nexus generation
access to capital? They are not unlike the women entrepreneurs
who have had trouble getting access to capital, who have not
established their credit. Yet when we look at some of the loans
that have been given out, it is clear that a lot of the loans
under the small business program were given out to start up
businesses or businesses in their first three years.
The small business loans program is part of this government's
all round strategy. Let us look at this also in the context of
what else this government has been doing.
The government has also given the Business Development Bank of
Canada a new mandate to support the growth of knowledge based,
export oriented and small businesses. The bank has responded by
building new partnerships with lending institutions and by
developing new programs such as technology seed investment funds.
This government has also supported women entrepreneurs by
increasing their participation in Team Canada. I am proud of the
initiative this government took last November by taking the first
all woman business owners trade mission to Washington. What a
success that was.
I encourage all of my colleagues to think what this legislation
will do for women entrepreneurs and the nexus generation.
Mr. Steve Mahoney (Mississauga West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
I congratulate the member on her speech.
I attended a function the member held in her riding in
co-operation with the Royal Bank. Women entrepreneurs from her
riding and in fact several from my riding were invited to come
and talk about issues of mutual concern. I recall some of the
comments made by the people who attended the prebudget
consultation the member held. There were some very moving
comments, discussions and shared experiences. The people from the
Royal Bank who were hosting the event were most co-operative.
I wonder if the member has any experience in how the banks feel
with regard to the small business loans program. Does it help
women entrepreneurs like many who were in attendance that day to
access capital? Is it a co-operative thing that is actually
working between the banks and the small businesses?
1810
Ms. Sarmite Bulte: Mr. Speaker, one of the things the
banks have done as this government has done is they have realized
the economic importance of women entrepreneurs. Many of the
chartered banks are now putting in place special programs to
assist women entrepreneurs. They have departments geared to
dealing with the special concerns of women entrepreneurs. A
number of chartered banks have talked with the women
entrepreneurs of Canada. They are working together to find out
which programs are best suited to their needs.
I believe that all parties of the partnership, the government,
the private sector and the not for profit sector have to work
together to find the solutions for all women entrepreneurs.
Mr. Peter Stoffer (Sackville—Eastern Shore, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, my question will be quite simple and quite plain. My
wife is an independent business person and works very hard at
what she does. I just want to ask one simple question. Since the
Royal Bank was brought in by the member's Liberal colleagues,
does she or does she not agree with the proposed bank merger
between the Royal Bank and the Bank of Montreal?
Ms. Sarmite Bulte: Mr. Speaker, I support the position of
the Minister of Finance who has made it absolutely clear that the
merger is not a sure thing. It will be dealt with after the task
force reports. As the Minister of Finance has challenged, I too
will also add my challenge to those banks to ensure that jobs are
created and jobs are retained.
Mr. Gurmant Grewal (Surrey Central, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
I listened with interest to the member on the opposite side. She
used almost all of her time talking about women entrepreneurs
which is good. However, since Bill C-21 deals with small
businessmen, when she was talking about women entrepreneurs did
she mean small businessmen or was she talking about a different
group of businessmen, namely women entrepreneurs?
Ms. Sarmite Bulte: I am sorry, Mr. Speaker, I did not
understand the question. Could I ask the hon. member to repeat
it, please.
Mr. Gurmant Grewal: Mr. Speaker, Bill C-21 deals with
loans being given to small businessmen. During most of the
member's speech she was talking about women entrepreneurs, which
I appreciate. But did she mean women as a group would be the
same as small businessmen or just women as a special group in the
community to deal with business?
Ms. Sarmite Bulte: Mr. Speaker, women entrepreneurs are
simply an economic phenomena in this country. They form part of
small business in this country. Their concerns are also shared
by many of the male business owners in my riding. They too have
the same problems. As I walk down Bloor Street in Bloor West
Village I am told time and time again, be they men or women, that
they need access to capital. Through the Small Business Loans
Act, the government is encouraging the banks to lend to all small
businesses.
I happen to have the expertise and knowledge in the area of
women entrepreneurs so I bring that to the House. I know that
this issue is absolutely as relevant to men as it is to women.
Mr. Lynn Myers (Waterloo—Wellington, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
I am pleased to rise today to speak to the two amendments
proposed for the Small Business Loans Act. The first one is the
extension of the current SBLA lending period for one additional
year, from April 1, 1998 to March 31, 1999. The second one is
the increase in the aggregate lending ceiling by $1 billion, from
$14 billion to $15 billion, and the unused authority to lend will
expire at the end of the extended lending period.
At the outset I want to say that the people of
Waterloo—Wellington and many small business people in my riding
applaud this legislation. It is very important for them and they
certainly want to see it proceed and go forward.
As we discuss the merits of extending the Small Business Loans
Act, I would like to review some of the misconceptions which have
been stated regarding the program. It is sometimes argued that
the SBLA represents a subsidy to small business. However in 1995
the government took steps to move the program to financial
self-sufficiency so that it will be paid for by those who borrow
through it.
1815
Current shortfalls are the result of actions taken in 1993.
Their effects are now being felt on a time delayed basis since
loans can have terms of five or even ten years.
I am pleased to see that the government has already taken the
actions needed to rectify the causes of the present shortfalls.
Indeed it has already acted on many of the suggestions made by
the auditor general in his recent December 1997 report, and
further changes are in the works. As a member of the public
accounts committee I applaud the efforts of the government to
ensure that the problems outlined by the auditor general are
rectified and taken into account. That is very important.
Passage of Bill C-21 will enable the completion of the present
extensive review of the SBLA program so that we can consider what
further improvements can be made to this very worthwhile program.
It is important to note that Industry Canada has already taken
significant administrative steps to improve the efficiency and
productivity of the program, such as cutting claim audit times,
thereby mitigating the cost to taxpayers.
Another false claim sometimes made by critics is that the banks
do not risk their own money under the program. This simply is
not true. Like other insurance programs, the SBLA pools risk
across thousands of users. This of course diminishes risk,
however, it does not eliminate it for the SBLA lenders.
The applicants to which the banks make loans under the SBLA are
otherwise credit worthy but tend to be start-up companies or
firms with low capitalized assets. Indeed the whole point of the
program is to get cash to companies which might not qualify for
conventional financing. It is very important to note that this
is in support of small businesses. They rely on it and they most
certainly need it.
Further, it needs to be pointed out with respect to loans made
after March 31, 1995 loan losses are shared on the basis of 85%
government and 15% lender. The program will pay a bank only 85%
of the lender's loss after having liquidated all secured assets.
Second, the total claims which a lender makes cannot be more
than roughly 10% of the value of the total SBLA portfolio. In
other words, the lender's funds are at risk and the lender will
lose money with every claim. This underscores that it is not an
incentive to make poor credit decisions.
It also needs to be noted that 94% of the loans have been repaid
over the course and the history of the SBLA program. Again this
suggests that lenders have been exercising good judgment
throughout.
The statistics indicate that the system is working well. In
1996-97 more than 30,000 firms used the SBLA to improve their
businesses and created an estimated 73,000 jobs. That is most
impressive.
Another false argument circulating with regard to the SBLA
concerns small business access to unconventional financing. Some
have suggested that small and medium size businesses do not need
the SBLA, that they simply can resort to venture capitalists.
That is wrong. It is more complicated than that. Venture
capitalists are simply not a realistic option for many firms
which seek these very important but small loans. At present a
mere 2% of all businesses obtain financing from such investors,
whereas 54% of all outside capital for business comes from debt
financing.
Even if venture capitalists were to double their activity it
would still mean that only about 1,200 firms would be able to
find financing.
Therefore the SBLA fills a niche in the market for precisely
those firms which venture capitalists ignore. Without the SBLA
most of the 30,000 firms which were financed during fiscal year
1996-97 would have been unlikely to have found the cash they
required. This would have meant lost jobs, which is
unacceptable. It simply is not right. It is not what Canadians
want and it is not what is good for small business.
The government is well aware that banks should be flexible and
open to the needs of small businesses, particularly with respect
to lending practices. The industry committee of the House of
Commons has heard recently that it is important to have more
transparency in the lending process.
For example, banks should move away from evaluating loan
applications on the basis of points and formulas and should move
more toward a comprehensive and flexible approach.
Second, banks should recognize that intellectual and knowledge
based assets are as valuable as hard assets and traditional forms
of collateral.
Third, banks should increase the number of smaller loans for
youth and micro businesses.
1820
At the urging of the government and the industry committee the
banking industry has begun to respond. First, banks have
introduced a code of conduct. All the major banks have put in
place some form of alternative dispute resolution and have
appointed an ombudsman to handle complaints. Second, an industry
ombudsman has been appointed to allow for an independent review
of small business complaints when internal dispute resolution
procedures have been exhausted. Third, the banks have developed
special benchmarks with which to assess access to business credit
which they report quarterly to the House industry committee.
The government is also moving ahead rapidly to put in place the
elements necessary for sustainable growth and job creation in the
knowledge economy, particularly with regard to small business.
Industry Canada's priority has been to focus on helping Canadian
business fulfil its potential to innovate, to grow and to create
jobs, and this we have done.
It is important to note that Industry Canada invests in targeted
R and D in high tech sectors where its support can obtain the
maximum effect and leverage benefits. The National Research
Council has many technology transfer programs for industry. The
regional economic development agencies offer special help in
export support for small businesses.
The government is moving ahead to update many pieces of
framework legislation that have a profound effect not only on
small business but also on the way in which Canada fosters
innovation and the growth of its knowledge based industries. The
government is modernizing and renewing the Competition Act, the
Co-operatives Act, the Telecommunications Act, the Canada
Business Corporations Act and the privacy protection act,
especially as it relates to electronic commerce.
These initiatives are helping to create a positive environment
for Canada's private sector and the small business community.
Many of the government's new policies and programs are already
paying off in terms of surging economic growth. The need to
access capital remains a critical issue for small business growth
in addition to the importance of a positive business environment.
The Small Business Loans Act can help provide that access in a
way that no other instrument can or does at the time.
Therefore I ask my fellow members of the House of Commons to
pass this legislation on which they are about to vote for the
benefit of Canada's small business community. It is what Canada
needs. It is what the small business community needs.
Hon. Ralph E. Goodale (Minister of Natural Resources and
Minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I rise on a point of order pertaining to the votes we
will take in a few minutes on Bill C-4.
There have been certain discussions among all the parties in
this House about the possibility of removing from the draft bill
those detailed provisions which deal with additions to or
subtractions from the Canadian Wheat Board's current mandate on
the condition that members consent to the tabling now of a new
provision in the law that would ensure that no minister
responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board could attempt to change
the wheat board's existing mandate either to enlarge it or to
reduce it without first having conducted a democratic vote among
the relevant producers and also having consulted with the wheat
board's new board of directors.
Mr. Speaker, I would ask that you seek the unanimous consent of
the House to allow such a proposal, which I have discussed with
each opposition critic, to be deemed to have been duly moved and
seconded and ordered to be voted on along with all the other
amendments we are about to consider in a few moments.
The Deputy Speaker: The House has heard the proposal of
the Minister of Natural Resources. Does the House give its
consent that the minister may put the motions before the House at
this time?
Some hon. members: No.
The Deputy Speaker: There is no consent.
Mr. Peter Stoffer (Sackville—Eastern Shore, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, I will be asking this question for the third time today.
I know from talking to Liberal backbenchers behind the curtain
that many of them are opposing this bank merger. With great
respect, does the hon. member oppose the merger of the Royal Bank
and the Bank of Montreal?
1825
Mr. Lynn Myers: Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for the
question. I want to reiterate what I said in my speech. The
process the government is taking with respect to small business
loans and the act proceeding is very important on behalf of small
business and for the economy of Canada as a whole.
I think it is important that we proceed accordingly and in a
manner that fits with what we are doing for the overall benefit
of the economy. It is important to note. We should do so
expeditiously.
Mr. Steve Mahoney (Mississauga West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
I congratulate the member for his remarks and for his
understanding of the small business loan process.
We heard comments in this place earlier today that the maximum
amount of $250,000 for a small business loan should be reduced. I
do not know that there was a suggested figure. It seemed
somewhat arbitrary. I think it was the Progressive Conservative
position that the act is okay but the amount is too much. I
understand also that the average loan is in the neighbourhood of
$65,000 which is obviously dramatically lower than the maximum.
I wonder if the member might have some comments about the
importance of leaving a flexible level as high as $250,000 given
that these loans can only be used for a capital acquisition such
as property or equipment that has actual value. They cannot be
for debt consolidation or things where there is no fixed value to
the asset that is added to the business.
Mr. Lynn Myers: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for
the point. It is an important one. There should be flexibility
inherent in this loan system. I think that needs to be
underscored to ensure that small business and Canadians who rely
on this kind of legislation are able to work in a way consistent
to enable the flexibility to be part and parcel of what they have
to do in the course of what their business entails.
I think it is very important that flexibility be maintained. I
think Canadians want it and certainly small business people want
it.
Mr. John Herron (Fundy—Royal, PC): Mr. Speaker, with
reference to the comment made by the hon. member, I want to help
clarify my earlier comment which arises from the fact that 30% to
40% of the loans that are actually approved under the Small
Business Loans Act, as pointed out by the auditor general, would
have been approved in the first place without the public
guarantee under the small business loans act.
