EDITED HANSARD • NUMBER 127
CONTENTS
Monday, September 28, 1998
![V](/web/20061116200101im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
|
1100
![V](/web/20061116200101im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | CALGARY DECLARATION
|
![V](/web/20061116200101im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Motion P-22
|
![V](/web/20061116200101im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Rob Anders |
1105
1110
1115
1120
![V](/web/20061116200101im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Paul DeVillers |
1125
1130
![V](/web/20061116200101im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Pierre Brien |
1135
1140
![V](/web/20061116200101im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Ted McWhinney |
1145
1150
![V](/web/20061116200101im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. André Harvey |
1155
1200
![V](/web/20061116200101im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. John Bryden |
![V](/web/20061116200101im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | GOVERNMENT ORDERS
|
![V](/web/20061116200101im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | CANADA SMALL BUSINESS FINANCING ACT
|
![V](/web/20061116200101im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Bill C-53. Second reading
|
![V](/web/20061116200101im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. John Manley |
1205
1210
1215
1220
1225
![V](/web/20061116200101im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jim Pankiw |
1230
1235
1240
1245
![V](/web/20061116200101im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Francine Lalonde |
1250
1255
1300
1305
![V](/web/20061116200101im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Nelson Riis |
1310
1315
1320
1325
![V](/web/20061116200101im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jim Jones |
1330
1335
1340
![V](/web/20061116200101im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Dick Harris |
1345
![V](/web/20061116200101im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Nelson Riis |
![V](/web/20061116200101im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
|
![V](/web/20061116200101im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs
|
![V](/web/20061116200101im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Bob Kilger |
![V](/web/20061116200101im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Motion
|
1350
![V](/web/20061116200101im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | CANADA SMALL BUSINESS FINANCING ACT
|
![V](/web/20061116200101im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Bill C-53. Second Reading
|
![V](/web/20061116200101im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Walt Lastewka |
1355
![V](/web/20061116200101im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
|
![V](/web/20061116200101im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | LITERACY
|
![V](/web/20061116200101im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Mac Harb |
![V](/web/20061116200101im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE FUND
|
![V](/web/20061116200101im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Darrel Stinson |
1400
![V](/web/20061116200101im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | CHIN WING CHUN TONG SOCIETY OF CANADA
|
![V](/web/20061116200101im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Sophia Leung |
![V](/web/20061116200101im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | TRADE 98
|
![V](/web/20061116200101im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Sarmite Bulte |
![V](/web/20061116200101im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | AMNESTY INTERNATIONAL
|
![V](/web/20061116200101im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Paul Szabo |
![V](/web/20061116200101im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | CANADIAN BLOOD SERVICES AGENCY
|
![V](/web/20061116200101im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Grant Hill |
1405
![V](/web/20061116200101im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | COMMONWEALTH GAMES
|
![V](/web/20061116200101im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Maud Debien |
![V](/web/20061116200101im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | HOUSING
|
![V](/web/20061116200101im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Bill Graham |
![V](/web/20061116200101im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | MAGAZINE ADVERTISING
|
![V](/web/20061116200101im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Réginald Bélair |
![V](/web/20061116200101im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | FIREARMS
|
![V](/web/20061116200101im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jim Pankiw |
![V](/web/20061116200101im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | GEMINI AWARDS GALA
|
![V](/web/20061116200101im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Claude Drouin |
1410
![V](/web/20061116200101im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | POLICE AND PEACE OFFICERS
|
![V](/web/20061116200101im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter Mancini |
![V](/web/20061116200101im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | INTERNATIONAL AID
|
![V](/web/20061116200101im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Raymonde Folco |
![V](/web/20061116200101im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | FUSILIERS DE SHERBROOKE
|
![V](/web/20061116200101im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. David Price |
![V](/web/20061116200101im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | AGRICULTURE
|
![V](/web/20061116200101im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter Adams |
![V](/web/20061116200101im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | MEMBER FOR SHERBROOKE
|
![V](/web/20061116200101im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Pauline Picard |
1415
![V](/web/20061116200101im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | NEW MEMBER
|
![V](/web/20061116200101im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | The Speaker |
![V](/web/20061116200101im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | NEW MEMBER INTRODUCED
|
![V](/web/20061116200101im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Serge Cardin (Sherbrooke)
|
![V](/web/20061116200101im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
|
![V](/web/20061116200101im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
|
![V](/web/20061116200101im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Monte Solberg |
![V](/web/20061116200101im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Paul Martin |
![V](/web/20061116200101im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Monte Solberg |
![V](/web/20061116200101im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Paul Martin |
1420
![V](/web/20061116200101im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Monte Solberg |
![V](/web/20061116200101im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Paul Martin |
![V](/web/20061116200101im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Rahim Jaffer |
![V](/web/20061116200101im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Paul Martin |
![V](/web/20061116200101im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Dick Harris |
![V](/web/20061116200101im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Paul Martin |
![V](/web/20061116200101im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Gilles Duceppe |
1425
![V](/web/20061116200101im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Paul Martin |
![V](/web/20061116200101im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Gilles Duceppe |
![V](/web/20061116200101im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Paul Martin |
![V](/web/20061116200101im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Paul Crête |
![V](/web/20061116200101im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew |
![V](/web/20061116200101im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Paul Crête |
![V](/web/20061116200101im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew |
![V](/web/20061116200101im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | APEC SUMMIT
|
![V](/web/20061116200101im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Alexa McDonough |
![V](/web/20061116200101im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Herb Gray |
![V](/web/20061116200101im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Alexa McDonough |
1430
![V](/web/20061116200101im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Herb Gray |
![V](/web/20061116200101im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | VETERANS AFFAIRS
|
![V](/web/20061116200101im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Elsie Wayne |
![V](/web/20061116200101im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Fred Mifflin |
![V](/web/20061116200101im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Elsie Wayne |
![V](/web/20061116200101im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Fred Mifflin |
![V](/web/20061116200101im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | CANADA PENSION PLAN
|
![V](/web/20061116200101im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Diane Ablonczy |
![V](/web/20061116200101im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Paul Martin |
![V](/web/20061116200101im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Diane Ablonczy |
1435
![V](/web/20061116200101im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Paul Martin |
![V](/web/20061116200101im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
|
![V](/web/20061116200101im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Yvan Loubier |
![V](/web/20061116200101im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Paul Martin |
![V](/web/20061116200101im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Yvan Loubier |
![V](/web/20061116200101im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Paul Martin |
![V](/web/20061116200101im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Paul Martin |
![V](/web/20061116200101im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | APEC SUMMIT
|
![V](/web/20061116200101im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jim Abbott |
![V](/web/20061116200101im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Andy Scott |
![V](/web/20061116200101im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jim Abbott |
![V](/web/20061116200101im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Andy Scott |
![V](/web/20061116200101im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
|
![V](/web/20061116200101im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Serge Cardin |
1440
![V](/web/20061116200101im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Paul Martin |
![V](/web/20061116200101im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Serge Cardin |
![V](/web/20061116200101im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Paul Martin |
![V](/web/20061116200101im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | INDIAN AFFAIRS
|
![V](/web/20061116200101im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Mike Scott |
![V](/web/20061116200101im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Jane Stewart |
![V](/web/20061116200101im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Mike Scott |
![V](/web/20061116200101im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Jane Stewart |
![V](/web/20061116200101im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | SCRAPIE
|
![V](/web/20061116200101im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Hélène Alarie |
1445
![V](/web/20061116200101im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Lyle Vanclief |
![V](/web/20061116200101im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | FISHERIES
|
![V](/web/20061116200101im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Paul Steckle |
![V](/web/20061116200101im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. David Anderson |
![V](/web/20061116200101im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS
|
![V](/web/20061116200101im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jay Hill |
![V](/web/20061116200101im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Jane Stewart |
![V](/web/20061116200101im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jay Hill |
![V](/web/20061116200101im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Jane Stewart |
![V](/web/20061116200101im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE FUND
|
![V](/web/20061116200101im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Pat Martin |
![V](/web/20061116200101im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Paul Martin |
1450
![V](/web/20061116200101im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Pat Martin |
![V](/web/20061116200101im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew |
![V](/web/20061116200101im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Scott Brison |
![V](/web/20061116200101im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Paul Martin |
![V](/web/20061116200101im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Scott Brison |
![V](/web/20061116200101im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew |
![V](/web/20061116200101im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | TAX RETURNS
|
![V](/web/20061116200101im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Mark Assad |
1455
![V](/web/20061116200101im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Harbance Singh Dhaliwal |
![V](/web/20061116200101im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | YOUNG OFFENDERS ACT
|
![V](/web/20061116200101im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Chuck Cadman |
![V](/web/20061116200101im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Anne McLellan |
![V](/web/20061116200101im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | MONTREAL CONGRESS CENTRE
|
![V](/web/20061116200101im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Antoine Dubé |
![V](/web/20061116200101im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Martin Cauchon |
![V](/web/20061116200101im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | NUCLEAR TESTING
|
![V](/web/20061116200101im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis |
![V](/web/20061116200101im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Allan Rock |
![V](/web/20061116200101im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | APEC SUMMIT
|
![V](/web/20061116200101im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter MacKay |
![V](/web/20061116200101im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Herb Gray |
1500
![V](/web/20061116200101im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | SWISSAIR FLIGHT 111
|
![V](/web/20061116200101im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Judi Longfield |
![V](/web/20061116200101im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Robert Bertrand |
![V](/web/20061116200101im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | THE SENATE
|
![V](/web/20061116200101im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Eric Lowther |
![V](/web/20061116200101im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Herb Gray |
![V](/web/20061116200101im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | MONTREAL CONGRESS CENTRE
|
![V](/web/20061116200101im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Réal Ménard |
![V](/web/20061116200101im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Martin Cauchon |
![V](/web/20061116200101im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | PRESENCE IN GALLERY
|
![V](/web/20061116200101im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | The Speaker |
1505
![V](/web/20061116200101im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | POINTS OF ORDER
|
![V](/web/20061116200101im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Comments during Question Period
|
![V](/web/20061116200101im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Randy White |
![V](/web/20061116200101im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Don Boudria |
![V](/web/20061116200101im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | The Speaker |
![V](/web/20061116200101im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | PRIVILEGE
|
![V](/web/20061116200101im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Member for Saint-Maurice
|
![V](/web/20061116200101im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Randy White |
1510
![V](/web/20061116200101im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | The Speaker |
1515
1520
1525
1530
![V](/web/20061116200101im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Don Boudria |
1535
![V](/web/20061116200101im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | The Speaker |
![V](/web/20061116200101im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | PORT MOODY—COQUITLAM BY-ELECTION
|
![V](/web/20061116200101im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | The Deputy Speaker |
![V](/web/20061116200101im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
|
![V](/web/20061116200101im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | SMALL BUSINESS LOANS ACT
|
![V](/web/20061116200101im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Walt Lastewka |
![V](/web/20061116200101im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO PETITIONS
|
![V](/web/20061116200101im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter Adams |
1540
![V](/web/20061116200101im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | INTERPARLIAMENTARY DELEGATIONS
|
![V](/web/20061116200101im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | The Deputy Speaker |
![V](/web/20061116200101im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | PETITIONS
|
![V](/web/20061116200101im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Sri Chinmoy Peace Blossoms Project
|
![V](/web/20061116200101im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Mac Harb |
![V](/web/20061116200101im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Marriage
|
![V](/web/20061116200101im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. John Duncan |
![V](/web/20061116200101im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Bill C-68
|
![V](/web/20061116200101im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jean-Guy Chrétien |
![V](/web/20061116200101im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Marriage
|
![V](/web/20061116200101im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Gordon Earle |
![V](/web/20061116200101im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Grandparents' Rights
|
![V](/web/20061116200101im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Dennis J. Mills |
![V](/web/20061116200101im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Prostitution
|
![V](/web/20061116200101im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Eric Lowther |
![V](/web/20061116200101im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Divorce Act
|
![V](/web/20061116200101im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Steve Mahoney |
![V](/web/20061116200101im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
|
![V](/web/20061116200101im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter Adams |
![V](/web/20061116200101im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter Adams |
![V](/web/20061116200101im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter Adams |
1545
![V](/web/20061116200101im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jean-Guy Chrétien |
![V](/web/20061116200101im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | GOVERNMENT ORDERS
|
![V](/web/20061116200101im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | CANADA SMALL BUSINESS FINANCING ACT
|
![V](/web/20061116200101im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Bill C-53. Second reading
|
![V](/web/20061116200101im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Rahim Jaffer |
1550
![V](/web/20061116200101im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Steve Mahoney |
1555
1600
![V](/web/20061116200101im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jim Pankiw |
1605
![V](/web/20061116200101im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Rahim Jaffer |
1610
1615
![V](/web/20061116200101im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Alex Shepherd |
1620
![V](/web/20061116200101im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Paul Bonwick |
1625
![V](/web/20061116200101im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Dennis J. Mills |
1630
1635
![V](/web/20061116200101im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Dick Harris |
1640
![V](/web/20061116200101im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Alex Shepherd |
1645
1650
![V](/web/20061116200101im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
|
![V](/web/20061116200101im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter Adams |
![V](/web/20061116200101im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Motion
|
![V](/web/20061116200101im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | CANADA SMALL BUSINESS FINANCING ACT
|
![V](/web/20061116200101im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Bill C-53. Second reading
|
![V](/web/20061116200101im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Eric Lowther |
1655
![V](/web/20061116200101im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Gurmant Grewal |
1700
1705
1710
1715
![V](/web/20061116200101im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Walt Lastewka |
1720
![V](/web/20061116200101im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. John Bryden |
1725
![V](/web/20061116200101im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Gerry Ritz |
1730
1735
![V](/web/20061116200101im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Dick Harris |
1740
1745
![V](/web/20061116200101im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Division on amendment deferred
|
![V](/web/20061116200101im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | CRIMINAL CODE
|
![V](/web/20061116200101im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Bill C-51. Second reading
|
![V](/web/20061116200101im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Anne McLellan |
1750
1755
1800
1805
(Official Version)
EDITED HANSARD • NUMBER 127
![](/web/20061116200101im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/crest2.gif)
HOUSE OF COMMONS
Monday, September 28, 1998
The House met at 11 a.m.
Prayers
PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
1100
[English]
CALGARY DECLARATION
Mr. Rob Anders (Calgary West, Ref.) moved:
That a Humble Address be presented to His Excellency praying
that he will cause to be laid before this House copies of all
documents, reports, minutes of meetings, notes, memos, polls and
correspondence relating to the Calgary Declaration.
He said: Mr. Speaker, Motion P-22 requests the government
to put forward all documents relating to the Calgary Declaration.
A wise man, a man of biblical note, King Solomon, said “What
has been will be again and what has been will be done again.
There is nothing new under the sun”. Unfortunately I have to
report that I think that is the case today.
Previously we in the Reform Party, as well as others, made
access to information requests with regard to documents relating
to the Charlottetown accord. There was some delay and
scuttlebutt with regard to the delay of those documents, some
secrecy, and we all know how pernicious secrecy is.
1105
My prediction is that the government will vote down this motion
and not produce the documents with regard to the Calgary
Declaration. I think that is somewhat hypocritical. On the one
hand the government was talking about how open it wanted the
process concerning the declaration to be. It said it did not
want to do things the way Mulroney did with the Charlottetown
accord. It wanted this to be a very open process, but we have
secrecy.
It is worse than that. It is not just the case of secrecy, that
the government is hiding something, but it is using taxpayers'
money to do it. That is what I find objectionable. Polls are
done to find out how taxpayers feel on certain issues, for
example, the credibility of political leaders in negotiating
these types of deals.
Even though it is taxpayer money that is used to find out what
the taxpayers feel about particular situations, they are not
being told. They are not being given the information. We have
some serious problems with that.
This is very reminiscent of what happened with Brian Mulroney in
1992 when the Tories refused to release the taxpayer-funded polls
on Charlottetown. It begs the question of why this taxpayer
money is being spent. Why are these polls being held back? Why
are we not being apprised of the situation?
It boils down to a few reasons. One of the things the
government likes to say is that somehow this will taint
federal-provincial relations. That was decided in court by Judge
Rothstein. I will get into the quotes in a minute. In that case
there was a determination that the government did not have a
legitimate case to deprive the public of these documents.
I will go into some of these things that I think need to be
touched on because previous information commissioners and others
have made determinations with regard to this.
Government members, when in opposition and even while running in
the last election in 1997, made promises which were contained in
the red book. Indeed there was a violation of one of the sacred
red book promises. We do not like to see that happen. There are
probably others, but I will point out one which is glaring.
Information Commissioner Grace wrote that it is “passing
bizarre that the public should be denied knowing what the public
thinks when the public pays for collecting information about
itself”.
It is passing bizarre. But it is something that is not so
bizarre that I would put the Liberal government past it because
that is exactly the case today.
I am going to revisit some of the comments made by government
members when they were in opposition, the criticisms they
levelled against the Tory administration of Brian Mulroney on
secrecy.
The government House leader has in his riding the lovely town of
Prescott which I have been to several times. At that time he
said that the government must justify why taxpayer dollars were
spent gathering information that could have benefited the party
in power, the government of the day. That is exactly the same
question we raise today. Why is this Liberal government refusing
to allow access to documents that could benefit it in terms of
its strategy and what it is doing?
If it does not benefit in terms of the strategy and what it is
doing and if it is not being used for partisan purposes, then let
us see the documents. The taxpayers have paid for them. It is
only fair to give taxpayers access to the documents.
If the Calgary Declaration was supposed to be an open process,
then let us open up these documents. Basically that is what this
motion asks today.
The justice who had some serious problems with the rationale
used by governments previously to withhold documents just like
these was Justice Marshall Rothstein.
He said that he did not see a harm to relations with the
provinces, that basically those types of arguments were
unfounded. He thought that disclosing public opinion surveys was
indeed important.
1110
It is not as though this is a cheap endeavour. It is not as
though these are piddly sums of money. The principle is of
course that the government, because it is using taxpayer dollars,
should make these types of studies, these types of surveys, these
types of polls available to the public which is paying for them.
The government is violating that principle in terms of what it is
doing with these secret deals.
More than that, it is also a case of money. We have seen this
administration continually increase the amount of money it is
spending on these polls. Indeed government advertising alone,
used in conjunction with these polls, is over $100 million a
year.
The strategic polling that we are talking about here that was
done with regard to the declaration, which the government is
withholding, amounted to millions of dollars. It is
unacceptable.
These types of polls are also used for political or partisan
purposes when they probe views on people like the Prime Minister,
the Leader of the Opposition and various premiers who were
involved in some of the negotiations. If the government is going
to be using public dollars, then everybody should be made aware
of them, including those people across the way who are the
subject of some of those polls.
It is important that we include some precedents in this debate.
Polling results on the Charlottetown accord amounted to 700
pages. That is a lot of polling. When we look at what it
contained, the idea that the government withheld it from the
Canadian public who paid for it is heinous.
Once again we have the government marching down the path to a
deal with regard to the Constitution, or at least putting forward
a declaration with regard to it. We know it has had some
determinations on it. Certainly it has done polling. It has
told me that it has done polling. I have been contacted by
people who are involved with intergovernmental affairs. I have
been contacted by people who are involved in the Privy Council
Office. They have told me that they have these documents, but
they said they do not want to release them. They said that
instead I should go through an access to information request or
something like that.
If the government has the documents, if it has located the
documents, surely, for the taxpayers who paid for the documents,
there should not be a problem producing the documents in the
House.
When the government released the 700 pages of documents relating
to the Charlottetown accord, it did so in an attempt to pre-empt
a court ruling and avoid setting a legal precedent. If that
legal precedent had been set of course we would be looking at
using it today. It only released those documents to avoid
setting a precedent with regard to the release of these types of
documents. That is wrong.
If in principle it should be releasing these documents, as it
should because taxpayer dollars have paid for them, then we
should not have to wait. The government should not be hiding
behind the skirts of a legal decision, trying to avoid it. It
should be forthright and release these documents.
The bills that Decima and Créatec had with respect to the
Charlottetown accord amounted to $306,000. I am sure these types
of things are going on today, but because the government is being
secretive in terms of what it is doing with these documents we
are not going to know the actual figures and what polls were done
until it actually comes forth and releases them.
I also note that it is not just the official opposition which is
concerned about things like this, it is also people whose job it
is to inform the Canadian public, namely the Canadian press.
Once again with regard to precedents, because I am laying the
groundwork which is very important in this argument, the last
time the journalists from the Canadian Press, Southam News, the
Globe and Mail and other researchers asked the Privy
Council Office to disclose public opinion research on
constitutional proposals the government refused to do so.
1115
It is not just a case of the official opposition or opposition
parties in the House requesting the information. It is a case of
journalists in the country who under the freedom of the press
have their responsibilities to report to the public on the
goings-on of the government. With secrecy like this it is very
difficult for them to do their job. It is difficult for us to do
our job as the official opposition, and the taxpayers are being
denied the information. That is very unfair.
This points to the ideas in government circles on something like
this. At the time when this was being debated sources in the
government indicated that they did not want to release the
polling data because they would fall into the hands of the
enemies of the state. Those are the types of comments that have
been used by governments with regard to secrecy. It did not want
the polling results made available to the public because it
worried they would get into the hands of enemies of the state.
Who are those enemies? Is it the official opposition? I do not
think so. We have the best interest of Canada at heart, as does
the government. As a matter of fact in this case I think it is
more so because we are not the ones promoting secrecy and hidden
agendas. We are not an enemy of the state. Surely it is not the
people who are viewed as an enemy of the state by the government.
It should not be the people. They are the ones the government is
supposed serve. They are the ones the opposition serves.
Certainly the people should not be viewed as enemies of the state
in this type of matter. The documents should be made available.
I also touch on the fact that there are good people on the other
side and I appeal to them today, those in government. Some may
be backbenchers. Some may even be in cabinet but usually they
are not the veterans who have a vested interest in some of these
things to make sure contracts go out to long time friends of
theirs. Certainly some are rookies, those who are a little more
fresh to the process or a little more accountable and a little
more responsible, a little more in touch with the people who
elected them.
Those people have argued in the past that they want polling and
advertising done by the bureaucrats and not decided by some
people in cabinet and not decided by some people who have vested
interests on the other side to keep the whole process secret. As
a result they should be following through on that. They should be
ringing true some of those words and making good on that pledge.
Instead we have veteran cabinet ministers who in the past have
told bureaucrats who should be included on bidders' lists. They
do not want everybody to fairly bid on the process and they want
to keep it secretive. There are examples of that.
We have a cabinet minister from the city of Winnipeg where I was
born who awards very lucrative contracts in the hundreds of
thousands of dollars to a long time friend of his, Angus Reid,
who also resides in the same city.
Once again I implore members of the government that these things
do not stay secret forever. When they finally come out the egg
is on their face and it makes them look secretive, like they are
hiding and manipulative, and all these things are seen for the
fair value of what they are. They might as well come clean early
and allow Canadians access to the documents because it will come
out eventually; it always does. We have to end the whole
practice of some would say payola, patronage, kickbacks or
backroom dealing. Anyway we want to phrase it, it is wrong and we
should end these types of things.
Where are the credible standards of political behaviour? I will
get to the red book because it addresses some things about
political behaviour and the government should be coming clean on
them.
Unfortunately when the secrecy ends the government goes into
damage control mode, and we have seen that. It touches on the
whole controversy of the use of pepper spray at APEC. We have
seen the government go into damage control mode because
eventually the secrecy will not hold. Eventually it breaks.
Eventually somebody talks. Whether it is a bureaucrat, a
disgruntled cabinet minister or a backbencher who is
underappreciated, somebody breaks. Maybe it is a new government
that takes the positions of control and is able to go ahead and
expose some things to shed some light on some of the evil
dealings, the secretive dealings that have gone on.
Then it is very unfortunate because that party is in damage
control mode and it is too late. They could rectify these
positions early but they rarely save themselves that way.
1120
Before going to the red book—I am holding the best till last—I
will talk about some of the research firms that I expect will be
profiting from some of these polls, these secretive deals, the
ones that are not being disclosed today.
In the last couple of years they have benefited to a hefty sum
from the government. Maybe somebody in those organizations will
be willing to talk about the polls that have been done and the
results that are not being released by the government. Ekos
Research, Coopers & Lybrand, Angus Reid, Pollara, Environics,
Compas, Sage, Price Waterhouse, Phase 5, Créatic and DJC Research
have had very lucrative contracts from the government. Maybe
somebody in those firms knows about these secret polls, these
polls the government is trying to conceal and will not release
with a declaration.
I will get to the red book, another red book broken promise. I
think back to the red book of 1997. If we flip open that red
book and look at page 6, “Securing our Future Together”, we see
that the Liberals are making a promise: “We will ensure that
any future debate which calls into question the continuing
existence or unity of Canada will be characterized by clarity and
frankness”. That is the promise the Liberal Party made when it
went to the polls in 1997 after having governed the country since
1993.