The point is that for the most part those sorts of loans are
usually loans of the higher magnitude. They are not the average
loans required by the small business sector.
I referenced this quote during my remarks earlier in the day.
My point is that there should be a loan guarantee for small
business, not a loan guarantee for banks.
Essentially the Small Business Loans Act has become a vehicle
for actually reducing the risk of private institutions and not
actually for fulfilling the original intent of the Small Business
Loans Act.
The greatest concern we have today is that the original intent
of the program was to provide access to capital to start-up
ventures or small firms that would not otherwise have been
granted a loan from a lender.
The relative size of a loan, which is becoming very commonplace,
is large but the relative size of the loan was intended to be
small so that borrowers could have handled a higher rate or fee
in exchange for a loan that did not leverage their personal
guarantee.
Mr. Lynn Myers: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for
the comment and question even though I am not sure I really
understand it. It was very convoluted.
I think the point, though, needs to be made again that this
legislation enables small businesses to proceed and do the kinds
of things that enable them to do what they do best, conduct
business and maintain the kind of activity that is in the best
interests of the Canadian economy. I think we should proceed
with that expeditiously.
* * *
1830
[Translation]
CANADIAN WHEAT BOARD ACT
The House resumed from February 12 consideration of Bill C-4,
an act to amend the Canadian Wheat Board Act and to make
consequential amendments to other acts, as reported (with
amendments) from the committee.
The Deputy Speaker: Pursuant to order made Thursday, February
12, 1998, the House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred
divisions at report stage of Bill C-4.
Call in the members.
1850
[English]
And the bells having rung:
The Speaker: I understand that we have a potential for
quite a few votes tonight. I am sure all of us want to handle
them as expeditiously as possible.
The first question is on Motion No. 1.
1900
(The House divided on Motion No. 1, which was negatived on the
following division:)
YEAS
Members
Abbott
| Ablonczy
| Alarie
| Asselin
|
Axworthy
(Saskatoon – Rosetown – Biggar)
| Bachand
(Richmond – Arthabaska)
| Bachand
(Saint - Jean)
| Bailey
|
Bellehumeur
| Benoit
| Bergeron
| Bernier
(Bonaventure – Gaspé – Îles - de - la - Madeleine – Pabok)
|
Bernier
(Tobique – Mactaquac)
| Bigras
| Blaikie
| Borotsik
|
Breitkreuz
(Yellowhead)
| Breitkreuz
(Yorkton – Melville)
| Brien
| Brison
|
Cadman
| Canuel
| Casson
| Charest
|
Chatters
| Chrétien
(Frontenac – Mégantic)
| Dalphond - Guiral
| Davies
|
Debien
| Desjarlais
| Dockrill
| Dubé
(Lévis)
|
Dubé
(Madawaska – Restigouche)
| Duceppe
| Dumas
| Duncan
|
Earle
| Epp
| Forseth
| Fournier
|
Gagnon
| Gauthier
| Gilmour
| Girard - Bujold
|
Godin
(Acadie – Bathurst)
| Goldring
| Gouk
| Grewal
|
Grey
(Edmonton North)
| Guay
| Guimond
| Hardy
|
Hart
| Harvey
| Herron
| Hill
(Macleod)
|
Hill
(Prince George – Peace River)
| Hilstrom
| Hoeppner
| Johnston
|
Jones
| Keddy
(South Shore)
| Kenney
(Calgary - Sud - Est)
| Laurin
|
Lebel
| Lefebvre
| Lill
| Lowther
|
Lunn
| MacKay
(Pictou – Antigonish – Guysborough)
| Mancini
| Manning
|
Marchand
| Mark
| Martin
(Esquimalt – Juan de Fuca)
| Martin
(Winnipeg Centre)
|
Matthews
| McNally
| Ménard
| Mercier
|
Meredith
| Mills
(Red Deer)
| Morrison
| Obhrai
|
Pankiw
| Penson
| Picard
(Drummond)
| Plamondon
|
Price
| Proctor
| Ramsay
| Reynolds
|
Riis
| Ritz
| Rocheleau
| Sauvageau
|
Schmidt
| Scott
(Skeena)
| Solberg
| Solomon
|
St - Hilaire
| Stinson
| St - Jacques
| Stoffer
|
Strahl
| Tremblay
(Lac - Saint - Jean)
| Turp
| Vautour
|
Vellacott
| Wasylycia - Leis
| White
(Langley – Abbotsford)
| Williams – 112
|
NAYS
Members
Adams
| Alcock
| Anderson
| Assad
|
Assadourian
| Augustine
| Axworthy
(Winnipeg South Centre)
| Baker
|
Bakopanos
| Barnes
| Beaumier
| Bélair
|
Bélanger
| Bellemare
| Bennett
| Bevilacqua
|
Blondin - Andrew
| Bonin
| Boudria
| Bradshaw
|
Brown
| Bryden
| Bulte
| Byrne
|
Caccia
| Calder
| Caplan
| Carroll
|
Catterall
| Cauchon
| Chamberlain
| Chan
|
Charbonneau
| Clouthier
| Coderre
| Cohen
|
Collenette
| Comuzzi
| Cullen
| DeVillers
|
Dhaliwal
| Dion
| Discepola
| Dromisky
|
Drouin
| Duhamel
| Easter
| Eggleton
|
Finlay
| Folco
| Fontana
| Fry
|
Gagliano
| Gallaway
| Godfrey
| Goodale
|
Gray
(Windsor West)
| Grose
| Harb
| Harvard
|
Hubbard
| Iftody
| Jackson
| Jennings
|
Jordan
| Karetak - Lindell
| Karygiannis
| Keyes
|
Kilger
(Stormont – Dundas)
| Kilgour
(Edmonton Southeast)
| Knutson
| Kraft Sloan
|
Lastewka
| Lee
| Leung
| Lincoln
|
Longfield
| MacAulay
| Mahoney
| Malhi
|
Maloney
| Manley
| Marchi
| Marleau
|
Martin
(LaSalle – Émard)
| Massé
| McCormick
| McGuire
|
McKay
(Scarborough East)
| McLellan
(Edmonton West)
| McTeague
| McWhinney
|
Mifflin
| Mills
(Broadview – Greenwood)
| Minna
| Mitchell
|
Murray
| Myers
| Nault
| Normand
|
O'Brien
(London – Fanshawe)
| O'Reilly
| Pagtakhan
| Paradis
|
Patry
| Peterson
| Pettigrew
| Phinney
|
Pickard
(Kent – Essex)
| Pillitteri
| Pratt
| Proud
|
Provenzano
| Redman
| Reed
| Richardson
|
Robillard
| Rock
| Saada
| Scott
(Fredericton)
|
Shepherd
| Speller
| St. Denis
| Stewart
(Northumberland)
|
St - Julien
| Szabo
| Torsney
| Valeri
|
Vanclief
| Whelan
| Wilfert – 131
|
PAIRED
Members
Cannis
| Copps
| Crête
| de Savoye
|
Desrochers
| Finestone
| Graham
| Lalonde
|
Loubier
| Marceau
| O'Brien
(Labrador)
| Parrish
|
Perron
| Stewart
(Brant)
| Telegdi
| Tremblay
(Rimouski – Mitis)
|
Ur
| Venne
|
The Speaker: I declare the Motion No. 1 lost.
Mr. Bob Kilger: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
I believe you would find consent to apply the results of the vote
just taken to the following motions: Motions Nos. 8, 9, 11, 12,
14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 21, 23 and 48.
1905
The Speaker: Is there unanimous consent to apply the
vote?
Mr. Chuck Strahl: Yes, Mr. Speaker, there is consent. I
would like to add the member for Calgary West to the Reform
Party's number on that vote tally.
[Translation]
The Speaker: If there are no more names to be added, we will
put the same vote. Is that agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
[English]
The Speaker: I address myself to the government whip on a
matter of clarification. Is Motion No. 22 included in that list?
Mr. Bob Kilger: No, it is not, Mr. Speaker.
[Editor's Note: See list under Division No. 73]
The Speaker: I declare Motions Nos. 8, 9, 11, 12, 14, 15,
16, 17, 18, 19, 21, 23 and 48 lost.
The next question is on Motion No. 2.
Mr. Bob Kilger: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
If the House would agree I would propose that you seek unanimous
consent that members who voted on the previous motions be
recorded as having voted on the motion now before the House, with
Liberal members voting nay.
The Speaker: Is there unanimous consent to proceed in
this way?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Mr. Chuck Strahl: Mr. Speaker, Reform Party members
present will vote yes to this motion.
[Translation]
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Mr. Speaker, members of the Bloc
Quebecois will be voting in favour of the motion.
[English]
Mr. John Solomon: Mr. Speaker, members of the NDP will
vote no to this motion.
[Translation]
Mr. André Harvey: Mr. Speaker, members of our party will be
voting in favour of the motion.
[English]
(The House divided on Motion No. 2, which was negatived on the
following division:)
YEAS
Members
Abbott
| Ablonczy
| Alarie
| Asselin
|
Bachand
(Richmond – Arthabaska)
| Bachand
(Saint - Jean)
| Bailey
| Bellehumeur
|
Benoit
| Bergeron
| Bernier
(Bonaventure – Gaspé – Îles - de - la - Madeleine – Pabok)
| Bernier
(Tobique – Mactaquac)
|
Bigras
| Borotsik
| Breitkreuz
(Yellowhead)
| Breitkreuz
(Yorkton – Melville)
|
Brien
| Brison
| Cadman
| Canuel
|
Casson
| Charest
| Chatters
| Chrétien
(Frontenac – Mégantic)
|
Dalphond - Guiral
| Debien
| Dubé
(Lévis)
| Dubé
(Madawaska – Restigouche)
|
Duceppe
| Dumas
| Duncan
| Epp
|
Forseth
| Fournier
| Gagnon
| Gauthier
|
Gilmour
| Girard - Bujold
| Goldring
| Gouk
|
Grewal
| Grey
(Edmonton North)
| Guay
| Guimond
|
Hart
| Harvey
| Herron
| Hill
(Macleod)
|
Hill
(Prince George – Peace River)
| Hilstrom
| Hoeppner
| Johnston
|
Jones
| Keddy
(South Shore)
| Kenney
(Calgary - Sud - Est)
| Laurin
|
Lebel
| Lefebvre
| Lowther
| Lunn
|
MacKay
(Pictou – Antigonish – Guysborough)
| Manning
| Marchand
| Mark
|
Martin
(Esquimalt – Juan de Fuca)
| Matthews
| McNally
| Ménard
|
Mercier
| Meredith
| Mills
(Red Deer)
| Morrison
|
Obhrai
| Pankiw
| Penson
| Picard
(Drummond)
|
Plamondon
| Price
| Ramsay
| Reynolds
|
Ritz
| Rocheleau
| Sauvageau
| Schmidt
|
Scott
(Skeena)
| Solberg
| St - Hilaire
| Stinson
|
St - Jacques
| Strahl
| Tremblay
(Lac - Saint - Jean)
| Turp
|
Vellacott
| White
(Langley – Abbotsford)
| Williams – 95
|
NAYS
Members
Adams
| Alcock
| Anderson
| Assad
|
Assadourian
| Augustine
| Axworthy
(Saskatoon – Rosetown – Biggar)
| Axworthy
(Winnipeg South Centre)
|
Baker
| Bakopanos
| Barnes
| Beaumier
|
Bélair
| Bélanger
| Bellemare
| Bennett
|
Bevilacqua
| Blaikie
| Blondin - Andrew
| Bonin
|
Boudria
| Bradshaw
| Brown
| Bryden
|
Bulte
| Byrne
| Caccia
| Calder
|
Caplan
| Carroll
| Catterall
| Cauchon
|
Chamberlain
| Chan
| Charbonneau
| Clouthier
|
Coderre
| Cohen
| Collenette
| Comuzzi
|
Cullen
| Davies
| Desjarlais
| DeVillers
|
Dhaliwal
| Dion
| Discepola
| Dockrill
|
Dromisky
| Drouin
| Duhamel
| Earle
|
Easter
| Eggleton
| Finlay
| Folco
|
Fontana
| Fry
| Gagliano
| Gallaway
|
Godfrey
| Godin
(Acadie – Bathurst)
| Goodale
| Gray
(Windsor West)
|
Grose
| Harb
| Hardy
| Harvard
|
Hubbard
| Iftody
| Jackson
| Jennings
|
Jordan
| Karetak - Lindell
| Karygiannis
| Keyes
|
Kilger
(Stormont – Dundas)
| Kilgour
(Edmonton Southeast)
| Knutson
| Kraft Sloan
|
Lastewka
| Lee
| Leung
| Lill
|
Lincoln
| Longfield
| MacAulay
| Mahoney
|
Malhi
| Maloney
| Mancini
| Manley
|
Marchi
| Marleau
| Martin
(LaSalle – Émard)
| Martin
(Winnipeg Centre)
|
Massé
| McCormick
| McGuire
| McKay
(Scarborough East)
|
McLellan
(Edmonton West)
| McTeague
| McWhinney
| Mifflin
|
Mills
(Broadview – Greenwood)
| Minna
| Mitchell
| Murray
|
Myers
| Nault
| Normand
| O'Brien
(London – Fanshawe)
|
O'Reilly
| Pagtakhan
| Paradis
| Patry
|
Peterson
| Pettigrew
| Phinney
| Pickard
(Kent – Essex)
|
Pillitteri
| Pratt
| Proctor
| Proud
|
Provenzano
| Redman
| Reed
| Richardson
|
Riis
| Robillard
| Rock
| Saada
|
Scott
(Fredericton)
| Shepherd
| Solomon
| Speller
|
St. Denis
| Stewart
(Northumberland)
| St - Julien
| Stoffer
|
Szabo
| Thibeault
| Torsney
| Valeri
|
Vanclief
| Vautour
| Wasylycia - Leis
| Whelan
|
Wilfert – 149
|
PAIRED
Members
Cannis
| Copps
| Crête
| de Savoye
|
Desrochers
| Finestone
| Graham
| Lalonde
|
Loubier
| Marceau
| O'Brien
(Labrador)
| Parrish
|
Perron
| Stewart
(Brant)
| Telegdi
| Tremblay
(Rimouski – Mitis)
|
Ur
| Venne
|
The Speaker: I declare Motion No. 2 lost and I therefore
declare Motions Nos. 31 and 41 lost.