Today we want some clarity. Today we want some frankness. We
have put forward the motion for the production of papers with
regard to the Calgary declaration. I am imploring the government
for some clarity, for some frankness, and to make available those
documents.
I have had phone calls from the Privy Council Office and from
the Department of Intergovernmental Affairs. They have all told
me that they have the documents. If they have them, why will
they not release them? In its handwriting it is saying that it
wants to see clarity and frankness with regard to the continuing
existence or unity of the country. Certainly the Calgary
declaration falls within the mould.
They, by their own words, should produce those documents. It is
the taxpayers money. The taxpayers have paid for these polls.
They have paid for these surveys. It was their money. They are
owed. They deserve to have access to these things. In order to
do its job the official opposition deserves access to them.
Because of the right to free speech the press has a right to
access to them. It should be able to do its job. It is not fair
when the government does not live up to its words, conceals
documents and lives by secrecy.
I will wrap up with the general pattern we have seen in this
regard which I hope we do not see continued today. It is the
pattern of depriving the public of the documents and the
wherewithal as to what went on.
With regard to the protesters at APEC summit in Vancouver, we
have seen secrecy, concealment and a disdain for democracy. A
number of times we saw closure in the House of Commons. We are
seeing a concealing of taxpayer funded documents. It is wrong.
We have nothing new under the sun. They should come forward with
these things.
[Translation]
Mr. Paul DeVillers (Simcoe North, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I had a
number of reasons for wanting to take part in this debate on the
motion by the hon. member for Calgary West This motion calls
upon the government to lay before the House copies of all
documents, reports, minutes of meetings and memos relating to
the Calgary Declaration.
1125
Although this steals somewhat from the thunder of the hon.
member's speech, the government agrees to follow up on this
Reform initiative and I am delighted with his interest in the
Calgary Declaration.
Moreover, I recall that on November 25, 1997 the members of the
official opposition were the ones calling for a debate on the
Calgary Declaration, and the motion making such debate necessary
at that time had come from another Alberta MP, the one from
Edmonton—Strathcona.
This government has nothing to hide. The Calgary Declaration
grew out of the desire of nine provincial premiers and two
territorial leaders to define a framework of discussion with
Canadians to strengthen federation.
Our government has always supported that initiative and today's
motion gives it the opportunity to reiterate that support and to
emphasize its merit.
The consultation process surrounding the Calgary Declaration was
a transparent one. Canadians were invited to take part. The
legislatures of those provinces where consultations were held
adopted the declaration, and the reason behind the support it
obtained throughout the country is that our fellow citizens
identified with the values on which it is based.
[English]
The Calgary declaration is based on seven principles that are
completely in line with our government's national unity policy.
It highlights our country's diversity. It calls on Canadians'
tolerance and generosity and reflects what we are, not only in
our own eyes but in the eyes of the world.
The Calgary declaration is not a proposal for constitutional
reform but a statement of principles that are shared by
Canadians. It highlights not only the things that differentiate
us from one another but also the things that unite us and make us
collectively stronger.
[Translation]
Our government supports this message of unity, not because it is
intended as a miracle solution to all the challenges facing our
country, but because it clearly defines the values of the
Canadian community.
We did not wait to be urged by anyone to make unity the top
priority of our government. I would invite anyone who has
forgotten this to reread the throne speech of September 23,
1997, with its clear illustration of the path the Canadian
government intends to take to lead its citizens toward the new
millennium. In a word, our government has showed leadership.
Leadership can take many forms. Let us not lose sight of the
fact that unity is not merely a constitutional matter. It must
be reflected in all spheres of our life as a nation.
Our approach is one based on efficiency emphasizing co-operation
from the provinces.
Our leadership and actions have created a climate favourable to
Canadian unity. This does not mean, of course, that there is no
room for improvement, but I think I can safely say that the
conditions in this country are better today than they were when
we came to office in the fall of 1993.
[English]
Indeed I would invite those who are skeptical to look at the
figures that testify to our success in the financial and economic
fields. In only a few years we have managed to balance a budget
that was running a huge deficit of $42 billion only five years
ago. That was a challenge that many people thought could not be
overcome. However, we took on the task with determination and
the efforts made by all Canadians have been crowned with success.
[Translation]
My reason for bringing up our economic and financial success in
this debate is simple. The Calgary Declaration carries a message
of unity, but our government does not believe the unity of this
country to be separate from other spheres of human activity.
Instead, it pervades each of these spheres. It reminds Canadians
of the levels of excellence they can aspire to achieve when
there is a collective will behind their actions.
Canadians may not fully realize this. However, there are many
examples of our success at the international level, which show
what can be achieved by working together toward a common goal.
[English]
I would like to illustrate this with figures.
Let us look at the economy. Between 1994 and 1997 Canada's GDP
grew by 2.9% a year on average, the strongest performance of the
G-7, putting us in 14th place of the OECD countries. Average
annual employment growth was 1.8%, the best performance, on a par
with the United States, of the G-7 countries and in ninth place
among the OECD countries.
1130
The OECD forecast that we will have the strongest economic
growth of the G-7 countries for 1998 and 1999. Canada's
inflation rate has averaged 1.5% over the past five years, one of
the lowest in the world.
[Translation]
That is not bad for a country which some claim does not work.
As I said, the unity of a country as diversified as Canada does
not rest solely in the hands of governments and institutions; it
calls on the efforts and energy of everyone who believe in the
future of Canada.
Canada's worth is not tied solely to its economic successes or
its social safety net. It is more than a mere accounting
operation.
If that were the case, a downturn in monthly statistics would be
enough to propel those advocating secession into action.
Canada is much more than that. It is a country where men and
women from all corners of the community of nations come together
to achieve a shared ideal. This ideal springs from values
shared by Canadians in the various regions across the country
and by Quebeckers. The merit of the Calgary Declaration is that
it draws these values out and reminds us that what joins us
together is far greater than what separates us.
In this regard, I remind the sceptics of the results of a poll
released in May 1998. According to it, a substantial majority
of the people in Quebec—67%—including a majority of those on
the yes side—60%—supported the Calgary Declaration.
In addition, 82% supported equality among Canadians, 57%
favoured equality among the provinces and 61% stated that Canada
offers diversity, tolerance, compassion and equal opportunity,
among other things.
The Calgary Declaration is not the solution to all of Canada's
challenges, but it does point out that it would be easier for us
to meet our challenges as a united front. It also underscores
the heritage of values and principles we share in Canada.
It was on this heritage that we built the successes we have
enjoyed throughout our history, and, as the Calgary Declaration
points out, we must continue to build on it in the future.
[English]
In conclusion I simply say that the government intends to
comply. Inasmuch as we appreciated the opportunity to discuss the
Calgary declaration once again in the House, we find it is a bit
of a waste of the House's time.
[Translation]
Mr. Pierre Brien (Témiscamingue, BQ): Mr. Speaker, it is now my
turn to speak to Motion P-22 from the Reform Party, which asks
that all documentation—including correspondence, documents,
reports and minutes—relating to the Calgary Declaration be made
public.
In the speeches, I also heard reference to polls and public
opinion analysis. At the time of the Charlottetown accord, the
federal government spent millions and millions of dollars
analyzing public opinion, and it is no doubt doing the same
thing in this case. We can assume that, behind all of this, a
lot of money has been spent on assessing the impact on public
opinion of this Calgary Declaration.
Incidentally, has anyone in this House recently heard about the
Calgary Declaration? That document may be one of Canada's best
kept secrets. They keep it in a drawer somewhere. They figure
that, at times, they can use it to make Quebeckers believe that
some other minor change will eventually take place. That
document is so limited in scope that they are uncomfortable
talking about it, because there is so little in it.
The hon. member for Simcoe North alluded to public opinion
polls. If this is what they are going to lay before the House,
then it is nothing new. That information is already available on
the Internet site for the Calgary Declaration.
1135
We wanted to look at the issue more thoroughly. We did not have
much faith in the kind of Mickey Mouse polls sponsored by the
government. Therefore, we had our own poll conducted by Léger &
Léger in Quebec, and by Comquest outside the province. Of
course, we were quick to release the findings of that poll in
the spring, to show how Quebeckers and Canadians were
appreciative of the Calgary Declaration.
Since I could not remember all the figures, I brought the
results of that poll here with me. The first finding was that no
one knew about the Calgary Declaration.
I will give the exact figures later, but that was when people
were asked if they knew the Calgary Declaration.
Without getting into numbers, I remember a television report
here in Ottawa—which is, after all, the national capital and a
city where people follow politics rather closely. People on
Sparks Street, not far from here, were polled and the results
were broadcast on CBC or CTV. People were asked what they knew
about the Calgary Declaration. It was lunch time, and there were
probably many public servants around, since Sparks Street is so
close to Parliament. Out of the seven or eight people
interviewed at random, none knew what the Calgary Declaration
was, or whether it was related to politics, sports or business.
No one knew about it. Yet this was in Ottawa, the national
capital, where the Liberals get all excited whenever this issue
comes up. However, it generates very little interest on the
streets.
I now come to the first question in our poll. People were asked
whether they thought Canada had made a new proposal to Quebec
since the 1995 referendum. They were asked “Have there been any
proposals?”, because the Calgary Declaration was supposed to
have been a form of response to the last referendum in Quebec.
When all regions of Canada are taken together, 25% of those
polled said yes; 56% said no; and 19% said they did not know.
One person in four, therefore, thought there had been some sort
of offer. No details were provided; one person in four thought
that maybe something had been put on the table.
It gets even sadder when the Calgary Declaration is mentioned.
People were asked if they had heard of the declaration, but they
were not asked if they knew what it was. One person out of
three, or 33%, had heard of the Calgary Declaration.
They were then asked if they had a general idea of the content,
even if they did not know the details. This will be a big
disappointment to those who think the public has any great
interest in the declaration: 17% of those polled had heard it
was something about the unique nature of Quebec; 6% had heard it
was something about provincial equality; and 12% gave other
answers. But 70% of people had no idea what it was about.
And now they tell us that a large number of people support the
declaration. I heard the parliamentary secretary tell us that
people throughout Canada, including Quebec, support the Calgary
declaration.
An hon. member: They would have to know what it was about.
Mr. Pierre Brien: Nobody knows what it is about.
When they find out, I can guarantee you that they will not think
much of it. This is a initiative that never got off the ground;
nobody talks about it.
People were then asked whether they thought that the Calgary
Declaration would solve the problem of national unity. We will
now see whether they are as optimistic as our Liberal friends.
Only 2% of people thought there was a very strong likelihood
that it would solve the problem of national unity; 15% said they
thought it was rather likely that it would solve the problem of
national unity.
1140
A total of 17% of those polled said that it would perhaps solve
the problem and 83% said it would solve nothing. This is very
revealing. I could go on. Several questions were asked and the
poll results were made public at the time.
There was another question. The members opposite misled us.
They kept telling us that Canadians had been consulted, that
they would be given an opportunity to express their views, that
there were elaborate plans for a cross-country consultation.
People were asked whether they had been consulted in any way.
“Do you feel like you have been consulted on the Calgary
Declaration?” It was a yes or no answer: 4% said yes, 94% said
no and 2% did not know. The last two categories add up to a
total of 96%.
I must remind members how this consultation process took place.
In some instances, it was done at little publicized public
meetings. Some of it was done through the Internet. Some of it
was done though toll-free lines. It was done in a variety of
ways, but every effort was made to keep the consultations
secret.
In conclusion, the Calgary Declaration is a constitutional
initiative that is going absolutely nowhere. If the government
were really serious, it would talk about the fact that, during
the summer, the provinces agreed on the social union concept and
discussed priorities for the future.
Among other things, they agreed that the federal government
should reinvest in our health system as a priority, with a well
established mechanism that would require the agreement of a
majority of the provinces for an initiative to be put in place.
Moreover, if a province has its own program, it should be
allowed to opt out. That kind of proposal is much more promising
for a government that promotes co-operation.
What is the attitude of this government, starting with the Prime
Minister? “If the premiers want to run Canada, they just have to
run against me in the next election”. The last one who tried
that ended up at the helm of the Liberal Party of Quebec where
he is having a lot of problems. That is the tactic they used. It
is a message. We have not forgotten and others will not forget
either.
Let us tackle serious issues. The government should focus
its attention on responding to the provinces' unanimous
consensus that it should put more money in our health system,
allow them to administer that money, and invest in transfer
payments instead of wasting its time on something that will lead
nowhere.
People have not heard about it and I presume they do not want to
hear about it anyway. This information can be made public, but
it will be a total waste of time. However, it will help us find
out how much money has been wasted so far on this constitutional
circus that is turning out to be a very lucrative industry in
Canada.
[English]
Mr. Ted McWhinney (Vancouver Quadra, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
I am happy to pick up the debate in response to the motion of the
hon. member for Calgary West. He is one of the more interesting
and promising of the new members of this House.
I hope he will allow me to say I had a feeling of disappointment
that he offered a rather turgid complaint about a non-existent
issue, access to documents. He should have been uttering a
celebration, Beethoven's Ode to Joy that a distinguished western
provincial premier had opened the doors to the west to
understanding of Quebec's distinct role in the Canadian federal
system and the merits of seeking constitutional recognition or
accommodation to that fact.
Of course one of the great virtues of the Calgary declaration is
that it offered the opportunity for Canadians to understand that
we are one country, that we are tolerant people and that people
in the west, so far from having fear of Quebec and what it
represents, wish accommodation and wish for a plural Canada and a
federal system that reflects that. We are all doing our best.
I sat as a member of the commission of the premier of British
Columbia to implement the Calgary declaration. We went around the
province. I can report that 80% of British Columbia voters saw
nothing unusual, in fact everything to commend, in a
comprehension that Quebec was indeed a distinct society within
Canada and that the constitutional rules could and should
recognize that fact. Why not?
1145
There is a coming of age in Canada and the debate, sometimes
angry but for the most part I think educational, has helped us
on. Constitutional law is a dialectical process. New principles
evolve. They are developed to meet new societal facts.
I wrote in 1979 that relatively minor constitutional adjustments
on the part of English speaking Canada when the quiet revolution
was still in its early phase would have enabled a containment and
a utilization of Quebec's best constitutional drives in a new and
renewed federal system. I think this is true.
One of the problems of comprehension is related to the
constitutional principle of equality before the law. It rests,
as the Greek philosophers themselves recognized centuries ago, on
a notion that we treat equal things equally when there is a
congruence of these societal facts underlying the positive law.
Then the positive law must be applied in the same way. Where the
societal facts are different they demand a differentiation of
treatment and that is in itself a full recognition in the best
spirit of the Greek philosophers of the principle of equality
before the law.
This has been enunciated by the privy council in some of its
better judgments on the Canadian Constitution. It has been
reaffirmed by the United States Supreme Court, Justice Douglas in
particular, in examining the meaning of the constitutional
principle of equality before the law which we have replicated in
our own 1982 charter of rights.
The Pepin Robarts commission to which I had the privilege of
being chief adviser, along with Leon Dion, Dion Père, John
Meisel, developed this rather complex phrase which I think was
probably one of the reasons Prime Minister Trudeau buried it,
asymmetrical federalism. If we get into phrases that are too
technical people run away in fear, but all it was designed to
show was where there are distinct societal facts, a good and
subtle federal system will take account of those facts and make
the changes accordingly.
I hope my friends in the Bloc will understand if I express a
regret that the quiet revolution has not given birth to more
bright, interesting ideas that transcend the issues of Quebec
particularism. It is a privilege to have undergone a quiet
revolution. But there is an absence of refreshing new ideas from
Quebec, and this has been true for 40 years since the quiet
revolution began, on the relations, for example, of executive and
legislative power.
On the principles of the judiciary, the nature of the
constitutional legitimacy in relation to bodies such as the
Senate, bodies such as the supreme court and the constitution of
judges, Quebec could have helped us here. It is our hope that it
was not a quid pro quo in British Columbia in saying yes, we are
not afraid of distinct society, we recognize and accept that. But
we would have hoped, for example, that there might have been some
movement on Quebec's side to say in return we like the five
regions too, we will give you that concept.
There are things we could have done together and should have
done together and can still do together. It is for this reason
that I welcome the motion of the member for Calgary West and in
its full spirit, the celebration of the fact that the west
understands Quebec. The west wants to work with Quebec. It is a
sign of the times that premiers such as the premier of Alberta,
so far from being politically weakened by such a move, can gain a
new and augmented national stature.
I think this is the good thing that has come out of the
constitutional debate and it is in that spirit that we will all
work to renewing the federal system. We can change a
constitution by formal amendments. We can change it by practice.
There are so many areas, particularly in this area of executive
legislative relations, on which many members on this side of the
House have strong views. Many of us would like to see the
committees take on a new and dynamic role. Why have these
expensive royal commissions when parliament can do the job and
where historically it has done it?
1150
The message would be come and work with us and we can build a
new constitution. Constitutions are living treaties and they are
intended to evolve.
[Translation]
Mr. André Harvey (Chicoutimi, PC): Mr. Speaker, you may find
that I am seated a bit too far, but we are not responsible for
the situation. As you know, there was a byelection in the riding
of Sherbrooke in which we lost a seat and we have come to terms
with that. In fact, I want to congratulate the new hon. member
of the Bloc Quebecois who will soon be joining us.
Do not worry, our priorities are elsewhere. We do not intend to
quarrel over this and you can be assured that our priorities
will not be over the seating pattern of the House of Commons. We
thought we had reached an interesting compromise, but we were
told at the last minute that it would not fly.
Too many serious issues have our constituents concerned for us
to start to quarrel over this. However, it is unfortunate that a
whole party had to be displaced to reallocate one seat. It seems
an extraordinary measure to take to make room for one newly
elected member of Parliament from the Bloc Quebecois.
Anyway, you may rest assured that we are still proud to be here,
in the House of Commons, to stand for our constituents and also
to represent the Progressive Conservative Party, which is the
only national alternative to the government in office.
In this spirit, these days, we may be last, but you can be sure
that one day we will be first. I think it is the right way to
react to this massive displacement following the election of
only one new member of Parliament.
I now want to deal with the motion put forward by our hon.
colleague from the Reform Party on the documentation related to
the Calgary declaration. It is quite surprising to see that the
motion today is put by a Reform member, at a time when the
people have a whole different set of priorities. No one can be
against a statement of principle, the Calgary declaration, that
includes praiseworthy objectives. However, we should stop
constantly coming back to this issue and wanting to make this
debate a priority—
I regularly go back to my riding.
I have frequent opportunities to speak with my fellow citizens.
The focus is on the priorities of concern to them, whether it be
the development of business or of tourism, or the fact that the
bulk of Quebeckers, and most other Canadians as well, have
trouble obtaining quality health care. No one ever refers to the
Calgary declaration.
I think that taking a frivolous approach to a debate like
today's is tantamount to a lack of respect for our fellow
citizens. Such is my perception. I must tell the House quite
honestly that it is far removed from what our fellow citizens
are concerned about.
I have no objections to a party wanting to have complete
documentation on a declaration that has been made. Of course
our party is in favour of that.
But making this the object of a House of Commons debate proves
just how far the Reform Party is prepared to go in stirring up
things around the fact that by far the majority of our fellow
citizens want to see constitutional peace. We hear regularly
from two-thirds of Quebeckers that constitutional debate is one
of their lowest priorities. I believe that we here in the House
of Commons must show some responsibility and not keep coming
back to this same debate.
There is a better way of casting some light on the debate and of
affording people of good will in this country, and all of its
governments, with the opportunity to reach agreements that will
work in favour of the development of our communities.
1155
That way is to not keep harking back to the constitutional
issue, since our fellow citizens have asked us to take a
breather on this. I am not fully convinced about the real
intentions of the Reform MPs.
It has often been said that what goes around comes around.
Judging by the focus of their campaign advertising during the
last election campaign, how can anyone take this motion before
the House in good faith? They say “We want the documentation
relating to the Calgary declaration”. Let them get it, read it
over and over, go into it in detail. They are out of touch with
reality with this.
What is serious though is that after running an advertising
campaign that excluded seven million Canadians—that is all of
Quebec—during the election campaign, they now come up with a
motion such as the one before us. This shows a blatant disregard
for the issues that our fellow citizens want us to tackle on
their behalf.
The Reform Party's intentions seem questionable to me. Members
will remember Bill C-237, asking that the federal government be
authorized to negotiate the terms of separation. We may regulate
everything we want, but we will never manage to keep in the same
room people who do not want to be together. Regulating the
constitutional issue is the best way to destroy the country, to
split it up.
I feel that Reformers want to pursue that avenue because it is a
matter of survival for them. Reformers survive because of the
splits between the various regions of the country.
They survive in a very specific region because they make their
fellow citizens believe that all other Canadians are against
western Canada. I am convinced that all Canadians, including
westerners, want constitutional peace, and the only way to
achieve that peace is to stop making matters worse by tabling
motions such as this one.
The Reform Party is adding fuel to the fire, as it did during
the last election campaign and continues to do here in this
House. It promotes division to ensure its own survival in the
regions that it represents. Reformers have absolutely no
national agenda.
Again, regulating the constitutional issue is the best way to
destroy the country. If such is the objective, then let them
continue down that road.
Among the issues that our fellow citizens want us to tackle is
deciding what do to with an accumulated surplus of $20 billion,
thanks to the excessive premiums imposed by the government.
The government is about to make important decisions: should it
lower taxes, reduce premiums or invest in specific areas? It is
urgent that we begin a consultation process to find out what
exactly our fellow citizens would like us to do with that
surplus. These are the issues that people want us to tackle.
It is wrong for the Reform Party to keep going against people's
will. I doubt there is a single Canadian, including in western
Canada, who asked the Reform Party member to table a motion
asking that we have access to all documents relating to the
Calgary declaration. Westerners, like Quebeckers, like people in
my riding of Chicoutimi, want us to tackle the issues that are
of concern to them. These issues are employment, economic
development, the creation of new businesses—
An hon. member: This is true.
Mr. André Harvey: —and growing poverty. At a time when people are
demonstrating and calling for a federal strategy against
poverty, we are being asked to table documents relating to the
Calgary Declaration. It is an outrage. As far as I am concerned,
the Reformers should get all the papers they want to amuse
themselves, but in the meantime, the Parliament of Canada should
be dealing with more concrete issues.
Let me repeat that we are pleased to sit in this House, even on
the back benches, and it is from these seats that we will do our
work in a constructive manner.
1200
[English]
Mr. John Bryden (Wentworth—Burlington, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I congratulate the member for Chicoutimi for his
remarks.
I like to think that the Reform Party does not have a hidden
agenda by this motion which would lead to a more divisive debate
in this country than there has been already on the national unity
issue. I would prefer to think that the member for Calgary West
really does want to lead the way in getting better access to the
type of government documents, federal and provincial, that
members of parliament, the press and the public should have
access to.
I would assume that he would not want to open up documents that
might adversely affect federal-provincial relations. He does not
want to cause dissent. He wants knowledge.
I suggest to him that the problem he really ought to be
addressing is the Access to Information Act. Currently under
section 14 it rather broadly prevents the government from
disclosing any type of documents relating to federal-provincial
affairs.
If the Access to Information Act were amended so that it was not
so broad, so that so much was not restricted from public
disclosure, so that in this particular section it was narrowed
down that governments should only withhold information that would
cause problems with federal-provincial relations, then his motion
would have merit.
I would suggest as it is currently framed the motion does strike
with too broad a brush and has the potential of causing great
damage.
We must give the federal government and the provincial
governments an opportunity to debate divisive issues in privacy
and perhaps give them a 30-year rule whereby these things should
be reported. Right now I really do think that what the member
should be doing is looking to amendments to the Access to
Information Act. Then I think he would get exactly what he
wishes.
[Translation]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The time provided for the
consideration of Private Members' Business has now expired and
the order is dropped to the bottom of the order of precedence on
the order paper.
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[Translation]
CANADA SMALL BUSINESS FINANCING ACT
Hon. John Manley (Minister of Industry, Lib.) moved that Bill
C-53, an act to increase the availability of financing for the
establishment, expansion, modernization and improvement of small
businesses, be read the second time and referred to a committee.
He said: Mr. Speaker, eleven months ago I came before the House
to seek its approval to extend for one year the lending
authority under the Small Business Loans Act.
I said at the time that this extension would allow us to
complete a comprehensive program and policy review that was
under way at that time. It would allow for thorough consultation
with both private and public sector stakeholders. And that it
would allow us to consider the auditor general's
recommendations.
The extension also gave us the opportunity to take into account
the recommendations of the Standing Committee on Public
Accounts.
[English]
Today I am pleased to inform the House that the analytical phase
of the review of the SBLA, the Small Business Loans Act, has been
completed. The results of this review can be seen in Bill C-53,
the Canada small business financing act.
As hon. members will see, the bill as well as a program
evaluation framework and performance measures designed for it
address the concerns raised by the auditor general and the public
accounts committee. I am confident that Bill C-53 responds fully
to those who support the program and encouraged us to continue to
improve it to increase its effectiveness and to reduce its cost
to the taxpayer.