Mr. Bob Kilger: Mr. Speaker, I believe you would find
consent to apply the results of the vote just taken to the
following: Motions Nos. 20, 38, 45 and 46.
The Speaker: Is there agreement to apply the votes?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
[Editor's Note: See list under Division No. 74]
The Speaker: I declare Motions Nos. 20, 38, 45 and 46
lost.
Mr. Bob Kilger: Mr. Speaker, due to other obligations the
member for Windsor West should be struck from the last vote.
The Speaker: So ordered.
1910
The next question is on Motion No. 4. An affirmative vote on
Motion No. 4 obviates the necessity of the question being put on
Motions Nos. 5 and 6.
[Translation]
If Motion No. 4 is negatived, the question will be on Motion
No. 5. If Motion No. 5 is agreed to, it will not be necessary to
proceed to the division on Motion No. 6. If Motion No. 5 is
negatived, the question will be on Motion No. 6.
[English]
Mr. Bob Kilger: Mr. Speaker, if the House would agree I
would propose you seek unanimous consent that members who voted
on the previous motion be recorded as having voted on the motion
now before the House, with Liberal members voting nay.
The Speaker: Is there unanimous consent to proceed in
this way?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Mr. Chuck Strahl: Mr. Speaker, Reform Party members
present will vote yes to this motion.
[Translation]
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Mr. Speaker, the Bloc Quebecois members
will be voting against the motion.
[English]
Mr. John Solomon: Mr. Speaker, members of the NDP caucus
present will vote no to this motion.
[Translation]
Mr. André Harvey: Mr. Speaker, members of our party will be
voting in favour of the motion.
[English]
(The House divided on Motion No. 4, which was negatived on the
following division:)
YEAS
Members
Abbott
| Ablonczy
| Anders
| Bachand
(Richmond – Arthabaska)
|
Bailey
| Benoit
| Bernier
(Tobique – Mactaquac)
| Borotsik
|
Breitkreuz
(Yellowhead)
| Breitkreuz
(Yorkton – Melville)
| Brison
| Cadman
|
Casson
| Charest
| Chatters
| Dubé
(Madawaska – Restigouche)
|
Duncan
| Epp
| Forseth
| Gilmour
|
Goldring
| Gouk
| Grewal
| Grey
(Edmonton North)
|
Hart
| Harvey
| Herron
| Hill
(Macleod)
|
Hill
(Prince George – Peace River)
| Hilstrom
| Hoeppner
| Johnston
|
Jones
| Keddy
(South Shore)
| Kenney
(Calgary - Sud - Est)
| Lowther
|
Lunn
| MacKay
(Pictou – Antigonish – Guysborough)
| Manning
| Mark
|
Martin
(Esquimalt – Juan de Fuca)
| Matthews
| McNally
| Meredith
|
Mills
(Red Deer)
| Morrison
| Obhrai
| Pankiw
|
Penson
| Price
| Ramsay
| Reynolds
|
Ritz
| Schmidt
| Scott
(Skeena)
| Solberg
|
Stinson
| St - Jacques
| Strahl
| Vellacott
|
White
(Langley – Abbotsford)
| Williams – 62
|
NAYS
Members
Adams
| Alarie
| Alcock
| Anderson
|
Assad
| Assadourian
| Asselin
| Augustine
|
Axworthy
(Saskatoon – Rosetown – Biggar)
| Axworthy
(Winnipeg South Centre)
| Bachand
(Saint - Jean)
| Baker
|
Bakopanos
| Barnes
| Beaumier
| Bélair
|
Bélanger
| Bellehumeur
| Bellemare
| Bennett
|
Bergeron
| Bernier
(Bonaventure – Gaspé – Îles - de - la - Madeleine – Pabok)
| Bevilacqua
| Bigras
|
Blaikie
| Blondin - Andrew
| Bonin
| Boudria
|
Bradshaw
| Brien
| Brown
| Bryden
|
Bulte
| Byrne
| Caccia
| Calder
|
Canuel
| Caplan
| Carroll
| Catterall
|
Cauchon
| Chamberlain
| Chan
| Charbonneau
|
Chrétien
(Frontenac – Mégantic)
| Clouthier
| Coderre
| Cohen
|
Collenette
| Comuzzi
| Cullen
| Dalphond - Guiral
|
Davies
| Debien
| Desjarlais
| DeVillers
|
Dhaliwal
| Dion
| Discepola
| Dockrill
|
Dromisky
| Drouin
| Dubé
(Lévis)
| Duceppe
|
Duhamel
| Dumas
| Earle
| Easter
|
Eggleton
| Finlay
| Folco
| Fontana
|
Fournier
| Fry
| Gagliano
| Gagnon
|
Gallaway
| Gauthier
| Girard - Bujold
| Godfrey
|
Godin
(Acadie – Bathurst)
| Goodale
| Grose
| Guay
|
Guimond
| Harb
| Hardy
| Harvard
|
Hubbard
| Iftody
| Jackson
| Jennings
|
Jordan
| Karetak - Lindell
| Karygiannis
| Keyes
|
Kilger
(Stormont – Dundas)
| Kilgour
(Edmonton Southeast)
| Knutson
| Kraft Sloan
|
Lastewka
| Laurin
| Lebel
| Lee
|
Lefebvre
| Leung
| Lill
| Lincoln
|
Longfield
| MacAulay
| Mahoney
| Malhi
|
Maloney
| Mancini
| Manley
| Marchand
|
Marchi
| Marleau
| Martin
(LaSalle – Émard)
| Martin
(Winnipeg Centre)
|
Massé
| McCormick
| McGuire
| McKay
(Scarborough East)
|
McLellan
(Edmonton West)
| McTeague
| McWhinney
| Ménard
|
Mercier
| Mifflin
| Mills
(Broadview – Greenwood)
| Minna
|
Mitchell
| Murray
| Myers
| Nault
|
Normand
| O'Brien
(London – Fanshawe)
| O'Reilly
| Pagtakhan
|
Paradis
| Patry
| Peterson
| Pettigrew
|
Phinney
| Picard
(Drummond)
| Pickard
(Kent – Essex)
| Pillitteri
|
Plamondon
| Pratt
| Proctor
| Proud
|
Provenzano
| Redman
| Reed
| Richardson
|
Riis
| Robillard
| Rocheleau
| Rock
|
Saada
| Sauvageau
| Scott
(Fredericton)
| Shepherd
|
Solomon
| Speller
| St. Denis
| Stewart
(Northumberland)
|
St - Hilaire
| St - Julien
| Stoffer
| Szabo
|
Thibeault
| Torsney
| Tremblay
(Lac - Saint - Jean)
| Turp
|
Valeri
| Vanclief
| Vautour
| Wasylycia - Leis
|
Whelan
| Wilfert – 182
|
PAIRED
Members
Cannis
| Copps
| Crête
| de Savoye
|
Desrochers
| Finestone
| Graham
| Lalonde
|
Loubier
| Marceau
| O'Brien
(Labrador)
| Parrish
|
Perron
| Stewart
(Brant)
| Telegdi
| Tremblay
(Rimouski – Mitis)
|
Ur
| Venne
|
The Speaker: I declare Motion No. 4 lost, which obviates
the necessity of the question being put on Motions Nos. 5 and 6.
Mr. Bob Kilger: Mr. Speaker, I believe you would find
consent to apply the results of the vote just taken to the
following: Motions Nos. 7, 24, 27, 28, 29, 33, 37, 40 and 42.
Mr. John Solomon: Mr. Speaker, the member for Qu'Appelle
is now in the House. With respect to Motions Nos. 7, 24, 27, 28,
29, 33, 37, 40 and 42, he is deemed to be voting with the NDP
caucus.
The Speaker: Is there agreement to proceed in this
fashion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
(The House divided on Motion No. 7, which was negatived on the
following division:)
YEAS
Members
Abbott
| Ablonczy
| Anders
| Bachand
(Richmond – Arthabaska)
|
Bailey
| Benoit
| Bernier
(Tobique – Mactaquac)
| Borotsik
|
Breitkreuz
(Yellowhead)
| Breitkreuz
(Yorkton – Melville)
| Brison
| Cadman
|
Casson
| Charest
| Chatters
| Dubé
(Madawaska – Restigouche)
|
Duncan
| Epp
| Forseth
| Gilmour
|
Goldring
| Gouk
| Grewal
| Grey
(Edmonton North)
|
Hart
| Harvey
| Herron
| Hill
(Macleod)
|
Hill
(Prince George – Peace River)
| Hilstrom
| Hoeppner
| Johnston
|
Jones
| Keddy
(South Shore)
| Kenney
(Calgary - Sud - Est)
| Lowther
|
Lunn
| MacKay
(Pictou – Antigonish – Guysborough)
| Manning
| Mark
|
Martin
(Esquimalt – Juan de Fuca)
| Matthews
| McNally
| Meredith
|
Mills
(Red Deer)
| Morrison
| Obhrai
| Pankiw
|
Penson
| Price
| Ramsay
| Reynolds
|
Ritz
| Schmidt
| Scott
(Skeena)
| Solberg
|
Stinson
| St - Jacques
| Strahl
| Vellacott
|
White
(Langley – Abbotsford)
| Williams – 62
|
NAYS
Members
Adams
| Alarie
| Alcock
| Anderson
|
Assad
| Assadourian
| Asselin
| Augustine
|
Axworthy
(Saskatoon – Rosetown – Biggar)
| Axworthy
(Winnipeg South Centre)
| Bachand
(Saint - Jean)
| Baker
|
Bakopanos
| Barnes
| Beaumier
| Bélair
|
Bélanger
| Bellehumeur
| Bellemare
| Bennett
|
Bergeron
| Bernier
(Bonaventure – Gaspé – Îles - de - la - Madeleine – Pabok)
| Bevilacqua
| Bigras
|
Blaikie
| Blondin - Andrew
| Bonin
| Boudria
|
Bradshaw
| Brien
| Brown
| Bryden
|
Bulte
| Byrne
| Caccia
| Calder
|
Canuel
| Caplan
| Carroll
| Catterall
|
Cauchon
| Chamberlain
| Chan
| Charbonneau
|
Chrétien
(Frontenac – Mégantic)
| Clouthier
| Coderre
| Cohen
|
Collenette
| Comuzzi
| Cullen
| Dalphond - Guiral
|
Davies
| Debien
| Desjarlais
| DeVillers
|
Dhaliwal
| Dion
| Discepola
| Dockrill
|
Dromisky
| Drouin
| Dubé
(Lévis)
| Duceppe
|
Duhamel
| Dumas
| Earle
| Easter
|
Eggleton
| Finlay
| Folco
| Fontana
|
Fournier
| Fry
| Gagliano
| Gagnon
|
Gallaway
| Gauthier
| Girard - Bujold
| Godfrey
|
Godin
(Acadie – Bathurst)
| Goodale
| Grose
| Guay
|
Guimond
| Harb
| Hardy
| Harvard
|
Hubbard
| Iftody
| Jackson
| Jennings
|
Jordan
| Karetak - Lindell
| Karygiannis
| Keyes
|
Kilger
(Stormont – Dundas)
| Kilgour
(Edmonton Southeast)
| Knutson
| Kraft Sloan
|
Lastewka
| Laurin
| Lebel
| Lee
|
Lefebvre
| Leung
| Lill
| Lincoln
|
Longfield
| MacAulay
| Mahoney
| Malhi
|
Maloney
| Mancini
| Manley
| Marchand
|
Marchi
| Marleau
| Martin
(LaSalle – Émard)
| Martin
(Winnipeg Centre)
|
Massé
| McCormick
| McGuire
| McKay
(Scarborough East)
|
McLellan
(Edmonton West)
| McTeague
| McWhinney
| Ménard
|
Mercier
| Mifflin
| Mills
(Broadview – Greenwood)
| Minna
|
Mitchell
| Murray
| Myers
| Nault
|
Normand
| Nystrom
| O'Brien
(London – Fanshawe)
| O'Reilly
|
Pagtakhan
| Paradis
| Patry
| Peterson
|
Pettigrew
| Phinney
| Picard
(Drummond)
| Pickard
(Kent – Essex)
|
Pillitteri
| Plamondon
| Pratt
| Proctor
|
Proud
| Provenzano
| Redman
| Reed
|
Richardson
| Riis
| Robillard
| Rocheleau
|
Rock
| Saada
| Sauvageau
| Scott
(Fredericton)
|
Shepherd
| Solomon
| Speller
| St. Denis
|
Stewart
(Northumberland)
| St - Hilaire
| St - Julien
| Stoffer
|
Szabo
| Thibeault
| Torsney
| Tremblay
(Lac - Saint - Jean)
|
Turp
| Valeri
| Vanclief
| Vautour
|
Wasylycia - Leis
| Whelan
| Wilfert – 183
|
PAIRED
Members
Cannis
| Copps
| Crête
| de Savoye
|
Desrochers
| Finestone
| Graham
| Lalonde
|
Loubier
| Marceau
| O'Brien
(Labrador)
| Parrish
|
Perron
| Stewart
(Brant)
| Telegdi
| Tremblay
(Rimouski – Mitis)
|
Ur
| Venne
|
The Speaker: I declare Motions Nos. 7, 24, 27, 28, 29,
33, 37, 40 and 42 lost. Also Motion No. 34 is lost.