As I told the House just a few months ago, our objective is an
improved program which responds to the needs of small and medium
size business.
1205
Bill C-53 contains no changes to the major program parameters.
The new provisions it does contain are aimed at ensuring the long
term life, financial viability, cost effectiveness, usefulness
and accountability of this program. In so doing it will continue
to meet the needs of small and medium size businesses and to help
them grow in the years ahead.
Why have we not proposed changes to the program's parameters?
First, our analysis found that the program is fundamentally
sound. It has proven itself for 37 years. Our consultations
with public and private sector stakeholders showed that small
business believes this program works. Our research supports the
soundness of the program's current structure. Our analysis
indicates we are on course toward the cost recovery goal.
[Translation]
Second, this is not an appropriate time for grand experiments.
The recent and quite unexpected volatility in currency and
trading markets that we have all witnessed, confirms, again, the
importance of sound, consistent public policy.
Small business, which is especially vulnerable to the vagaries
of economic gyrations, needs stability. It needs this even more
so at a time when the country is about to enter into a vigorous
debate on the role and structure of its financial services
industries.
The House can go a long way to help establish a climate of
stability for small business by giving its approval to Bill C-53,
the Canada Small Business Financing Act.
Decisions related to the recommendations of the Mackay Task
Force and the proposed bank mergers will have a direct bearing
on the well-being of small business, which is the source of
economic and job growth in every region of the country.
Like all others, the financial services sector is under pressure
to adapt itself to the impact of electronic banking, E-commerce,
the Internet and other new technologies that are reshaping the
way business is conducted.
[English]
Small businesses continue to identify the lack of access to
appropriate credit as an impediment to their growth. I think
hon. members will agree that it is essential for us to ensure a
measure of stability by continuing the one program which is
available to all legitimate for-profit small businesses wherever
they are located in Canada. Small and medium size businesses are
an anchor for our national economy. In fact they make a crucial
contribution to our collective economic well-being. This is one
reason support for the bill before us is important.
There are more than 2.5 million small businesses, including
self-employed individuals across Canada. These account for 99%
of all Canadian businesses. Together they have generated 70% to
80% of all new jobs in Canada over the last three years.
Businesses with 100 employees or less account for 50% of all
private sector employment and 43% of gross domestic product. It
is a sector of the economy that continues to grow. Growth in the
small business debt financing market outpaced that of the total
business market, increasing by 20% between 1994 and 1996.
Despite the increase in available capital and the increase in
lending, access to credit continues to be identified by
entrepreneurs as a significant barrier to the growth of small
businesses. This is precisely why we are asking the House to
approve the Canada small business financing act.
[Translation]
The objective of the small business financing program is to
facilitate the availability of loans for the establishment,
expansion, modernization and improvement of small business
enterprises.
Loans may be made by approved lenders for terms of
up to 10 years. Business will be able to borrow up to $250,000.
Lenders must pay a one-time up-front 2% registration fee which can
be charged to borrowers. In addition, lenders must pay an
annual administration fee of 1.25%.
1210
These asset-based loans are available for the purchase of land or
equipment, or for making leasehold improvements. They are not
available for financing the purchase of shares, working capital,
or existing debt. These loans cannot be made to finance the
purchase of goodwill or other intangibles.
[English]
Virtually all non-farm small businesses are now and will be
eligible to borrow under the new program if it is approved by
parliament. Eligible borrowers include enterprises in Canada
that operate for gain or for profit, provided the annual gross
revenue of the business does not exceed $5 million.
Farming operations and charitable and religious organizations
are excluded from the current program. Parliament has
established a sister program entitled the Farm Improvement and
Marketing Co-operatives Loans Act to facilitate farmers' access
to credit. I note also that the bill proposes the design and
implementation of a pilot program for lending to the voluntary
sector.
The bill before us today provides a step forward in streamlining
the Small Business Loans Act. We expect that this will make it
easier for the loans officers in the 13,000 points of service to
understand it.
While all the key provisions of the act are contained in the
bill, most of the detailed administrative provisions will be in
the regulations. This means that all major control levers remain
in the act while the regulatory regime provides a more complete
guide to program implementation.
I will now outline for the House the key provisions contained in
the bill.
The bill would provide authority for the Department of Industry
to conduct audits to ensure compliance with the act and
regulations. It would provide authority to create a limited
pilot program on a cost recovery basis for capital leasing. It
would also provide authority to create a limited pilot program on
a cost recovery basis extending lending to the voluntary sector.
I am also proposing to replace the current sunset clause. Every
five years Industry Canada will conduct a comprehensive review of
the program using an evaluation framework and performance
measurements. The resulting report on the program's performance,
effectiveness, financial viability and progress toward cost
recovery would be tabled in parliament and referred to committee
for consideration.
As a means of maintaining and ensuring cost recovery, the
governor in council through regulation would have the power to
restrict eligibility criteria for access to program loans.
The crown's contingent liability under the program would be
capped at $1.5 billion over five years. This means that
regardless of the dollar value of the loans made under the act,
taxpayers would never have to cover more than $1.5 billion on
loans made in that period. That $1.5 billion payout would only
happen if all loans were to default, all of them, which is a
rather unlikely prospect.
Historically the rate of loan losses has been 5.8% meaning that
over 94% of all loans have been repaid without incident. This
contingent liability would automatically be renewed every five
years. This will permit lending to continue while parliament
considers the comprehensive review. I will explain briefly the
rationale and thinking behind these provisions.
[Translation]
The bill proposes the creation of two pilot projects designed
to be financially self-sufficient. Hon. members should know that
I intend to call upon their advice, through the Standing
Committee on Industry, when the regulations and the parameters
of the pilot projects are being drafted.
The only kind of financing which currently enjoys the
government's risk sharing is asset-based lending.
Capital leasing is a rapidly growing form of small and medium
sized business financing.
Some hon. members and the leasing industry have pressed for its
inclusion under the program.
1215
The leasing industry says it
generally does not provide financing to firms less than two
years old or those seeking amounts less $100,000. A major
portion of current SBLA clients fall into these categories.
That is why authority to design a capital leasing pilot program
is included in the bill. It would test the need to fill an
apparent but, as yet, unproven gap. As I have indicated before,
it would have to be independently self-sufficient in terms of
meeting its cost of claims.
[English]
The voluntary sector plays an increasingly important role in
Canada. Consistent with our previous commitments, Industry
Canada consulted members of the voluntary sector to determine
whether the CSBFA program should be extended to this sector. Some
indicated that extending the program would make a real difference
to a voluntary group's ability to serve its community. A proposed
pilot would test this view and it would also be designed to be
self-sufficient.
An item that we had to reject was the suggestion that the
program be used to provide access to working capital. The
program already indirectly facilitates access to working capital
through a 90% financing rate on fixed assets. This is higher
than conventional lending. This provision leaves a greater
portion of small business equity available to finance working
capital. During our consultations stakeholders said that they
did not see the program as an appropriate way to meet their
working capital needs.
The sunset clause that called for the program to come to an end
after specific periods of time created undue and really quite
unnecessary anxiety for both lenders and borrowers. It has also
led to situations where the House has been asked to provide
legislative authority while facing a tight deadline. This has
constrained parliamentary consideration. Further, it is not a
businesslike way to manage a program which is badly needed by
small business.
Under the new provisions parliament will have the opportunity to
review the program's effectiveness every five years. Currently
all major control elements of the program are found in the act.
The proposals contained in the bill, if approved by parliament,
would change this authority so that the governor in council would
have authority to make regulations to restrict access to the
program to ensure that it remains on a cost recovery track.
This power is restrictive only. Should a future administration
wish to make changes similar to those made in 1993, for example,
it would need to seek parliamentary approval for them. This
protects the control of the House over appropriations while
ensuring that action can be taken in a timely fashion to mitigate
taxpayers' risks under the small business financing act.
The bill also proposes a number of measures which may reduce the
level of program losses, thereby lowering default and claims on
the program.
[Translation]
Earlier this year, Parliament set the program's total lending
ceiling at $15 billion for the period April 1, 1998 to March 31,
1999. Traditionally, the lending ceiling has been used to
control the size of the program. This has led to confusion. It
has led to the mistaken belief that taxpayers are lending the
entire $15 billion. This is simply not the case. Lenders are
lending money they raise themselves.
Taxpayer liability has always been much less than the aggregate
lending ceiling. This is because of the formula which is used
to cap the limit on claims that the government must pay in the
event of default.
The new bill maintains this formula, but eliminates the
artificial and confusing aggregate lending ceiling.
[English]
To make the government's and the taxpayers' liability absolutely
clear, we are capping the contingent liability at $1.5 billion
for each five year period.
1220
Hon. members should understand that program costs have never
come close to this contingent liability and that these costs are
now offset by revenues on loans that have been made under the
program since 1995. I would also like to point out that this
contingent liability allows the program to continue guaranteeing
lending of approximately $2 billion a year, which is the current
yearly average.
In 1995 the government set the program on a cost recovery track.
A private sector analysis of the program indicates that on loans
made since 1995 the program is in fact on track. However this
analysis has also shown that the program is extraordinarily
sensitive to changing program parameters and may be affected by
other economic conditions.
There are many factors that affect the performance of the
program. Industry Canada will therefore continue to monitor the
program very closely.
[Translation]
To conclude, Mr. Speaker, allow me to remind the House, once
again, how critically important the proposed CSBFA is. Created
in 1961, its overall record is one of great success. Its
results demonstrate the need to make it a stable, long-term
instrument of our economic policy.
Last year, it provided access to nearly $2 billion in financing.
This means that close to 30,000 firms across the country, in
all regions, got necessary financing that they might not have
had access to otherwise. Some 9,000 of these firms were in
rural communities.
The majority of loans, averaging nearly $68,000, went to firms
less than three years old.
[English]
The success rate of the program is quite high. Defaults have
fluctuated periodically and we anticipate a rise for a period.
The fact is that the loss rate on loans have been on average 5.6%
over the 37 year life of the SBLA program. Private sector
forecasts suggest the current fee structure is expected to offset
the claims costs of the program on loans made since 1995.
The program which parliament is being asked to approve does not
represent a subsidy to small business therefore, or to the banks
or other lenders. As currently structured the program shares the
risk of lending among lenders, borrowers and taxpayers. Loan
losses now guaranteed under the program are expected to be fully
cost recovered.
The CSBFA will continue to offer a way for the government,
financial institutions and small business borrowers to share the
risks of fixed asset based lending to smaller, younger firms.
In providing this risk pooling the Canada Small Business
Financing Act will support one of the most dynamic growth sectors
in the Canadian economy.
[Translation]
As I mentioned earlier, an important contribution that we can
make at this time for this sector is to provide it with
stability.
This stability is provided through the bill, which will continue
to provide the small business community access to financing,
even as the finance services industry continues to restructure.
Maintaining the major program elements provides a stable base of
financing for small business, while institutions and their
product lines are under review.
[English]
Measures are contained in the bill which will maintain the
program on a cost recovery track. This contributes to its
stability, ensuring taxpayers long term support for this
important risk sharing program.
Eliminating the aggregate lending ceiling will also enhance the
stability of the program. It will reduce the periodic
uncertainty which has plagued the program in the past.
Each time we have approached this artificial ceiling we have
been required to return to parliament for an increase. The
proposed cap on the contingent liability provides a real cap on
our liability but does so in such a way that will not
unnecessarily take up the time of the House of Commons.
By eliminating this periodic uncertainty we will enhance
borrowers' confidence that the program will be there in the
future to facilitate financing for at least a period of five
years. Stability will be enhanced by eliminating the sunset
clause and replacing it with a regular review during which
lending will continue.
In the past this provision has created uncertainty about the
future of the program. It has also constrained parliamentary
consideration of the program in the past.
This proposal will eliminate these features while still allowing
for appropriate parliamentary reviews.
1225
[Translation]
As provided in Bill C-21, authority to register loans under the
Small Business Loans act expires on March 31, 1999. The
authority under the current bill would commence April 1, 1999.
One of the many strengths of this program is that it is
delivered by lending professionals, not bureaucrats. This,
however, means that the more than 1,500 financial institutions
must have the time they need to train their staff on the new
legislation and regulations. With over 13,000 points of service,
this is no small task.
This is why lenders have asked for 90 days to prepare themselves
to implement the legislation. While this may reduce the time
for parliamentary consideration, I believe that effective
implementation to serve Canada's small business community is
important.
[English]
For this reason I urge all hon. members to support the passage
of bill as soon as possible.
Mr. Jim Pankiw (Saskatoon—Humboldt, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
according to the Canadian Federation of Independent Business and
the auditor general, access to reasonable financing is the single
biggest impediment to growth in the small business sector.