The next question is on Motion No. 5. Shall I dispense?
Some hon. members: No.
The Speaker: Mr. Hill (Prince George—Peace River),
seconded by Mr. Breitkreuz (Yorkton—Melville), moves:
That Bill C-4, in clause 3, be amended by replacing lines 9 to 14
on page 3 with the following:
“3.02(1) Fifteen directors are elected in accordance with
sections 3.06 to 3.08 and the regulations. The president shall
be appointed by the board in consultation with the minister”.
1920
(The House divided on Motion No. 5, which was negatived on the
following division:)
YEAS
Members
Abbott
| Ablonczy
| Anders
| Bachand
(Richmond – Arthabaska)
|
Bailey
| Benoit
| Bernier
(Tobique – Mactaquac)
| Borotsik
|
Breitkreuz
(Yellowhead)
| Breitkreuz
(Yorkton – Melville)
| Brison
| Cadman
|
Casson
| Charest
| Chatters
| Dubé
(Madawaska – Restigouche)
|
Duncan
| Epp
| Forseth
| Gilmour
|
Goldring
| Gouk
| Grewal
| Grey
(Edmonton North)
|
Hart
| Harvey
| Herron
| Hill
(Macleod)
|
Hill
(Prince George – Peace River)
| Hilstrom
| Hoeppner
| Johnston
|
Jones
| Keddy
(South Shore)
| Kenney
(Calgary - Sud - Est)
| Lowther
|
Lunn
| MacKay
(Pictou – Antigonish – Guysborough)
| Manning
| Mark
|
Martin
(Esquimalt – Juan de Fuca)
| Matthews
| McNally
| Meredith
|
Mills
(Red Deer)
| Morrison
| Obhrai
| Pankiw
|
Penson
| Price
| Ramsay
| Reynolds
|
Ritz
| Schmidt
| Scott
(Skeena)
| Solberg
|
Stinson
| St - Jacques
| Strahl
| Vellacott
|
White
(Langley – Abbotsford)
| Williams – 62
|
NAYS
Members
Adams
| Alarie
| Alcock
| Anderson
|
Assad
| Assadourian
| Asselin
| Augustine
|
Axworthy
(Saskatoon – Rosetown – Biggar)
| Axworthy
(Winnipeg South Centre)
| Bachand
(Saint - Jean)
| Baker
|
Bakopanos
| Barnes
| Beaumier
| Bélair
|
Bélanger
| Bellehumeur
| Bellemare
| Bennett
|
Bergeron
| Bernier
(Bonaventure – Gaspé – Îles - de - la - Madeleine – Pabok)
| Bevilacqua
| Bigras
|
Blaikie
| Blondin - Andrew
| Bonin
| Boudria
|
Bradshaw
| Brien
| Brown
| Bryden
|
Bulte
| Byrne
| Caccia
| Calder
|
Canuel
| Caplan
| Carroll
| Catterall
|
Cauchon
| Chamberlain
| Chan
| Charbonneau
|
Chrétien
(Frontenac – Mégantic)
| Clouthier
| Coderre
| Cohen
|
Collenette
| Comuzzi
| Cullen
| Dalphond - Guiral
|
Davies
| Debien
| Desjarlais
| DeVillers
|
Dhaliwal
| Dion
| Discepola
| Dockrill
|
Dromisky
| Drouin
| Dubé
(Lévis)
| Duceppe
|
Duhamel
| Dumas
| Earle
| Easter
|
Eggleton
| Finlay
| Folco
| Fontana
|
Fournier
| Fry
| Gagliano
| Gagnon
|
Gallaway
| Gauthier
| Girard - Bujold
| Godfrey
|
Godin
(Acadie – Bathurst)
| Goodale
| Grose
| Guay
|
Guimond
| Harb
| Hardy
| Harvard
|
Hubbard
| Iftody
| Jackson
| Jennings
|
Jordan
| Karetak - Lindell
| Karygiannis
| Keyes
|
Kilger
(Stormont – Dundas)
| Kilgour
(Edmonton Southeast)
| Knutson
| Kraft Sloan
|
Lastewka
| Laurin
| Lebel
| Lee
|
Lefebvre
| Leung
| Lill
| Lincoln
|
Longfield
| MacAulay
| Mahoney
| Malhi
|
Maloney
| Mancini
| Manley
| Marchand
|
Marchi
| Marleau
| Martin
(Winnipeg Centre)
| Massé
|
McCormick
| McGuire
| McKay
(Scarborough East)
| McLellan
(Edmonton West)
|
McTeague
| McWhinney
| Ménard
| Mercier
|
Mifflin
| Mills
(Broadview – Greenwood)
| Minna
| Mitchell
|
Murray
| Myers
| Nault
| Normand
|
Nystrom
| O'Brien
(London – Fanshawe)
| O'Reilly
| Pagtakhan
|
Paradis
| Patry
| Peterson
| Pettigrew
|
Phinney
| Picard
(Drummond)
| Pickard
(Kent – Essex)
| Pillitteri
|
Plamondon
| Pratt
| Proctor
| Proud
|
Provenzano
| Redman
| Reed
| Richardson
|
Riis
| Robillard
| Rocheleau
| Saada
|
Sauvageau
| Scott
(Fredericton)
| Shepherd
| Solomon
|
Speller
| St. Denis
| Stewart
(Northumberland)
| St - Hilaire
|
St - Julien
| Stoffer
| Szabo
| Thibeault
|
Torsney
| Tremblay
(Lac - Saint - Jean)
| Turp
| Valeri
|
Vanclief
| Vautour
| Wasylycia - Leis
| Whelan
|
Wilfert – 181
|
PAIRED
Members
Cannis
| Copps
| Crête
| de Savoye
|
Desrochers
| Finestone
| Graham
| Lalonde
|
Loubier
| Marceau
| O'Brien
(Labrador)
| Parrish
|
Perron
| Stewart
(Brant)
| Telegdi
| Tremblay
(Rimouski – Mitis)
|
Ur
| Venne
|
The Speaker: I declare Motion No. 5 lost.
The next question is on Motion No. 6.
[Translation]
Mr. Bob Kilger: Mr. Speaker, I think you will find unanimous
consent that those members who voted on the previous motion be
recorded as having voted on the motion now before the House.
Liberal members will vote no.
The Speaker: Is that agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
[English]
Mr. Chuck Strahl: Mr. Speaker, Reform Party members
present vote no to this motion.
1925
[Translation]
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Mr. Speaker, members of the Bloc
Quebecois will be voting in favour of the motion.
[English]
Mr. John Solomon: Mr. Speaker, NDP members present will
vote yes to this motion.
[Translation]
Mr. André Harvey: Mr. Speaker, members of our party will be
voting in favour of the motion.
[English]
(The House divided on Motion No. 6, which was negatived on the
following division:)
YEAS
Members
Alarie
| Asselin
| Axworthy
(Saskatoon – Rosetown – Biggar)
| Bachand
(Richmond – Arthabaska)
|
Bachand
(Saint - Jean)
| Bellehumeur
| Bergeron
| Bernier
(Bonaventure – Gaspé – Îles - de - la - Madeleine – Pabok)
|
Bernier
(Tobique – Mactaquac)
| Bigras
| Blaikie
| Borotsik
|
Brien
| Brison
| Canuel
| Charest
|
Chrétien
(Frontenac – Mégantic)
| Dalphond - Guiral
| Davies
| Debien
|
Desjarlais
| Dockrill
| Dubé
(Lévis)
| Dubé
(Madawaska – Restigouche)
|
Duceppe
| Dumas
| Earle
| Fournier
|
Gagnon
| Gauthier
| Girard - Bujold
| Godin
(Acadie – Bathurst)
|
Guay
| Guimond
| Hardy
| Harvey
|
Herron
| Jones
| Keddy
(South Shore)
| Laurin
|
Lebel
| Lefebvre
| Lill
| MacKay
(Pictou – Antigonish – Guysborough)
|
Mancini
| Marchand
| Martin
(Winnipeg Centre)
| Matthews
|
Ménard
| Mercier
| Nystrom
| Picard
(Drummond)
|
Plamondon
| Price
| Proctor
| Riis
|
Rocheleau
| Sauvageau
| Solomon
| St - Hilaire
|
St - Jacques
| Stoffer
| Tremblay
(Lac - Saint - Jean)
| Turp
|
Vautour
| Wasylycia - Leis – 66
|
NAYS
Members
Abbott
| Ablonczy
| Adams
| Alcock
|
Anders
| Anderson
| Assad
| Assadourian
|
Augustine
| Axworthy
(Winnipeg South Centre)
| Bailey
| Baker
|
Bakopanos
| Barnes
| Beaumier
| Bélair
|
Bélanger
| Bellemare
| Bennett
| Benoit
|
Bevilacqua
| Blondin - Andrew
| Bonin
| Boudria
|
Bradshaw
| Breitkreuz
(Yellowhead)
| Breitkreuz
(Yorkton – Melville)
| Brown
|
Bryden
| Bulte
| Byrne
| Caccia
|
Cadman
| Calder
| Caplan
| Carroll
|
Casson
| Catterall
| Cauchon
| Chamberlain
|
Chan
| Charbonneau
| Chatters
| Clouthier
|
Coderre
| Cohen
| Collenette
| Comuzzi
|
Cullen
| DeVillers
| Dhaliwal
| Dion
|
Discepola
| Dromisky
| Drouin
| Duhamel
|
Duncan
| Easter
| Eggleton
| Epp
|
Finlay
| Folco
| Fontana
| Forseth
|
Fry
| Gagliano
| Gallaway
| Gilmour
|
Godfrey
| Goldring
| Goodale
| Gouk
|
Grewal
| Grey
(Edmonton North)
| Grose
| Harb
|
Hart
| Harvard
| Hill
(Macleod)
| Hill
(Prince George – Peace River)
|
Hilstrom
| Hoeppner
| Hubbard
| Iftody
|
Jackson
| Jennings
| Johnston
| Jordan
|
Karetak - Lindell
| Karygiannis
| Kenney
(Calgary - Sud - Est)
| Keyes
|
Kilger
(Stormont – Dundas)
| Kilgour
(Edmonton Southeast)
| Knutson
| Kraft Sloan
|
Lastewka
| Lee
| Leung
| Lincoln
|
Longfield
| Lowther
| Lunn
| MacAulay
|
Mahoney
| Malhi
| Maloney
| Manley
|
Manning
| Marchi
| Mark
| Marleau
|
Martin
(Esquimalt – Juan de Fuca)
| Massé
| McCormick
| McGuire
|
McKay
(Scarborough East)
| McLellan
(Edmonton West)
| McNally
| McTeague
|
McWhinney
| Meredith
| Mifflin
| Mills
(Broadview – Greenwood)
|
Mills
(Red Deer)
| Minna
| Mitchell
| Morrison
|
Murray
| Myers
| Nault
| Normand
|
Obhrai
| O'Brien
(London – Fanshawe)
| O'Reilly
| Pagtakhan
|
Pankiw
| Paradis
| Patry
| Penson
|
Peterson
| Pettigrew
| Phinney
| Pickard
(Kent – Essex)
|
Pillitteri
| Pratt
| Proud
| Provenzano
|
Ramsay
| Redman
| Reed
| Reynolds
|
Richardson
| Ritz
| Robillard
| Saada
|
Schmidt
| Scott
(Fredericton)
| Scott
(Skeena)
| Shepherd
|
Solberg
| Speller
| St. Denis
| Stewart
(Northumberland)
|
Stinson
| St - Julien
| Strahl
| Szabo
|
Thibeault
| Torsney
| Valeri
| Vanclief
|
Vellacott
| Whelan
| White
(Langley – Abbotsford)
| Wilfert
|
Williams
– 177
|
PAIRED
Members
Cannis
| Copps
| Crête
| de Savoye
|
Desrochers
| Finestone
| Graham
| Lalonde
|
Loubier
| Marceau
| O'Brien
(Labrador)
| Parrish
|
Perron
| Stewart
(Brant)
| Telegdi
| Tremblay
(Rimouski – Mitis)
|
Ur
| Venne
|
The Speaker: I declare Motion No. 6 lost.
Mr. Bob Kilger: Mr. Speaker, I believe you will find
consent to apply the results of the vote just taken to Motion No.
35.
The Speaker: Is there unanimous consent to apply?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
[Editor's Note: See list under Division No. 77]
The Speaker: I declare Motion 35 lost.