What can be done? What is the role of government? The first
thing that should be done is to determine whether there is a
legitimate market failure. In that regard the performance of the
government is abysmal.
What has the government done to quantify the degree to which
access to financing for small business is a problem? How
extensively has the government reviewed the performance of
Canadian banks in this regard?
Instead of answering these questions, instead of being proactive
and demonstrating leadership, what do we see from the Liberal
government? We see it tinkering with yet another fundamentally
flawed government program.
Despite the fact the government has not quantified the problem
of access to financing for small business, we can safely assume
that a problem exists. Improved access to financing for small
business would clearly have a beneficial effect on the economy:
lower unemployment, more disposable income and so on.
How do we achieve this? What are the impediments that need to
be removed in order to alleviate the underlying problems which
truly inhibit the growth of small business? They are excessive
employment insurance premiums, high levels of taxation and a
banking system which lacks competition. They are not a lack of
government programs or a bureaucracy that is too small.
What does the Liberal government do? Instead of lowering
employment insurance premiums, instead of cutting taxes, instead
of deregulating the banking industry to increase competition
which would benefit all consumers and instead of taking those
measures that would clearly have a direct and immediate benefit
on every small business owner in Canada, the government is
preoccupied with changing the name of the Small Business Loans
Act to the the Canada Small Business Financing Act.
What insight, what vision, what incredible leadership it has
demonstrated by changing the name of the program. In terms of
positive change for small business, the legislation is no more
significant than a dot over the letter i in the word
stupid.
The fundamental flaw with the Liberal government is that it does
not understand one of the most basic concepts of governing: a
dollar left in the hands of a consumer, an investor, an
entrepreneur or taxpayer is more productive than that same dollar
in the hands of a lobbyist, a bureaucrat or a politician.
1230
Therefore the answer is not a government program that taxes
Canadians, then runs our money through an inefficient bureaucracy
and then selectively redistributes it. That creates an uneven
playing field. It chooses winners over losers. Inevitably
mistakes are made. Businesses acquire financing which is not
viable and they would not have acquired the financing had the
government and taxpayers not subsidized them. The net effect to
small business in Canada is a negative one.
I do not know how it can justify its concept of these programs.
It can tax people, run it through the bureaucracy and then
somehow have a more beneficial effect with that money than if it
had just left it in the pockets of Canadian business owners and
taxpayers. How it can claim that degree of interference in our
economy can possibly have a positive effect is beyond me.
The Minister of Industry started in his speech to introduce the
new Canada small business financing act by talking about long
term life and viability of the program. Notice that he is more
concerned with jobs of the bureaucrats who work and who
administer the program than he is with the small business owners
of Canada. He also said that the program is fundamentally sound
and that it has proven itself for 37 years. Did the minister not
read the report of the auditor general? It was a report that
prompted him to change the name of the program. I suggest he
probably did read it but he is clearly prepared to ignore some of
the conclusions we must draw from the deficiencies and the
problems which were cited by the auditor general and the degree
to which banks are abusing this program.
I am a perfect example of that. Prior to entering politics I
had several businesses. On opening one of them I went to a bank
for financing. The bank said yes but I had to acquire my
financing under the Small Business Loans Act. At the time I was
not apprised of the criticisms that the auditor general had for
the program. I was not that conscious of how disastrous and what
the negative effects of programs like this had on small business
owners like me. I was more concerned with meeting the day to day
demands of my business. So I agreed to it. I was forced to pay
a premium on my interest rate charges. I was forced to pay
registration fees. I was forced to endure even more burden
because the government made available to the banks a tool by
which they could guarantee themselves the loan at a cost to the
small business owner and at a potential cost the Canadian
taxpayer. The banks are abusing their privilege or their ability
to use this program, guaranteeing loans that they would have in
most cases given out anyway.
The minister said the volatility we have seen recently in the
marketplace shows we need stability. Therefore now would not be
the time to implement any drastic policy change of the
government.
1235
However, I would suggest just the opposite. Would the
volatility in the marketplace not suggest to the minister that
the program is not fundamentally sound, as he said, but that it
is fundamentally flawed? How can the government sleep walk
through the currency crisis that we have endured in this country
over the past couple of months and that it not occur to it that
maintaining the status quo is exactly the problem that got us
into this mess in the first place?
The minister also went on in some detail to quote some
statistics about how many small business owners there are in
Canada and how much small business contributes to our economy. It
is good that he understands and recognizes the importance of
small business. However, what I do not understand is why he
would not be trying to support business. Why is he tinkering
with a fundamentally flawed program when the government should be
reducing employment insurance premiums?
What would have a greater effect on every small business owner
in Canada, not just the ones who apply for a guarantee of their
loan under this program? Every small business in Canada would
benefit by a reduction in the employment insurance premiums to a
much greater degree than any bureaucratic program administered
from Ottawa could possibly hope to achieve.
What about the GST? Why is the minister preoccupied with
changing the name of the Small Business Loans Act instead of
eliminating the GST which this government once promised? It once
said that it would scrap, eliminate and abolish the GST. The GST
is probably the single largest burden on small business owners.
The amount of paperwork that a small business owner must deal
with, effectively acting as a tax collector for the government,
is preposterous.
If the minister were really concerned about small business he
would be targeting those kinds of things, not trying to
rejuvenate a fundamentally flawed program.
What about deregulating the banks? If access to financing is
indeed a problem for small business, why is the government not
addressing that issue. Rather than solving the problem, the
government is trying to deal with it by coming up with another
government program. Its answer is not to fix the problem but to
create a government program that will in the end cost taxpayers
even more money to try to paper over the real problem.
What about cutting taxes? This government has implemented 37
tax increases since it came to power. It is choking the life out
of ordinary average Canadians who face a tax burden that is
difficult to meet. Why? So it can fund all its programs like
this.
The minister mentioned that this does not apply to farmers in
Canada but there is another program for farmers. Again this is a
clear illustration that the government's answer is just to create
more bureaucracy and more government programs because it does not
understand the simple concept that it cannot possibly tax
Canadians, send that money to Ottawa, run it through the
inefficient bureaucracy that everybody knows exists here and come
out with a more positive impact than if it had just left that
money in the hands of Canadians in the first place.
Another thing the minister discussed was the registration fee of
2% to qualify for a loan under this program and a 1.25% annual
administration fee. Does he not understand the extra burden that
would place on a business that is already considered marginal in
the first place?
In theory this program is supposed to provide access to capital
that would not otherwise be there, access to financing that small
business owners could not normally get. The banks would look at
it, evaluate it and say this is not viable, you cannot meet the
interest payments. What is the answer? The taxpayer is going to
subsidize the loan and they are going to pay even higher interest
rates. Does the minister not understand that the viability of
that business has now decreased even further, the chance of that
being a successful venture?
1240
The minister said that some of the changes he has implemented
are a step forward in streamlining the Small Business Loans Act.
That may be true. When we compare the old SBLA to the new CSBFA
it may be that he has tinkered and improve some deficiencies. But
what has that accomplished? What is the point in tinkering and
improving an act that is bad, that in the end is harmful to
business?
One of the tinkering things that the minister has implemented is
to replace the sunset clause with a regular review. I would like
to suggest that the sunset clause remain and that it be dated
September 28, 1998, today's date, and that the sunset clause not
only apply to this legislation but to the government.
Bill C-53 does not deal with the underlying barriers to growth
of small business in Canada such as excessive employment
insurance premiums, high tax levels and a highly regulated
banking system. Further, it does not fix the problem of small
business access to reasonable financing which both the Canadian
Federation of Independent Business and the auditor general note
is the single biggest impediment to growth in that sector.
I initially was going to move a motion which stated that this
House decline to give second reading to Bill C-53 at this time
because the government of the day has done nothing to alleviate
the underlying problems which truly inhibit the growth of small
business such as excessive employment insurance premiums, high
levels of taxation and a banking system which lacks competition.
However, I am informed that for technical reasons I have had to
change the wording. Therefore I move:
That the motion be amended by deleting all the words after the
word “That” and substituting the following:
Bill C-53, an act to increase the availability of financing for
the establishment, expansion, modernization and improvement of
small businesses, be not now read a second time but that the
order be discharged, the bill withdrawn and the subject matter
thereof referred to the Standing Committee on Industry.
The Deputy Speaker: The chair finds the amendment in
order.
1245
Debate is on the amendment.
[Translation]
Mrs. Francine Lalonde (Mercier, BQ): Mr. Speaker, while we in
the Bloc Quebecois are extremely disappointed with this so-called
review of the small business loans legislation, we do not agree
with the Reform Party.
We must realize how essential the Small Business Loans Act is to
small and medium size businesses, despite what I heard. Our
criticism of the legislation was not to say we should get rid of
it but that, in reviewing it, greater care and attention should
be paid to small and medium size businesses.
I am disappointed that, while the legitimate concerns expressed
by the auditor general and the Standing Committee on Public
Account were taken into account, the need to assess the economic
impact of small business and of the effect of small business
loans on this economic impact were not.
The truth is that, in Canada and Quebec, small and medium size
businesses are crucial and that, even if they sometimes fold 12,
24 or 48 months after having been set up, the economic activity
resulting from the creation and growth of small businesses
constitutes an extremely important factor. Studies have
confirmed this.
However, in the government's logic, the economic contribution of
small business is not taken into account. I find it unfortunate
that, if he did not wish to amend the act immediately, the
minister did not see fit to increase the number of areas where
pilot projects could be conducted.
For instance, the possibility of granting loans, in certain
circumstances, for working capital funds has been eliminated. In
light of the fact that the studies I have come across were not
conclusive, why not look at the actual impact of inadequate
funding on the death of small businesses? Why not consider
growth problems on the basis of inadequate funding?
One could say that, in a way, insufficient funding is worse than
no funding because it does not allow businesses to develop as
well as they could. The same is true of seed money: not giving
enough is increasing the chances the business will not survive.
Loans are not all that is required for businesses to develop.
Indeed, improvements are also required with respect to
management practices and to the advice provided to businesses.
As they are established or expanding, they must indeed be
encouraged to visit the financial institutions before they spend
all the money they had for their products, design, etc. and find
themselves broke before the money lenders and thus forced to
accept insufficient funding.
1250
It is true, conditions of management in the growth and expansion
of businesses must be improved, but my argument is in favour of
adequate funding.
In this regard, I question the title the minister gave to his
new bill. He is calling it the Canada Small Business Financing
Act. I say it is not the funding act, because with a bill like
this one, I know of few emerging or expanding businesses that
will not need other financing. I think the title of the
existing act is much more accurate. It is the Small Business
Loans Act. This is one sort of loan.
There will have to be other types of funding to enable
businesses to start up in the proper conditions.
I must point out in passing that the minister is pleased to add
the word Canada to the bill's title. I realize his attachment
to Canada, but I think that there is no need for the government
to add the word Canada to every program it sets up, as if it
feared that Quebeckers and Canadians might forget. The effect
will be quite the opposite, and that is the end of my
digression.
The bill also contains a number of problems in its
administration cleanup aspect. I hope the minister will deal
with these issues.
For example, when the minister says in his bill that Canadians
will give out a maximum of $1.5 billion in loans, he is in fact
not saying everything, because this $1.5 billion should be
called, in jargon, a contingent liability limit. In reality,
given the costs the small businesses pay and the rates above
prime, the costs of this program could reach 6.4% without
costing the government's budget one cent. However, the problem
is that this $1.5 billion margin may prevent, in fact does
prevent, all the credit that might otherwise be given out from
being given out.
I would also like to point out that the minister has given
himself increased powers in this bill. The technical provisions
in the act have been withdrawn, and the minister will be able to
make the regulations he wishes.
I agree that part of the regulations needed to be updated.
However, the deletion of all of these provisions seems to me to
be a major problem, especially since, as the officials in his
department have acknowledged, the minister will now have the
regulatory authority to reduce the scope of the legislation.
Of course, the regulations cannot go further than the
legislation itself; that is normal. But by giving the minister
the authority to make regulations and then by deleting these
provisions from the bill, you allow him to ensure that the new
legislation is not as generous as the current one.
Also, the bill authorizes the minister to launch pilot projects.
In fact, the minister has already announced two such initiatives
in very specific areas. I think we could and should have pilot
projects in other areas.
1255
Although it may be helpful for people interested in capital
leases and loans to the voluntary sector, I do not think the new
spirit of the legislation can be found in these provisions. In
fact, the only good news borrowers will find in this bill is
that the small business loans program, where the loans are to
some degree guaranteed by the government, is maintained. That is
the only piece of good news.