The next question is on Motion No. 10.
Mr. Bob Kilger: Mr. Speaker, if the House would agree I
would propose you seek unanimous consent that members who
voted on the previous motion be recorded as having voted on the
motion now before the House, with Liberal members voting nay.
The Speaker: Is there unanimous consent to proceed in
this fashion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Mr. Chuck Strahl: Mr. Speaker, Reform Party members
present will vote yes to this motion.
[Translation]
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Mr. Speaker, members of the Bloc
Quebecois will be voting against the motion.
[English]
Mr. John Solomon: Mr. Speaker, NDP members present in the
House tonight will vote no to this motion.
[Translation]
Mr. André Harvey: Mr. Speaker, members of our party will be
voting against the motion.
[English]
(The House divided on Motion No. 10, which was negatived on the
following division:)
YEAS
Members
Abbott
| Ablonczy
| Anders
| Bailey
|
Benoit
| Breitkreuz
(Yellowhead)
| Breitkreuz
(Yorkton – Melville)
| Cadman
|
Casson
| Chatters
| Duncan
| Epp
|
Forseth
| Gilmour
| Goldring
| Gouk
|
Grewal
| Grey
(Edmonton North)
| Hart
| Hill
(Macleod)
|
Hill
(Prince George – Peace River)
| Hilstrom
| Hoeppner
| Johnston
|
Kenney
(Calgary - Sud - Est)
| Lowther
| Lunn
| Manning
|
Mark
| Martin
(Esquimalt – Juan de Fuca)
| McNally
| Meredith
|
Mills
(Red Deer)
| Morrison
| Obhrai
| Pankiw
|
Penson
| Ramsay
| Reynolds
| Ritz
|
Schmidt
| Scott
(Skeena)
| Solberg
| Stinson
|
Strahl
| Vellacott
| White
(Langley – Abbotsford)
| Williams
– 48
|
NAYS
Members
Adams
| Alarie
| Alcock
| Anderson
|
Assad
| Assadourian
| Asselin
| Augustine
|
Axworthy
(Saskatoon – Rosetown – Biggar)
| Axworthy
(Winnipeg South Centre)
| Bachand
(Richmond – Arthabaska)
| Bachand
(Saint - Jean)
|
Baker
| Bakopanos
| Barnes
| Beaumier
|
Bélair
| Bélanger
| Bellehumeur
| Bellemare
|
Bennett
| Bergeron
| Bernier
(Bonaventure – Gaspé – Îles - de - la - Madeleine – Pabok)
| Bernier
(Tobique – Mactaquac)
|
Bevilacqua
| Bigras
| Blaikie
| Blondin - Andrew
|
Bonin
| Borotsik
| Boudria
| Bradshaw
|
Brien
| Brison
| Brown
| Bryden
|
Bulte
| Byrne
| Caccia
| Calder
|
Canuel
| Caplan
| Carroll
| Catterall
|
Cauchon
| Chamberlain
| Chan
| Charbonneau
|
Charest
| Chrétien
(Frontenac – Mégantic)
| Clouthier
| Coderre
|
Cohen
| Collenette
| Comuzzi
| Cullen
|
Dalphond - Guiral
| Davies
| Debien
| Desjarlais
|
DeVillers
| Dhaliwal
| Dion
| Discepola
|
Dockrill
| Dromisky
| Drouin
| Dubé
(Lévis)
|
Dubé
(Madawaska – Restigouche)
| Duceppe
| Duhamel
| Dumas
|
Earle
| Easter
| Eggleton
| Finlay
|
Folco
| Fontana
| Fournier
| Fry
|
Gagliano
| Gagnon
| Gallaway
| Gauthier
|
Girard - Bujold
| Godfrey
| Godin
(Acadie – Bathurst)
| Goodale
|
Grose
| Guay
| Guimond
| Harb
|
Hardy
| Harvard
| Harvey
| Herron
|
Hubbard
| Iftody
| Jackson
| Jennings
|
Jones
| Jordan
| Karetak - Lindell
| Karygiannis
|
Keddy
(South Shore)
| Keyes
| Kilger
(Stormont – Dundas)
| Kilgour
(Edmonton Southeast)
|
Knutson
| Kraft Sloan
| Lastewka
| Laurin
|
Lebel
| Lee
| Lefebvre
| Leung
|
Lill
| Lincoln
| Longfield
| MacAulay
|
MacKay
(Pictou – Antigonish – Guysborough)
| Mahoney
| Malhi
| Maloney
|
Mancini
| Manley
| Marchand
| Marchi
|
Marleau
| Martin
(Winnipeg Centre)
| Massé
| Matthews
|
McCormick
| McGuire
| McKay
(Scarborough East)
| McLellan
(Edmonton West)
|
McTeague
| McWhinney
| Ménard
| Mercier
|
Mifflin
| Mills
(Broadview – Greenwood)
| Minna
| Mitchell
|
Murray
| Myers
| Nault
| Normand
|
Nystrom
| O'Brien
(London – Fanshawe)
| O'Reilly
| Pagtakhan
|
Paradis
| Patry
| Peterson
| Pettigrew
|
Phinney
| Picard
(Drummond)
| Pickard
(Kent – Essex)
| Pillitteri
|
Plamondon
| Pratt
| Price
| Proctor
|
Proud
| Provenzano
| Redman
| Reed
|
Richardson
| Riis
| Robillard
| Rocheleau
|
Saada
| Sauvageau
| Scott
(Fredericton)
| Shepherd
|
Solomon
| Speller
| St. Denis
| Stewart
(Northumberland)
|
St - Hilaire
| St - Jacques
| St - Julien
| Stoffer
|
Szabo
| Thibeault
| Torsney
| Tremblay
(Lac - Saint - Jean)
|
Turp
| Valeri
| Vanclief
| Vautour
|
Wasylycia - Leis
| Whelan
| Wilfert – 195
|
PAIRED
Members
Cannis
| Copps
| Crête
| de Savoye
|
Desrochers
| Finestone
| Graham
| Lalonde
|
Loubier
| Marceau
| O'Brien
(Labrador)
| Parrish
|
Perron
| Stewart
(Brant)
| Telegdi
| Tremblay
(Rimouski – Mitis)
|
Ur
| Venne
|
The Speaker: I declare Motion No. 10 lost.
The next question is on Motion No. 13.
[Translation]
Mr. Bob Kilger: Mr. Speaker, you will find unanimous consent
for the members voting on the previous motion to be recorded as
voting on the motion currently before the House, the Liberals
voting nay.
The Speaker: Is that agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
[English]
Mr. Chuck Strahl: Mr. Speaker, the official opposition
votes no to this motion.
[Translation]
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Mr. Speaker, the members of the Bloc
Quebecois will oppose this motion.
[English]
Mr. John Solomon: Mr. Speaker, the NDP members present
vote yes to this motion.
[Translation]
Mr. André Harvey: Mr. Speaker, the members of our party will
vote in favour of the motion.
[English]
(The House divided on Motion No. 13, which was negatived on the
following division:)
YEAS
Members
Axworthy
(Saskatoon – Rosetown – Biggar)
| Bachand
(Richmond – Arthabaska)
| Bernier
(Tobique – Mactaquac)
| Blaikie
|
Borotsik
| Brison
| Charest
| Davies
|
Desjarlais
| Dockrill
| Dubé
(Madawaska – Restigouche)
| Earle
|
Godin
(Acadie – Bathurst)
| Hardy
| Harvey
| Herron
|
Jones
| Keddy
(South Shore)
| Lill
| MacKay
(Pictou – Antigonish – Guysborough)
|
Mancini
| Martin
(Winnipeg Centre)
| Matthews
| Nystrom
|
Price
| Proctor
| Riis
| Solomon
|
St - Jacques
| Stoffer
| Vautour
| Wasylycia - Leis – 32
|
NAYS
Members
Abbott
| Ablonczy
| Adams
| Alarie
|
Alcock
| Anders
| Anderson
| Assad
|
Assadourian
| Asselin
| Augustine
| Axworthy
(Winnipeg South Centre)
|
Bachand
(Saint - Jean)
| Bailey
| Baker
| Bakopanos
|
Barnes
| Beaumier
| Bélair
| Bélanger
|
Bellehumeur
| Bellemare
| Bennett
| Benoit
|
Bergeron
| Bernier
(Bonaventure – Gaspé – Îles - de - la - Madeleine – Pabok)
| Bevilacqua
| Bigras
|
Blondin - Andrew
| Bonin
| Boudria
| Bradshaw
|
Breitkreuz
(Yellowhead)
| Breitkreuz
(Yorkton – Melville)
| Brien
| Brown
|
Bryden
| Bulte
| Byrne
| Caccia
|
Cadman
| Calder
| Canuel
| Caplan
|
Carroll
| Casson
| Catterall
| Cauchon
|
Chamberlain
| Chan
| Charbonneau
| Chatters
|
Chrétien
(Frontenac – Mégantic)
| Clouthier
| Coderre
| Cohen
|
Collenette
| Comuzzi
| Cullen
| Dalphond - Guiral
|
Debien
| DeVillers
| Dhaliwal
| Dion
|
Discepola
| Dromisky
| Drouin
| Dubé
(Lévis)
|
Duceppe
| Duhamel
| Dumas
| Duncan
|
Easter
| Eggleton
| Epp
| Finlay
|
Folco
| Fontana
| Forseth
| Fournier
|
Fry
| Gagliano
| Gagnon
| Gallaway
|
Gauthier
| Gilmour
| Girard - Bujold
| Godfrey
|
Goldring
| Goodale
| Gouk
| Grewal
|
Grey
(Edmonton North)
| Grose
| Guay
| Guimond
|
Harb
| Hart
| Harvard
| Hill
(Macleod)
|
Hill
(Prince George – Peace River)
| Hilstrom
| Hoeppner
| Hubbard
|
Iftody
| Jackson
| Jennings
| Johnston
|
Jordan
| Karetak - Lindell
| Karygiannis
| Kenney
(Calgary - Sud - Est)
|
Keyes
| Kilger
(Stormont – Dundas)
| Kilgour
(Edmonton Southeast)
| Knutson
|
Kraft Sloan
| Lastewka
| Laurin
| Lebel
|
Lee
| Lefebvre
| Leung
| Lincoln
|
Longfield
| Lowther
| Lunn
| MacAulay
|
Mahoney
| Malhi
| Maloney
| Manley
|
Manning
| Marchand
| Marchi
| Mark
|
Marleau
| Martin
(Esquimalt – Juan de Fuca)
| Massé
| McCormick
|
McGuire
| McKay
(Scarborough East)
| McLellan
(Edmonton West)
| McNally
|
McTeague
| McWhinney
| Ménard
| Mercier
|
Meredith
| Mifflin
| Mills
(Broadview – Greenwood)
| Mills
(Red Deer)
|
Minna
| Mitchell
| Morrison
| Murray
|
Myers
| Nault
| Normand
| Obhrai
|
O'Brien
(London – Fanshawe)
| O'Reilly
| Pagtakhan
| Pankiw
|
Paradis
| Patry
| Penson
| Peterson
|
Pettigrew
| Phinney
| Picard
(Drummond)
| Pickard
(Kent – Essex)
|
Pillitteri
| Plamondon
| Pratt
| Proud
|
Provenzano
| Ramsay
| Redman
| Reed
|
Reynolds
| Richardson
| Ritz
| Robillard
|
Rocheleau
| Saada
| Sauvageau
| Schmidt
|
Scott
(Fredericton)
| Scott
(Skeena)
| Shepherd
| Solberg
|
Speller
| St. Denis
| Stewart
(Northumberland)
| St - Hilaire
|
Stinson
| St - Julien
| Strahl
| Szabo
|
Thibeault
| Torsney
| Tremblay
(Lac - Saint - Jean)
| Turp
|
Valeri
| Vanclief
| Vellacott
| Whelan
|
White
(Langley – Abbotsford)
| Wilfert
| Williams
– 211
|
PAIRED
Members
Cannis
| Copps
| Crête
| de Savoye
|
Desrochers
| Finestone
| Graham
| Lalonde
|
Loubier
| Marceau
| O'Brien
(Labrador)
| Parrish
|
Perron
| Stewart
(Brant)
| Telegdi
| Tremblay
(Rimouski – Mitis)
|
Ur
| Venne
|
1930
The Speaker: I declare Motion No. 13 lost.
Mr. Bob Kilger: Mr. Speaker, I believe you would find
consent to apply the results of the vote just taken to Motions
Nos. 30 and 44.
The Speaker: Is it agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
[Editor's Note: See list under Division No. 80]
The Speaker: I declare Motions Nos. 30 and 44 lost.
The next question is on Motion No. 22.
Shall I dispense?
Some hon. members: No.
The Speaker: Mr. Hill, Prince George—Peace River,
seconded by Mr. Breitkreuz, Yorkton—Melville, moves:
That Bill C-4, in clause 5, be amended by replacing lines 38 and
39 on page 7 with the following:
“5. The heading before section 5 and section 5 of the act are
replaced with the following:
5. The corporation is incorporated with the object of marketing,
in the best interests of producers, grain grown within the
designated area”.
1940
(The House divided on Motion No. 22, which was negatived on the
following division:)
YEAS
Members
Abbott
| Ablonczy
| Alarie
| Anders
|
Asselin
| Axworthy
(Saskatoon – Rosetown – Biggar)
| Bachand
(Richmond – Arthabaska)
| Bachand
(Saint - Jean)
|
Bailey
| Bellehumeur
| Benoit
| Bergeron
|
Bernier
(Bonaventure – Gaspé – Îles - de - la - Madeleine – Pabok)
| Bernier
(Tobique – Mactaquac)
| Bigras
| Blaikie
|
Borotsik
| Breitkreuz
(Yellowhead)
| Breitkreuz
(Yorkton – Melville)
| Brien
|
Brison
| Cadman
| Canuel
| Casson
|
Charest
| Chatters
| Chrétien
(Frontenac – Mégantic)
| Dalphond - Guiral
|
Davies
| Debien
| Desjarlais
| Dockrill
|
Dubé
(Lévis)
| Dubé
(Madawaska – Restigouche)
| Duceppe
| Dumas
|
Duncan
| Earle
| Epp
| Forseth
|
Fournier
| Gagnon
| Gauthier
| Gilmour
|
Girard - Bujold
| Godin
(Acadie – Bathurst)
| Goldring
| Gouk
|
Grewal
| Grey
(Edmonton North)
| Guay
| Guimond
|
Hardy
| Hart
| Harvey
| Herron
|
Hill
(Macleod)
| Hill
(Prince George – Peace River)
| Hilstrom
| Hoeppner
|
Johnston
| Jones
| Keddy
(South Shore)
| Kenney
(Calgary - Sud - Est)
|
Laurin
| Lebel
| Lefebvre
| Lill
|
Lowther
| Lunn
| MacKay
(Pictou – Antigonish – Guysborough)
| Mancini
|
Manning
| Marchand
| Mark
| Martin
(Esquimalt – Juan de Fuca)
|
Martin
(Winnipeg Centre)
| Matthews
| McNally
| Ménard
|
Mercier
| Meredith
| Mills
(Red Deer)
| Morrison
|
Nystrom
| Obhrai
| Pankiw
| Penson
|
Picard
(Drummond)
| Plamondon
| Price
| Proctor
|
Ramsay
| Reynolds
| Riis
| Ritz
|
Rocheleau
| Sauvageau
| Schmidt
| Scott
(Skeena)
|
Solberg
| Solomon
| St - Hilaire
| Stinson
|
St - Jacques
| Stoffer
| Strahl
| Tremblay
(Lac - Saint - Jean)
|
Turp
| Vautour
| Vellacott
| Wasylycia - Leis
|
White
(Langley – Abbotsford)
| Williams – 114
|
NAYS
Members
Adams
| Alcock
| Anderson
| Assad
|
Assadourian
| Augustine
| Axworthy
(Winnipeg South Centre)
| Baker
|
Bakopanos
| Barnes
| Beaumier
| Bélair
|
Bélanger
| Bellemare
| Bennett
| Bevilacqua
|
Blondin - Andrew
| Bonin
| Boudria
| Bradshaw
|
Brown
| Bryden
| Bulte
| Byrne
|
Caccia
| Calder
| Caplan
| Carroll
|
Catterall
| Cauchon
| Chamberlain
| Chan
|
Charbonneau
| Clouthier
| Coderre
| Cohen
|
Collenette
| Comuzzi
| Cullen
| DeVillers
|
Dhaliwal
| Dion
| Discepola
| Dromisky
|
Drouin
| Duhamel
| Easter
| Eggleton
|
Finlay
| Folco
| Fontana
| Fry
|
Gagliano
| Gallaway
| Godfrey
| Goodale
|
Grose
| Harb
| Harvard
| Hubbard
|
Iftody
| Jackson
| Jennings
| Jordan
|
Karetak - Lindell
| Karygiannis
| Keyes
| Kilger
(Stormont – Dundas)
|
Kilgour
(Edmonton Southeast)
| Knutson
| Kraft Sloan
| Lastewka
|
Lee
| Leung
| Lincoln
| Longfield
|
MacAulay
| Mahoney
| Malhi
| Maloney
|
Marchi
| Marleau
| Massé
| McCormick
|
McGuire
| McKay
(Scarborough East)
| McLellan
(Edmonton West)
| McTeague
|
McWhinney
| Mifflin
| Mills
(Broadview – Greenwood)
| Minna
|
Mitchell
| Murray
| Myers
| Nault
|
Normand
| O'Brien
(London – Fanshawe)
| O'Reilly
| Pagtakhan
|
Paradis
| Patry
| Peterson
| Pettigrew
|
Phinney
| Pickard
(Kent – Essex)
| Pillitteri
| Pratt
|
Proud
| Provenzano
| Redman
| Reed
|
Richardson
| Robillard
| Saada
| Scott
(Fredericton)
|
Shepherd
| Speller
| St. Denis
| Stewart
(Northumberland)
|
St - Julien
| Szabo
| Thibeault
| Torsney
|
Valeri
| Vanclief
| Whelan
| Wilfert – 128
|
PAIRED
Members
Cannis
| Copps
| Crête
| de Savoye
|
Desrochers
| Finestone
| Graham
| Lalonde
|
Loubier
| Marceau
| O'Brien
(Labrador)
| Parrish
|
Perron
| Stewart
(Brant)
| Telegdi
| Tremblay
(Rimouski – Mitis)
|
Ur
| Venne
|
The Speaker: I declare Motion No. 22 lost. The next
question is on Motion No. 25.
Mr. Bob Kilger: Mr. Speaker, I propose that you seek
unanimous consent that members who voted on the previous motion
be recorded as having voted on the motion now before the House,
with Liberal members voting nay.
The Speaker: Is there unanimous consent to proceed in
this fashion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Mr. Chuck Strahl: Mr. Speaker, Reform Party members
present will vote yes to this motion.
[Translation]
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Mr. Speaker, the members of the Bloc
Quebecois will oppose this motion.
[English]
Mr. John Solomon: Mr. Speaker, NDP members present will
vote yes to this motion.
[Translation]
Mr. André Harvey: Mr. Speaker, the members of our party will
vote in favour of the motion.
[English]
(The House divided on Motion No. 25, which was negatived on the
following division:)
YEAS
Members
Abbott
| Ablonczy
| Anders
| Axworthy
(Saskatoon – Rosetown – Biggar)
|
Bachand
(Richmond – Arthabaska)
| Bailey
| Benoit
| Bernier
(Tobique – Mactaquac)
|
Blaikie
| Borotsik
| Breitkreuz
(Yellowhead)
| Breitkreuz
(Yorkton – Melville)
|
Brison
| Cadman
| Casson
| Charest
|
Chatters
| Davies
| Desjarlais
| Dockrill
|
Dubé
(Madawaska – Restigouche)
| Duncan
| Earle
| Epp
|
Forseth
| Gilmour
| Godin
(Acadie – Bathurst)
| Goldring
|
Gouk
| Grewal
| Grey
(Edmonton North)
| Hardy
|
Hart
| Harvey
| Herron
| Hill
(Macleod)
|
Hill
(Prince George – Peace River)
| Hilstrom
| Hoeppner
| Johnston
|
Jones
| Keddy
(South Shore)
| Kenney
(Calgary - Sud - Est)
| Lill
|
Lowther
| Lunn
| MacKay
(Pictou – Antigonish – Guysborough)
| Mancini
|
Manning
| Mark
| Martin
(Esquimalt – Juan de Fuca)
| Martin
(Winnipeg Centre)
|
Matthews
| McNally
| Meredith
| Mills
(Red Deer)
|
Morrison
| Nystrom
| Obhrai
| Pankiw
|
Penson
| Price
| Proctor
| Ramsay
|
Reynolds
| Riis
| Ritz
| Schmidt
|
Scott
(Skeena)
| Solberg
| Solomon
| Stinson
|
St - Jacques
| Stoffer
| Strahl
| Vautour
|
Vellacott
| Wasylycia - Leis
| White
(Langley – Abbotsford)
| Williams – 80
|
NAYS
Members
Adams
| Alarie
| Alcock
| Anderson
|
Assad
| Assadourian
| Asselin
| Augustine
|
Axworthy
(Winnipeg South Centre)
| Bachand
(Saint - Jean)
| Baker
| Bakopanos
|
Barnes
| Beaumier
| Bélair
| Bélanger
|
Bellehumeur
| Bellemare
| Bennett
| Bergeron
|
Bernier
(Bonaventure – Gaspé – Îles - de - la - Madeleine – Pabok)
| Bevilacqua
| Bigras
| Blondin - Andrew
|
Bonin
| Boudria
| Bradshaw
| Brien
|
Brown
| Bryden
| Bulte
| Byrne
|
Caccia
| Calder
| Canuel
| Caplan
|
Carroll
| Catterall
| Cauchon
| Chamberlain
|
Chan
| Charbonneau
| Chrétien
(Frontenac – Mégantic)
| Clouthier
|
Coderre
| Cohen
| Collenette
| Comuzzi
|
Cullen
| Dalphond - Guiral
| Debien
| DeVillers
|
Dhaliwal
| Dion
| Discepola
| Dromisky
|
Drouin
| Dubé
(Lévis)
| Duceppe
| Duhamel
|
Dumas
| Easter
| Eggleton
| Finlay
|
Folco
| Fontana
| Fournier
| Fry
|
Gagliano
| Gagnon
| Gallaway
| Gauthier
|
Girard - Bujold
| Godfrey
| Goodale
| Grose
|
Guay
| Guimond
| Harb
| Harvard
|
Hubbard
| Iftody
| Jackson
| Jennings
|
Jordan
| Karetak - Lindell
| Karygiannis
| Keyes
|
Kilger
(Stormont – Dundas)
| Kilgour
(Edmonton Southeast)
| Knutson
| Kraft Sloan
|
Lastewka
| Laurin
| Lebel
| Lee
|
Lefebvre
| Leung
| Lincoln
| Longfield
|
MacAulay
| Mahoney
| Malhi
| Maloney
|
Marchand
| Marchi
| Marleau
| Massé
|
McCormick
| McGuire
| McKay
(Scarborough East)
| McLellan
(Edmonton West)
|
McTeague
| McWhinney
| Ménard
| Mercier
|
Mifflin
| Mills
(Broadview – Greenwood)
| Minna
| Mitchell
|
Murray
| Myers
| Nault
| Normand
|
O'Brien
(London – Fanshawe)
| O'Reilly
| Pagtakhan
| Paradis
|
Patry
| Peterson
| Pettigrew
| Phinney
|
Picard
(Drummond)
| Pickard
(Kent – Essex)
| Pillitteri
| Plamondon
|
Pratt
| Proud
| Provenzano
| Redman
|
Reed
| Richardson
| Robillard
| Rocheleau
|
Saada
| Sauvageau
| Scott
(Fredericton)
| Shepherd
|
Speller
| St. Denis
| Stewart
(Northumberland)
| St - Hilaire
|
St - Julien
| Szabo
| Thibeault
| Torsney
|
Tremblay
(Lac - Saint - Jean)
| Turp
| Valeri
| Vanclief
|
Whelan
| Wilfert – 162
|
PAIRED
Members
Cannis
| Copps
| Crête
| de Savoye
|
Desrochers
| Finestone
| Graham
| Lalonde
|
Loubier
| Marceau
| O'Brien
(Labrador)
| Parrish
|
Perron
| Stewart
(Brant)
| Telegdi
| Tremblay
(Rimouski – Mitis)
|
Ur
| Venne
|
The Speaker: I declare Motion No. 25 lost.
Mr. Bob Kilger: Mr. Speaker, I believe you will find
consent to apply the results of the vote just taken to Motions
Nos. 26 and 47.
The Speaker: Is there unanimous consent to proceed in
this fashion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
[Editor's Note: See list under Division No. 82]
The Speaker: I declare Motions Nos. 26 and 47 lost.
The next question is on Motion No. 32. Shall I dispense?
Some hon. members: No.
The Speaker: Mr. Hill, Prince George—Peace River,
seconded by Mr. Breitkreuz, Yorkton—Melville, moves:
That Bill C-4 be amended by adding after line 3, on page 10, the
following:
“8.1 Section 9 of the act is amended by adding after paragraph
9(1)(e) the following:
(f) show such particulars and furnish such information as
requested for the purpose of an audit by the Auditor General of
Canada.
(g) provide such records and information as requested under the
Access to Information Act. The corporation shall continue to be
a “government institution” within the meaning of the Access to
Information Act”.