The rest of the bill raises fears that once the banks realize
that government officials will now be able to assess their use
of the programs, they will start to ask a lot more from
borrowers, who unfortunately will go bankrupt.
Since the government will not cover more than two years of
interest, the banks will be forced to repatriate personal assets
more rapidly.
Of course, the principle of self-financing is nowhere to be found
in the bill. This could be seen as a means of allowing the
minister to factor in the conditions of the economic cycle. But
because the bill does not specify current conditions, and it is
left to the minister to make regulations, we are left with some
concerns.
I must, however, say that the fact that funding does not have to
be approved every year, but runs for five years subject to a
comprehensive review, meets with our approval. There will thus
not be worries about the program coming to an end.
We have questions, however, about the comprehensive review.
It should be conducted by a House committee, in this case, the
Standing Committee on Industry, and it should look at the cost
benefits from a budgetary as well as an economic point of view.
What has perhaps not been brought home often enough is that it
is much better for an enterprise to be created, even with
difficulty, and to employ X number of people for a few years, to
generate wealth in the community, and not just wealth but
economic activity as well, even if it unfortunately goes
bankrupt two years later for lack of sufficient expertise. This
is infinitely preferable to the entrepreneur just working for
himself.
As often happens, he might recover and get back on his feet
without the right advice at the right time.
But, for the economy in general, for the economy of a particular
region, it is far better for such economic activity to have
taken place than for people to continue receiving the normal and
necessary support of social programs, which would serve a much
better purpose if these people could contribute themselves to
greater economic activity.
Despite what certain economists thought less than one year ago,
it would be very surprising if recessions had disappeared from
the economic world, and I can now say that they clearly have
not.
1300
On the contrary, many of the people claiming a year ago, more
than ever, that there would not be a recession are now the ones
bringing up the spectre of a world-wide recession. Although the
crises being experienced in Southeast Asia, Russia and South
America do not all have the same cause, nevertheless the
globalization of markets can provide conditions for such a
spread. As we know, Canada is not immune, nor are the United
States or Europe.
Those in the west are well aware of the heavy impact there of
the great difficulties being experienced by individuals and
businesses in Southeast Asia.
Under the circumstances, the Small Business Loans Act ought to
have sufficient flexibility to allow the minister to inject more
money into business loans in times of recession, particularly
since we know this $1.5 billion figure for guarantees will never
come close to being reached. I invite my Reform colleagues to
examine this clause.
I regret that the revision has been done merely from an
accounting point of view. It was necessary, but the Small
Business Loans Act—which is what I would prefer it to still be
called, because once again it will not be a “financing act” for
small businesses since this program is insufficient—is an
important piece of legislation, but far from sufficient. One
need only re-examine the repeated complaints from the Canadian
Federation of Independent Business to know that this is so.
The more small businesses are denied credit, as they set up or
expand, the greater the risk they face. We know how frequently
they go bankrupt and at times it is very clearly because of a
lack of credit.
This is what forces the provinces, and especially Quebec, in
both the private and public sectors, to develop complementary
programs. Once again, according to what I hear from the small
and medium size businesses that, in search of help, turn to
their member of Parliament as a last resort, there is not enough
money for unsecured loans.
And what about the fact that there is no provision for
businesses in the knowledge sector? The government makes a big
fuss about the knowledge economy. The knowledge economy needs a
lot of capital.
The only thing the government has done was to announce in the
spring that $30 million would be available over five years for
products, for content. That is not nearly enough. Canada has
expended considerable effort on infrastructure and on electronic
highways, but, in the area of content, there is no help for
local artists, artisans and industrialists and no provision for
these areas in this revision to the Small Business Loans Act.
1305
It is therefore unfortunate that the old SBLA was not tightened
up more and that the government felt only an accounting review
was necessary without a thought to economic development.
This act is vital to economic development and to job creation.
It must serve this objective. When it fails to do so clearly,
it fails in its primary goal, and we will continue to go after
the government on this point.
[English]
Mr. Nelson Riis (Kamloops, Thompson and Highland Valleys,
NDP): Mr. Speaker, it is a delight to have the opportunity to
represent the federal New Democrats and to make some opening
remarks with respect to Bill C-53, the Canada Small Business
Financing Act. This is a new form of the old SBLA, the Small
Business Loans Act, that we have been debating in this House for
20-some years, or perhaps even a bit longer than that.
I am delighted to have a chance to participate in this debate
for a number of reasons, not the least of which is that I have
recently been appointed by the leader of our party to be the
business spokesperson for the federal New Democrats.
I have been, in a sense, lobbying for this for quite some time
and I have often asked myself why I felt this was important. Then
I realized that one of the reasons is that most people I know
today are either in some kind of business, have been in business
or plan to be in some form of business. They tend to be small
businesses, small enterprises, young firms.
I started to think about this and realized that one of my senior
staff persons on Parliament Hill has been with me since the
beginning, more than 18 years. Her partner runs a small
contracting business in the city of Ottawa.
The partner of one of my other staff members who has been with
me for 14 years also runs a small consulting business in Ottawa,
working for the private sector as well as government.
The father of the newest addition to my staff, a young man
recently out of Queen's University, has run a large cement
contracting business in my constituency for many years. Once he
leaves Parliament Hill, he and his partner plan to open a
printing firm in Winnipeg.
Therefore the people around me are used to the notion of working
with business on a personal level.
Then I started to reflect on the people who play a close role in
our lives, our campaign workers, our campaign teams, the
executives of our organizations.
The president of my federal executive is an interesting man. He
is a member of the carpenter's union, but he also runs a
construction company. When he is unable to find work as a
carpenter, he goes out and does small enterprise work for
individuals, various firms and so on.
My last campaign chair was a retired manager of B.C. Tel. He
runs a honey-producing business these days.
I reflected back on some of the people over the years who played
key roles in my campaigns. My sign chair was the owner and
manager of a retail postal outlet and the publisher of a magazine
in British Columbia. The deputy sign chair in my campaign now
runs a fairly large contracting business in the construction
sector.
The media chair was an individual who owns and manages a
community newspaper. The deputy media chair in my last campaign
owns a media consulting firm and has done that successfully for a
number of years.
Fundraisers tended to have a relationship with business. One was
a partner in a large law firm. One was the owner-manager of a
health food store. One ran an insurance company. One was the
owner-manager of a recreational vehicle outlet. One was the
owner-manager of a restaurant and pub. There were others, but
these were people who played a central role in my election
campaign.
The campaign advisers were interesting. They included a person
who owns and manages a hunting and fishing lodge in central
British Columbia. Another was a pub manager-owner. Another was
the owner and operator of a bowling alley and trophy shop.
Another individual was a financial adviser. He runs a private
business as a financial adviser.
1310
Canvass organizers included a person who owns a trucking
company. Another is the owner-manager of a small retail outlet
which sells children's wares, toys and that sort of thing. One
owns an electric contracting company. One runs a recreational
vehicle outlet. One is an owner-operator of a hair salon.
Another is a manager of a body shop. One person runs a tour
company. One owns and runs a mining exploration company. A
number are in the silviculture business and many are small
farmers and ranchers.
There are just under 300,000 farmers and ranchers in Canada and
a good percentage of those individuals have incorporated
businesses. I think it is fair to say that farmers now, almost
by definition, have become business operators because of the
complexity of the art and science of farming these days.
While we often refer to people as being a rancher or a farmer,
in essence they are running a small business, often incorporated
for a whole variety of reasons.
When I made soundings in terms of this legislation being
proposed by the federal government it was not difficult to get
reaction from people. Many of them have used the program in the
past. Many of them wanted to use the program but were not
eligible. Particularly interesting were the number of women
entrepreneurs who have started businesses and have had a
difficult time accessing various types of financing. They often
referred to the frustration they have experienced with their
bankers.
I want to say first that, in my judgment, this has been one of
the better federal government programs in terms of actually
helping small business. There is a great deal of rhetoric in
this House, and probably in legislatures across the country,
announcing programs that are designed to assist the small
business sector, but they often do not seem to go anywhere.
There might be a program, but after two weeks the funding is all
used up. It is on paper, but I think there is very little
assistance to the small business sector when it comes to
government programs. I am not even certain that the small
business sector often wants government programs to help them.
I refer specifically in our area to the community futures
program which has done an amazingly positive job in creating
hundreds and hundreds of small businesses that otherwise would
not have been created simply because they were able to access
capital up to a maximum of $75,000.
We are talking about people who want to create enterprises in
this country and create jobs. I think all of us feel that there
is an important goal for our country, and that is the goal of
full employment.
Ideally, if everyone was working at a decent job, a whole lot of
problems that we face as a country would simply evaporate
overnight. A lot of societal problems exist because people do
not have jobs. Or if they do have a job, it is not a
decent paying job.
If we are serious about creating employment for Canadians we
have to acknowledge that most of the employment that is being
created today and certainly most of the employment that will be
created in the next number of years is going to be created by the
small and medium size business sector of the country. These are
the people who will actually create the jobs. They will be able
to move rapidly to take advantage of changing markets and
changing opportunities, whereas the larger firms simply will not
be able to respond so quickly and so well.
It seems to me that it is our obligation to find ways and means
to support, encourage and nurture that sector of our society in
which jobs will be created in the next decade or two if we hope
to bring this country to the level that we know it ought to be in
terms of full employment.
I will say that the SBLA, the Small Business Loans Act, which we
are about to change, has probably been one of the most effective
programs we have seen. It certainly is one of the most used
federal programs in assisting business, and it is well
understood. For those reasons I think we ought to be careful as
we proceed with this new legislation called the Canada Small
Business Financing Act.
I want to say that federal New Democrats support this
legislation in principle.
1315
We have some serious concerns, which I will get to. We
particularly want to see it advanced at this stage for three
reasons.
One is that it is a continuation of a program that has been
relatively effective compared to other federal programs. It has
been constant in its purpose as a program to assist young and
small firms in obtaining debt capital because of gaps in equity
and capital for this end of the market particularly.
The program has been accountable. In other words, a regular
revisiting of this program by parliament tends to focus on areas
that need to be changed. This is one of the shortcomings in this
legislation we worry about because it will not be coming back to
parliament for periods of time.
An area that has been identified as causing difficulties in
terms of financing for small business in Canada has been the
recent move to leasing equipment. Under the SBLA leasing
equipment or leasing materials was not something that would be
financed so this had to be change.
Another area was the non-profit sector. I think we are all
appreciative that increasingly businesses in the non-profit
sector need to find ways and means of supporting themselves. I
am thinking here of something like a child care centre. Under
this new legislation it will be able to use this program to go to
the banks and other financial institutions to get a loan so they
can improve the service they provide.
In terms of the move to leasing which on balance is a positive
move, the opportunity it opens to the non-profit sector is also a
positive move.
Those are the two fundamental reasons we feel that this should
be advanced further. Once it gets to committee obviously some of
the fine tuning will take place.
I have to muse at this point as to where this notion of leasing
requirement originated. In my discussions with the Canadian
Federation of Independent Business I was told that its members
have not been crying for this. I wonder if it is not the banks
who maybe are trying to use this legislation because they want to
get into the leasing business. They want to move into auto
leasing first but pretty soon they will be leasing television
sets and goodness knows what else if they get their way in this
bank merger and the changes they are seeking to the financial
legislation before us these days. I am a bit worried about that.
I am going to flag it right off the top.
When I look through all of the briefing material for this new
legislation and after speaking with a number of government
officials who are in involved in this, there was one sector which
I think was obvious by its absence. That is the sector dealing
with women entrepreneurs. If there is one thing we acknowledge
today it is that the growth in the small and medium size business
sector is being led by women, yet financing is a major problem
that women have.
I am approached regularly by women who are so frustrated because
the banks say “Yes, we will lend you the necessary money to
start your enterprise but you have to get your husband to sign
the form”. They say “My husband is not in the business. He
does something else”, and the banks say “That is just the way
it is. We would like to have your husband's signature”. This is
a terrible situation to accept. One of the fundamental weaknesses
of this legislation is the absence of dealing with this problem.
Another area is that of aboriginal business. As Canada moves
toward more self-determination and self-reliance for our First
Nations people, one of the problems they have is getting into
business and creating job and employment opportunities for
themselves and others. Financing is a crucial matter and again
it is not being addressed by this legislation. Hopefully it will
be in some other sectors.
Another area is what we might call knowledge based business, the
information technology business. Someone wants to borrow some
money from a bank or a financial institution and his only asset
is himself. He is wearing his cap sideways and an odd T-shirt and
goes into a bank to borrow some money. Even if he is a brilliant
individual who wants to start a knowledge based business and
everyone knows he or she is going to be successful, well, the
bank is not used to lending money to people who wear their caps
sideways and T-shirts. But that is the new reality.