1950
(The House divided on Motion No. 32, which was negatived on the
following division:)
YEAS
Members
Abbott
| Ablonczy
| Alarie
| Anders
|
Asselin
| Bachand
(Richmond – Arthabaska)
| Bachand
(Saint - Jean)
| Bailey
|
Bellehumeur
| Benoit
| Bergeron
| Bernier
(Bonaventure – Gaspé – Îles - de - la - Madeleine – Pabok)
|
Bernier
(Tobique – Mactaquac)
| Bigras
| Borotsik
| Breitkreuz
(Yellowhead)
|
Breitkreuz
(Yorkton – Melville)
| Brien
| Brison
| Cadman
|
Canuel
| Casson
| Charest
| Chatters
|
Chrétien
(Frontenac – Mégantic)
| Dalphond - Guiral
| Debien
| Dubé
(Lévis)
|
Dubé
(Madawaska – Restigouche)
| Duceppe
| Dumas
| Duncan
|
Epp
| Forseth
| Fournier
| Gagnon
|
Gauthier
| Gilmour
| Girard - Bujold
| Goldring
|
Gouk
| Grewal
| Grey
(Edmonton North)
| Guay
|
Guimond
| Hart
| Harvey
| Herron
|
Hill
(Macleod)
| Hill
(Prince George – Peace River)
| Hilstrom
| Hoeppner
|
Johnston
| Jones
| Keddy
(South Shore)
| Kenney
(Calgary - Sud - Est)
|
Laurin
| Lebel
| Lefebvre
| Lowther
|
Lunn
| MacKay
(Pictou – Antigonish – Guysborough)
| Manning
| Marchand
|
Mark
| Martin
(Esquimalt – Juan de Fuca)
| Matthews
| McNally
|
Ménard
| Mercier
| Meredith
| Mills
(Red Deer)
|
Morrison
| Obhrai
| Pankiw
| Penson
|
Picard
(Drummond)
| Plamondon
| Price
| Ramsay
|
Reynolds
| Ritz
| Rocheleau
| Sauvageau
|
Schmidt
| Scott
(Skeena)
| Solberg
| St - Hilaire
|
Stinson
| St - Jacques
| Strahl
| Tremblay
(Lac - Saint - Jean)
|
Turp
| Vellacott
| White
(Langley – Abbotsford)
| Williams – 96
|
NAYS
Members
Adams
| Alcock
| Anderson
| Assadourian
|
Augustine
| Axworthy
(Saskatoon – Rosetown – Biggar)
| Axworthy
(Winnipeg South Centre)
| Baker
|
Bakopanos
| Barnes
| Beaumier
| Bélair
|
Bélanger
| Bellemare
| Bennett
| Bevilacqua
|
Blaikie
| Blondin - Andrew
| Bonin
| Boudria
|
Bradshaw
| Brown
| Bryden
| Bulte
|
Byrne
| Caccia
| Calder
| Caplan
|
Carroll
| Catterall
| Cauchon
| Chamberlain
|
Chan
| Charbonneau
| Clouthier
| Coderre
|
Cohen
| Collenette
| Comuzzi
| Cullen
|
Davies
| Desjarlais
| DeVillers
| Dhaliwal
|
Dion
| Discepola
| Dockrill
| Dromisky
|
Drouin
| Duhamel
| Earle
| Easter
|
Eggleton
| Finlay
| Folco
| Fontana
|
Fry
| Gagliano
| Gallaway
| Godfrey
|
Godin
(Acadie – Bathurst)
| Goodale
| Grose
| Harb
|
Hardy
| Harvard
| Hubbard
| Iftody
|
Jackson
| Jennings
| Jordan
| Karetak - Lindell
|
Karygiannis
| Keyes
| Kilger
(Stormont – Dundas)
| Kilgour
(Edmonton Southeast)
|
Knutson
| Kraft Sloan
| Lastewka
| Lee
|
Leung
| Lill
| Lincoln
| Longfield
|
MacAulay
| Mahoney
| Malhi
| Maloney
|
Mancini
| Marchi
| Marleau
| Martin
(Winnipeg Centre)
|
Massé
| McCormick
| McGuire
| McKay
(Scarborough East)
|
McLellan
(Edmonton West)
| McTeague
| McWhinney
| Mifflin
|
Mills
(Broadview – Greenwood)
| Minna
| Mitchell
| Murray
|
Myers
| Nault
| Normand
| Nystrom
|
O'Brien
(London – Fanshawe)
| O'Reilly
| Pagtakhan
| Paradis
|
Patry
| Peterson
| Pettigrew
| Phinney
|
Pickard
(Kent – Essex)
| Pillitteri
| Pratt
| Proctor
|
Proud
| Provenzano
| Redman
| Reed
|
Richardson
| Riis
| Robillard
| Saada
|
Scott
(Fredericton)
| Shepherd
| Solomon
| Speller
|
St. Denis
| Stewart
(Northumberland)
| St - Julien
| Stoffer
|
Szabo
| Thibeault
| Torsney
| Valeri
|
Vanclief
| Vautour
| Wasylycia - Leis
| Whelan
|
Wilfert – 145
|
PAIRED
Members
The Speaker: I declare Motion No. 32 lost. The next
question is on Motion No. 36.
[Translation]
Mr. Bob Kilger: Mr. Speaker, you will find unanimous consent
for the members voting on the previous motion to be recorded as
voting on the motion currently before the House, the Liberals
voting nay.
[English]
The Speaker: Is there unanimous consent to proceed in
this way?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Mr. Chuck Strahl: Mr. Speaker, the official opposition
will vote no to this motion.
[Translation]
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Mr. Speaker, the members of the Bloc
Quebecois will vote in favour of this motion.
[English]
Mr. John Solomon: Mr. Speaker, NDP members present will
vote yes to this motion.
[Translation]
Mr. André Harvey: Mr. Speaker, members of our party will vote nay
on this motion.
[English]
(The House divided on Motion No. 36, which was negatived on the
following division:)
YEAS
Members
Alarie
| Asselin
| Axworthy
(Saskatoon – Rosetown – Biggar)
| Bachand
(Saint - Jean)
|
Bellehumeur
| Bergeron
| Bernier
(Bonaventure – Gaspé – Îles - de - la - Madeleine – Pabok)
| Bigras
|
Blaikie
| Brien
| Canuel
| Chrétien
(Frontenac – Mégantic)
|
Dalphond - Guiral
| Davies
| Debien
| Desjarlais
|
Dockrill
| Dubé
(Lévis)
| Duceppe
| Dumas
|
Earle
| Fournier
| Gagnon
| Gauthier
|
Girard - Bujold
| Godin
(Acadie – Bathurst)
| Guay
| Guimond
|
Hardy
| Laurin
| Lebel
| Lefebvre
|
Lill
| Mancini
| Marchand
| Martin
(Winnipeg Centre)
|
Ménard
| Mercier
| Nystrom
| Picard
(Drummond)
|
Plamondon
| Proctor
| Riis
| Rocheleau
|
Sauvageau
| Solomon
| St - Hilaire
| Stoffer
|
Tremblay
(Lac - Saint - Jean)
| Turp
| Vautour
| Wasylycia - Leis – 52
|
NAYS
Members
Abbott
| Ablonczy
| Adams
| Alcock
|
Anderson
| Assad
| Assadourian
| Augustine
|
Axworthy
(Winnipeg South Centre)
| Bachand
(Richmond – Arthabaska)
| Bailey
| Baker
|
Bakopanos
| Barnes
| Beaumier
| Bélair
|
Bélanger
| Bellemare
| Bennett
| Benoit
|
Bernier
(Tobique – Mactaquac)
| Bevilacqua
| Blondin - Andrew
| Bonin
|
Borotsik
| Boudria
| Bradshaw
| Breitkreuz
(Yellowhead)
|
Breitkreuz
(Yorkton – Melville)
| Brison
| Brown
| Bryden
|
Bulte
| Byrne
| Caccia
| Cadman
|
Calder
| Caplan
| Carroll
| Casson
|
Catterall
| Cauchon
| Chamberlain
| Chan
|
Charbonneau
| Charest
| Chatters
| Clouthier
|
Coderre
| Cohen
| Collenette
| Comuzzi
|
Cullen
| DeVillers
| Dhaliwal
| Dion
|
Discepola
| Dromisky
| Drouin
| Dubé
(Madawaska – Restigouche)
|
Duhamel
| Duncan
| Easter
| Eggleton
|
Epp
| Finlay
| Folco
| Fontana
|
Forseth
| Fry
| Gagliano
| Gallaway
|
Gilmour
| Godfrey
| Goldring
| Goodale
|
Gouk
| Grewal
| Grey
(Edmonton North)
| Grose
|
Harb
| Hart
| Harvard
| Harvey
|
Herron
| Hill
(Macleod)
| Hill
(Prince George – Peace River)
| Hilstrom
|
Hoeppner
| Hubbard
| Iftody
| Jackson
|
Jennings
| Johnston
| Jones
| Jordan
|
Karetak - Lindell
| Karygiannis
| Keddy
(South Shore)
| Kenney
(Calgary - Sud - Est)
|
Keyes
| Kilger
(Stormont – Dundas)
| Kilgour
(Edmonton Southeast)
| Knutson
|
Kraft Sloan
| Lastewka
| Lee
| Leung
|
Lincoln
| Longfield
| Lowther
| Lunn
|
MacAulay
| MacKay
(Pictou – Antigonish – Guysborough)
| Mahoney
| Malhi
|
Maloney
| Manning
| Marchi
| Mark
|
Marleau
| Martin
(Esquimalt – Juan de Fuca)
| Massé
| Matthews
|
McCormick
| McGuire
| McKay
(Scarborough East)
| McLellan
(Edmonton West)
|
McNally
| McTeague
| McWhinney
| Meredith
|
Mifflin
| Mills
(Broadview – Greenwood)
| Mills
(Red Deer)
| Minna
|
Mitchell
| Morrison
| Murray
| Myers
|
Nault
| Normand
| Obhrai
| O'Brien
(London – Fanshawe)
|
O'Reilly
| Pagtakhan
| Pankiw
| Paradis
|
Patry
| Penson
| Peterson
| Pettigrew
|
Phinney
| Pickard
(Kent – Essex)
| Pillitteri
| Pratt
|
Price
| Proud
| Provenzano
| Ramsay
|
Redman
| Reed
| Reynolds
| Richardson
|
Ritz
| Robillard
| Saada
| Schmidt
|
Scott
(Fredericton)
| Scott
(Skeena)
| Shepherd
| Solberg
|
Speller
| St. Denis
| Steckle
| Stewart
(Northumberland)
|
Stinson
| St - Jacques
| St - Julien
| Strahl
|
Szabo
| Torsney
| Valeri
| Vanclief
|
Vellacott
| Whelan
| White
(Langley – Abbotsford)
| Wilfert
|
Williams
– 189
|
PAIRED
Members
Cannis
| Copps
| Crête
| de Savoye
|
Desrochers
| Finestone
| Graham
| Lalonde
|
Loubier
| Marceau
| O'Brien
(Labrador)
| Parrish
|
Perron
| Stewart
(Brant)
| Telegdi
| Tremblay
(Rimouski – Mitis)
|
Ur
| Venne
|
The Speaker: I declare Motion No. 36 lost. The next
question is on Motion No. 39.
Mr. Bob Kilger: Mr. Speaker, I believe you would find
consent to apply the results of the vote just taken to Motion No.
39.
The Speaker: Is there unanimous consent to proceed in
this way?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
[Editor's Note: See list under Division No. 084]
The Speaker: I declare Motion No. 39 lost. The next
question is on Motion No. 43.
[Translation]
Mr. Borotsik, seconded by Mr. Prise, move that Bill C-4 be amended
by deleting clause 26.
1955
Shall I dispense?
Some hon. members: No.
The Speaker: Pursuant to Standing Order 76(2), notice also
received from Mr. Hill (Prince George—Peace River) on November 17,
1997.
2000
[English]
(The House divided on Motion No. 43, which was negatived on the
following division:)
YEAS
Members
Abbott
| Ablonczy
| Alarie
| Anders
|
Asselin
| Bachand
(Richmond – Arthabaska)
| Bachand
(Saint - Jean)
| Bailey
|
Bellehumeur
| Benoit
| Bergeron
| Bernier
(Bonaventure – Gaspé – Îles - de - la - Madeleine – Pabok)
|
Bernier
(Tobique – Mactaquac)
| Bigras
| Borotsik
| Breitkreuz
(Yellowhead)
|
Breitkreuz
(Yorkton – Melville)
| Brien
| Brison
| Cadman
|
Canuel
| Casson
| Charest
| Chatters
|
Chrétien
(Frontenac – Mégantic)
| Dalphond - Guiral
| Debien
| Dubé
(Lévis)
|
Dubé
(Madawaska – Restigouche)
| Duceppe
| Dumas
| Duncan
|
Epp
| Forseth
| Fournier
| Gagnon
|
Gauthier
| Gilmour
| Girard - Bujold
| Goldring
|
Gouk
| Grewal
| Grey
(Edmonton North)
| Guay
|
Guimond
| Hart
| Harvey
| Herron
|
Hill
(Macleod)
| Hill
(Prince George – Peace River)
| Hilstrom
| Hoeppner
|
Johnston
| Jones
| Keddy
(South Shore)
| Kenney
(Calgary - Sud - Est)
|
Laurin
| Lebel
| Lefebvre
| Lowther
|
Lunn
| MacKay
(Pictou – Antigonish – Guysborough)
| Manning
| Marchand
|
Mark
| Martin
(Esquimalt – Juan de Fuca)
| Matthews
| McNally
|
Ménard
| Mercier
| Meredith
| Mills
(Red Deer)
|
Morrison
| Obhrai
| Pankiw
| Penson
|
Picard
(Drummond)
| Plamondon
| Price
| Ramsay
|
Reynolds
| Ritz
| Rocheleau
| Sauvageau
|
Schmidt
| Scott
(Skeena)
| Solberg
| St - Hilaire
|
Stinson
| St - Jacques
| Strahl
| Tremblay
(Lac - Saint - Jean)
|
Turp
| Vellacott
| White
(Langley – Abbotsford)
| Williams – 96
|
NAYS
Members
Adams
| Alcock
| Anderson
| Assadourian
|
Augustine
| Axworthy
(Saskatoon – Rosetown – Biggar)
| Axworthy
(Winnipeg South Centre)
| Baker
|
Bakopanos
| Barnes
| Beaumier
| Bélair
|
Bélanger
| Bellemare
| Bennett
| Bevilacqua
|
Blaikie
| Blondin - Andrew
| Bonin
| Boudria
|
Bradshaw
| Brown
| Bryden
| Bulte
|
Byrne
| Caccia
| Calder
| Caplan
|
Carroll
| Catterall
| Cauchon
| Chamberlain
|
Chan
| Charbonneau
| Clouthier
| Coderre
|
Cohen
| Collenette
| Comuzzi
| Cullen
|
Davies
| Desjarlais
| DeVillers
| Dhaliwal
|
Dion
| Discepola
| Dockrill
| Dromisky
|
Drouin
| Duhamel
| Earle
| Easter
|
Eggleton
| Finlay
| Folco
| Fontana
|
Fry
| Gagliano
| Gallaway
| Godfrey
|
Godin
(Acadie – Bathurst)
| Goodale
| Grose
| Harb
|
Hardy
| Harvard
| Hubbard
| Iftody
|
Jackson
| Jennings
| Jordan
| Karetak - Lindell
|
Karygiannis
| Keyes
| Kilger
(Stormont – Dundas)
| Kilgour
(Edmonton Southeast)
|
Knutson
| Kraft Sloan
| Lastewka
| Lee
|
Leung
| Lill
| Lincoln
| Longfield
|
MacAulay
| Mahoney
| Malhi
| Maloney
|
Mancini
| Marchi
| Marleau
| Martin
(Winnipeg Centre)
|
Massé
| McCormick
| McGuire
| McKay
(Scarborough East)
|
McLellan
(Edmonton West)
| McTeague
| McWhinney
| Mifflin
|
Mills
(Broadview – Greenwood)
| Minna
| Mitchell
| Murray
|
Myers
| Nault
| Normand
| Nystrom
|
O'Brien
(London – Fanshawe)
| O'Reilly
| Pagtakhan
| Paradis
|
Patry
| Peterson
| Pettigrew
| Phinney
|
Pickard
(Kent – Essex)
| Pillitteri
| Pratt
| Proctor
|
Proud
| Provenzano
| Redman
| Reed
|
Richardson
| Riis
| Robillard
| Saada
|
Scott
(Fredericton)
| Shepherd
| Solomon
| Speller
|
St. Denis
| Stewart
(Northumberland)
| St - Julien
| Stoffer
|
Szabo
| Thibeault
| Torsney
| Valeri
|
Vanclief
| Vautour
| Wasylycia - Leis
| Whelan
|
Wilfert – 145
|
PAIRED
Members
The Speaker: I declare Motion No. 43 lost.
Hon. Ralph E. Goodale (Minister of Natural Resources and
Minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board, Lib.) moved
that Bill C-4 be concurred in and read the second time.
Mr. Bob Kilger: Mr. Speaker, if the House would agree, I
propose that you seek unanimous consent that members who voted on
the previous motion be recorded as having voted on the motion now
before the House, with Liberal members voting yea.
The Speaker: Is there agreement to proceed in this way?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Mr. Chuck Strahl: Mr. Speaker, with a special thank you
for the hon. member for Prince George—Peace River, the official
opposition votes no.
2005
[Translation]
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Mr. Speaker, members of the Bloc Quebecois
will be voting against this motion.
[English]
Mr. John Solomon: Mr. Speaker, NDP members vote no on
this motion.
[Translation]
Mr. André Harvey: Mr. Speaker, members of our party will be voting
against this motion.
[English]
(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the
following division:)
YEAS
Members
Adams
| Alcock
| Anderson
| Assadourian
|
Augustine
| Axworthy
(Winnipeg South Centre)
| Baker
| Bakopanos
|
Barnes
| Beaumier
| Bélair
| Bélanger
|
Bellemare
| Bennett
| Bevilacqua
| Blondin - Andrew
|
Bonin
| Boudria
| Bradshaw
| Brown
|
Bryden
| Bulte
| Byrne
| Caccia
|
Calder
| Caplan
| Carroll
| Catterall
|
Cauchon
| Chamberlain
| Chan
| Charbonneau
|
Clouthier
| Coderre
| Cohen
| Collenette
|
Comuzzi
| Cullen
| DeVillers
| Dhaliwal
|
Dion
| Discepola
| Dromisky
| Drouin
|
Duhamel
| Easter
| Eggleton
| Finlay
|
Folco
| Fontana
| Fry
| Gagliano
|
Gallaway
| Godfrey
| Goodale
| Grose
|
Harb
| Harvard
| Hubbard
| Iftody
|
Jackson
| Jennings
| Jordan
| Karetak - Lindell
|
Karygiannis
| Keyes
| Kilger
(Stormont – Dundas)
| Kilgour
(Edmonton Southeast)
|
Knutson
| Kraft Sloan
| Lastewka
| Lee
|
Leung
| Lincoln
| Longfield
| MacAulay
|
Mahoney
| Malhi
| Maloney
| Marchi
|
Marleau
| Massé
| McCormick
| McGuire
|
McKay
(Scarborough East)
| McLellan
(Edmonton West)
| McTeague
| McWhinney
|
Mifflin
| Mills
(Broadview – Greenwood)
| Minna
| Mitchell
|
Murray
| Myers
| Nault
| Normand
|
O'Brien
(London – Fanshawe)
| O'Reilly
| Pagtakhan
| Paradis
|
Patry
| Peterson
| Pettigrew
| Phinney
|
Pickard
(Kent – Essex)
| Pillitteri
| Pratt
| Proud
|
Provenzano
| Redman
| Reed
| Richardson
|
Robillard
| Saada
| Scott
(Fredericton)
| Shepherd
|
Speller
| St. Denis
| Stewart
(Northumberland)
| St - Julien
|
Szabo
| Thibeault
| Torsney
| Valeri
|
Vanclief
| Whelan
| Wilfert – 127
|
NAYS
Members
Abbott
| Ablonczy
| Alarie
| Anders
|
Asselin
| Axworthy
(Saskatoon – Rosetown – Biggar)
| Bachand
(Richmond – Arthabaska)
| Bachand
(Saint - Jean)
|
Bailey
| Bellehumeur
| Benoit
| Bergeron
|
Bernier
(Bonaventure – Gaspé – Îles - de - la - Madeleine – Pabok)
| Bernier
(Tobique – Mactaquac)
| Bigras
| Blaikie
|
Borotsik
| Breitkreuz
(Yellowhead)
| Breitkreuz
(Yorkton – Melville)
| Brien
|
Brison
| Cadman
| Canuel
| Casson
|
Charest
| Chatters
| Chrétien
(Frontenac – Mégantic)
| Dalphond - Guiral
|
Davies
| Debien
| Desjarlais
| Dockrill
|
Dubé
(Lévis)
| Dubé
(Madawaska – Restigouche)
| Duceppe
| Dumas
|
Duncan
| Earle
| Epp
| Forseth
|
Fournier
| Gagnon
| Gauthier
| Gilmour
|
Girard - Bujold
| Godin
(Acadie – Bathurst)
| Goldring
| Gouk
|
Grewal
| Grey
(Edmonton North)
| Guay
| Guimond
|
Hardy
| Hart
| Harvey
| Herron
|
Hill
(Macleod)
| Hill
(Prince George – Peace River)
| Hilstrom
| Hoeppner
|
Johnston
| Jones
| Keddy
(South Shore)
| Kenney
(Calgary - Sud - Est)
|
Laurin
| Lebel
| Lefebvre
| Lill
|
Lowther
| Lunn
| MacKay
(Pictou – Antigonish – Guysborough)
| Mancini
|
Manning
| Marchand
| Mark
| Martin
(Esquimalt – Juan de Fuca)
|
Martin
(Winnipeg Centre)
| Matthews
| McNally
| Ménard
|
Mercier
| Meredith
| Mills
(Red Deer)
| Morrison
|
Obhrai
| Pankiw
| Penson
| Picard
(Drummond)
|
Plamondon
| Price
| Proctor
| Ramsay
|
Reynolds
| Riis
| Ritz
| Rocheleau
|
Sauvageau
| Schmidt
| Scott
(Skeena)
| Solberg
|
Solomon
| St - Hilaire
| Stinson
| St - Jacques
|
Stoffer
| Strahl
| Tremblay
(Lac - Saint - Jean)
| Turp
|
Vautour
| Vellacott
| Wasylycia - Leis
| White
(Langley – Abbotsford)
|
Williams – 113
|
PAIRED
Members
The Speaker: I declare the motion carried.
(Bill read the second time)
ADJOURNMENT PROCEEDINGS
[English]
A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38 deemed to
have been moved.
SHIPBUILDING
Mr. Gordon Earle (Halifax West, NDP): Madam Speaker,
something has to be done to create a much more competitive
shipbuilding industry. The government should now, as it should
have done long ago and as it promised to do, take steps to
alleviate the problems. These were not my words but those of the
prime minister back in 1990.
Has this government made a decision to let the industry die
rather than develop a shipbuilding policy, thus casting adrift
the hope and future of so many coastal communities, the people
who have depended on the industry and their families? By refusing
to address the needs of a sinking industry, even though it
criticized the former Conservative government for the same
callous disregard, this government condemns many Atlantic
Canadians to continued chronic unemployment and their communities
to entrenched economic stagnation.
Canada Steamship Lines, owned by the Minister of Finance and
others, continues to pour megabucks into foreign economies where
labour is cheap and environmental standards are often poor or
absent.
Over 7,000 Canadian shipyard jobs were lost between 1990 and
1996, over half the number of jobs in all. Total nominal sales
were down almost half from over $1.5 billion in 1991 to under
$800 million in 1986. Other countries, including the U.S.,
provide assistance in some form such as generous loan guarantees.
The Jones act in the United States provides that ships carrying
cargo between U.S. ports must be U.S. ships, ships which are
built, registered, owned, crewed, repaired and serviced in the
U.S. The one-two punch of the Jones act and the free trade deal
hits Canadian coastal communities where it hurts most, in their
employment possibilities. U.S. companies have the right to sell
duty free to the Canadian market while their market remains
protected from Canadian shipbuilders.
Will this government say yes to jobs in Atlantic Canada by
saying yes to a national shipbuilding policy?
2010
I would be willing to assist in bringing together labour and
business representatives in the Halifax area if the government
were serious about providing hope for Atlantic Canadians and
developing a national shipbuilding policy.
Why will the government not examine a managed trade approach
like the auto pact for the shipbuilding industry? Countries
could agree to a gradual elimination of subsidies and specialize
in relative areas of expertise. The most important part of such
a forward thinking agreement would be to balance overall
shipbuilding trade flows to the mutual benefit of shipbuilders in
the countries involved. The overall volume of new orders could
match a certain agreed upon minimum level of shipbuilding
requirements for each country's industry.
Let us finish with the easiest of all requests. Will the
minister agree to sit down with shipbuilding workers in Halifax
to discuss these issues, or will he continue to ignore their
repeated request for a meeting? Does the government not have the
decency to meet with these workers to discuss their very
extensive reasoned and researched suggestions about the future of
shipbuilding?
The government must realize that simply ignoring a problem will
not make it go away. I ask the Minister of Industry to have the
integrity to meet face to face with these people who have very
real fears and concerns about their future and that of their
families and communities. By working together we can develop
realistic workable solutions for our shipbuilding industry so
that we do not run aground on the shoals of government
disinterest.
I am sincere in offering my assistance in working to develop a
national shipbuilding policy.
Mr. Walt Lastewka (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Industry, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I am pleased the hon. member
for Halifax West has given me the opportunity to speak on the
subject of shipbuilding.
Most Canadian shipyards are generally in good shape, providing
repair and refit services and some new construction to commercial
marine market and government fleets.
The federal government supports the shipbuilding industry in
several ways. Our shipbuilding policy initiatives include the
following.
First, we have made a commitment to use Canadian shipbuilders
for the renewal, repair and overhaul of government fleets. We
will continue the policy of domestic procurement for all federal
ships and repairs where it is possible to do so.
Second, we have a 25% tariff on non-NAFTA foreign built ships
with the exception of fishing vessels over 100 feet.
Third, tax measures are available to ship owners in the form of
an accelerated capital cost allowance of 33.3% on new ships built
in Canada.
Fourth, shipbuilders are also encouraged to keep pace with the
new technology through a very favourable R & D tax credit system.
Fifth, our shipbuilding policy includes financing for
commercially viable projects through the Export Development
Corporation.
Finally, the federal government worked with the shipbuilding
industry on an industry led rationalization process between 1986
and 1993. The industry decided it was necessary to reduce its
capacity so that remaining shipyards could survive and remain
competitive. The government supported these efforts at a cost of
$198 million.
I conclude by saying that the federal government has given
substantial support to the shipbuilding industry in the past and
will continue to provide support through the initiatives I have
just outlined.
Any changes to the existing policy must be looked at in the
context of our existing financial commitment and our overall jobs
and growth strategy.
[Translation]
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): The motion to adjourn the House
is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, this House stands
adjourned until tomorrow at 10 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).
(The House adjourned at 8.13 p.m.)