One of the more interesting businesses I was at on the opening
day was that of a couple of young people who were opening up a
tattoo parlour. They had a business plan laid out and had
demonstrated that this was going to be a money-making effort. I
guess most people in Kamloops will be wearing a tattoo one day if
these people are going to be successful.
1320
This is the way the world is. These are small businesses, often
home based. They are not addressed adequately in this
legislation. Most people these days, the self-employed
individual starting out in business are starting from that home
based business. They are not being adequately considered in this
legislation. I see this as another shortcoming.
There is also the equity issue of financing. I realize this
legislation is not the place to address this issue but I feel
that I have to wave the flag. When it comes to equity capital,
parliament has to take this more seriously. I may be wrong but I
do not recall that there has been any real effort to address this
problem which is faced by small and medium size businesses in our
country. I hope we can use this as a heads up and conduct some
serious examination of the problems associated in this area and
ways and means to overcome them.
There are many concerns about this legislation.
I am curious about maintaining the upper limit of $250,000.
Under this type of legislation, the average loan today is about
$86,000. It has come down from about $90,000 in 1997 and is up
from $50,000 in 1994. It is fair to say that people are using
this program to access financing for their business when they
have difficulty doing it otherwise. These are small loans. There
is a ceiling of $250,000 and hardly anybody uses that. Should we
not visit that?
This legislation applies to firms that have over $5 million in
sales. When we look at the number of firms in this country that
have sales in that category, do they need help under this
legislation? Is this the best place to show support for those
types of firms?
These questions are more of the musing kind than critical
comment. On balance, we support this program with some
qualifications.
There is the fact that it does not seriously address the whole
issue faced by women who are starting businesses today. They are
growing young businesses and are entering the market with
entrepreneurial ideas that they want to see in place through
production to sale, not export. There is the whole issue of
aboriginal funding. Home based business is crucial for
increasing numbers of Canadians. This is not addressed
adequately in this legislation. We have concerns that these
sectors are not being properly addressed under this kind of
legislation. We need to be reminded of these problems.
I also want to use this as an opportunity to find ways and means
to support the small business sector. This is one of them. It
has been successful in the past.
Today we cannot overlook the fact that small businesses are not
very positively inclined toward the bank mergers. As a matter of
fact if the bank mergers as proposed are allowed to proceed, the
two resulting banks would have 75% of the number of loans under
this legislation. By any definition that is real concentration.
The small business sector is concerned about the ability of
competition in the financing marketplace.
I do not think I have run into a single person who runs a small
business who likes this bank merger issue. Not a single one,
although there might be one whom I have not yet found. In my
judgment there is universal condemnation of this initiative. The
Canadian Federation of Independent Business would largely
substantiate that in terms of the work it has done with its
members.
In closing, we will support this legislation at this principle
stage. We will be raising some of our concerns in committee to
see if they can be addressed in this legislation through
amendments.
Perhaps other more appropriate initiatives can be taken by the
federal government to acknowledge that the jobs of the future
will be created not by the large corporate sector nor on balance
by government, although government has a role to play in job
creation in critical sectors.
I am thinking of education and health care, child care, elder
care, pharmacare, home care, those particular sectors.
1325
A goodly number of jobs will be created by the small and medium
size business sector in our communities. They are the people we
know best. They are the people we live with and see every day on
the streets of our communities. They are the people who should be
receiving our support. I believe that this piece of legislation,
Bill C-53, is a step in that direction.
Mr. Jim Jones (Markham, PC): Mr. Speaker, I am not sure
you can hear me from way down here, but the positive of being
down here is now we can always look right instead of having to
look left.
Today I rise to speak on Bill C-53, an act to increase the
availability of financing for the establishment, expansion,
modernization and improvement of small business. For the purpose
of brevity, this bill seeks to replace the Small Business Loans
Act with the new Canada small business financing act. In essence
parliament will be attempting to guarantee that the principles of
the success story known as the Small Business Loans Act will
continue into the next millennium.
Since 1961 the Small Business Loans Act which was implemented by
the Progressive Conservative government under John Diefenbaker
has helped over a half million Canadian businesses. In the 37
years that have followed, parliament has shown its resolve to
assist small business by continuously updating and innovating the
act to ensure that it remains responsive to the needs of Canadian
small and medium size enterprises.
By and large this duty has been discharged with commitment and
diligence. I remind the House of this because the same hand that
passes this torch on will be expecting much of us. Since its
inception the Small Business Loans Act has experienced a
successful repayment rate in excess of 94% of all loans. When we
consider that during this period the program has guaranteed loans
worth $22 billion, the numbers become all the more impressive.
In 1997-98 the Small Business Loans Act borrowers reported that
they would create 74,600 new jobs. This is even more significant
when we understand that over 50% of all loans made under the
provisions of the act would never have been made under
conventional lending practices.
This is easy to believe when we note a 1996 study entitled
“Economic Impacts of the Small Business Loans Act”. The study
found that approximately 45% of the borrowers in the sample were
companies that were less than one year old. In comparison, only
5% of non-SBLA loans went to start up firms.
Much has already been done to facilitate the work of this House
as well as the industry committee when it begins its in-depth
examination of Bill C-53. To date, a comprehensive review of the
financing needs of small business has been completed with special
emphasis on the following areas: the economic impact studies;
the compliance and default studies; the stakeholder
consultations; the cost benefit analysis and future evaluations;
and the capital leasing studies. As well, our hon. colleagues in
the other place finished the committee report entitled “Review
of the Small Business Loans Act”.
In dealing with this bill, I would like to stress both what has
been included and what has been excluded. As for what is in this
bill, many provisions of the Small Business Loans Act have
remained unchanged. The loan loss ratio remains at 85% of the
cost of claims for loans in default. This is the same rate that
it has been since 1995. Lenders remain responsible for the
remainder.
Members of this House will recall that the Liberal government
reinstated this ratio in 1995 after the Conservative government
had reduced the risk to lenders in 1993. The Conservative
government did this to encourage a greater participation by the
financial sector in the Small Business Loans Act.
When a government sets up a program like the SBLA which
guarantees loans for small businesses, it does so for one very
obvious reason. Without such an act, loans would be labelled too
high risk by lenders and they simply would not be given.
Therefore I have to question the judgment used by the government
when it increased the risk to lenders.
At the risk of attributing motives, this appears to be an
instance where good politics took precedence over good policy. I
say this because since the Liberals did this, we have studies
which show that small and medium size enterprise lender
dissatisfaction has been steadily increasing.
Rather than pointing fingers at lenders or borrowers, this
legislation should be focusing on improving the environment for
both.
1330
A few other program parameters which have not changed should be
noted. The maximum loan size remains at $250,000. When this
issue was reviewed it was found there was very little support for
increasing this figure. Until recently the Canadian Federation
of Independent Businesses was arguing for a reduction of the loan
threshold. One notable exception to this is the tourism industry
where many have called for a doubling of the $250,000 threshold.
This has been due in part to the significant capital investment
required for facilities. The percentage of the costs of eligible
capital assets accepted for financing remains at 90%. This is a
reasonable figure and there is no need to review it.
However, there is a shortcoming with this bill that lies in its
failure to come to grips with the issue of the lack of access to
the Small Business Loans Act that currently exists for knowledge
based industries. The minister raised hopes when he asked for a
report that asked for the Small Business Loans Act to be expanded
to target knowledge based industries. Unfortunately when the
answer comes back that something definitely needs to be done, he
chooses to ignore it.
Knowledge based industries are among the most dynamic job
producing companies in Canada today. The problem lies in the
fact that their major assets are intellectual and thus are not
capable of being financed under current criteria. So what are we
to do, ignore them? Based on the industry estimates which I read
this year, the same estimates which place so much emphasis on the
importance of thriving as a knowledge based economy, I am more
than a little surprised that we have no firm plan from the
minister.
It is not my intention here to cast aspersions but in the past
the Minister of Industry has indicated his willingness to
encourage the development of our knowledge based economy. My
party stands ready to assist with this. Perhaps Bill C-53 is the
vehicle we can use.
I turn my attention to the specific changes that will come about
if Bill C-53 is implemented. First, there is a mandatory program
review provision. If passed, this would mean the end of the
current provisions that require an automatic ending of lending
authorities if a new bill is not passed as we saw last year with
Bill C-21. While we are still a little short on the details that
would constitute this review process, in general terms it appears
to be a good idea.
I say that for the following reasons. Under the current system,
the government is in a situation where it must present a bill to
parliament in order to keep the program alive. This bill could
potentially contain clauses the government of the day would like
to slip through while at the same time keeping the opposition
handcuffed by the inherent time constraints. After all, who
wants to be the party that takes the blame for the demise of such
an historically important and successful act? With this in mind
the review process is a better way to deal fairly with any
necessary changes.
Under the proposed process the review would see data collected
over a five year period prior to the review used to give
parliamentarians and policy makers the tools needed to evaluate
where changes need to be considered. At the end of the five year
period, currently designated as March 31, 2004, the minister
would have 12 months in which to cause a comprehensive review. At
this point we are not prepared to comment on the reasonableness
of these time constraints as we look forward to reviewing them at
the committee stage.
Bill C-53 proposes a new component to the act, the idea of pilot
projects both for capital leasing and for the voluntary sector.
Capital leasing has been an ever growing and popular financing
option for small and medium size enterprises. This particular
type of lease ensures that the lessee will own the equipment at
the end of the lease. A provision of this nature serves to
protect the interests of taxpayers as the equipment will become
an asset of the company at the end of this lease. Or so one would
believe if one were to read the memorandum that was distributed
by the minister to all parliamentarians.
However, Industry Canada's report “Access to Financing for Small
Business: Meeting the Changing Needs” is not so definitive in
its treatment of capital leases. I refer to page 17: “Capital
leasing is the leasing of equipment for the major part of its
useful life, with the expectation that the lessee will obtain
ownership of the equipment”. If the intent of the bill is to
guarantee that all capital leases under the program will be lease
to own agreements the wording should be carefully considered.
1335
At present the leasing industry does not approve leasing for
firms under two years old seeking less than $100,000. This
typically excludes the majority of present Small Business Loans
Act borrowers. Parliamentary committees will be consulted for
the implementation of such a pilot project. In doing so, I trust
we will come up with a program which is responsive to the stated
needs that exist.
The other proposed pilot project deals with the voluntary
sector. The document “Securing Our Future Together” makes a
commitment to reviewing federal small business programs with a
view to extending their mandate to the voluntary sector. This
program raises many questions. In recent hearings conducted into
this issues witnesses generally were opposed to extending
provisions of the Small Business Loans Act to the voluntary
sector.
Some of the reasons cited included costs as well as instability
of revenues. These are legitimate concerns and I also would be
concerned if we were to put in place a program which would allow
non-profit or voluntary organizations to unfairly compete with
other business interests. This is something that needs to be
more thoroughly explored at the committee stage.
Contingent liabilities are a new addition to the act. The claim
being made is this is somehow necessary to shield the taxpayers
against incurring more than $1.5 billion liability should all
loans default. Based on the fact that the program as it stands
is only experiencing a 5.6% default rate coupled with the fact
that the program would have to be five times larger for such a
large payout to be made, I am suspicious of this clause.
A cynic might suggest that this is merely window dressing and
marketing to make the government appear fiscally responsible. The
reality is the threshold is set so high it will never come close
to being tested but it does sound nice.
Cost recovery is a worthy goal of the program. Toward that
achievement, Bill C-53 seeks to allow the government the ability
to restrict access to program loans or guarantees. Too little has
been released on this clause to discuss it with any depth and I
would caution that any legislation covering this area must be
generous in scope with allowance for various contingencies. We
have a heavily regulated financial services sector already. If
any abuse of process is suspected other avenues may exist to
achieve compliance.
The next area I wish to address is that of the proposed
accountability framework. This proposal by Price Waterhouse will
access the Canadian small business financing act over the next
five years. Several criteria will be used, including the
visibility of the program to potential borrowers, its impact on
creating and maintaining jobs and the performance of the
borrowers. The auditor general in his report on management of
the small business loans program points out that claims audit
procedures need to be strengthened. This is an area that will
have to be dealt with with great sensitivity to the viability of
the program as a whole.
I remind the House that the reason this act exists is due to the
undeniable fact that a problem exists. The problem was the
unwillingness of banks to lend to small and medium size
enterprises. Any attempt to change the program so as to put
greater compliance demands on lending institutions will only
result in fewer small businesses getting the financing they
desperately need. While I am not opposing the provisions at this
time I am suggesting that we tread carefully.
Finally, I would like to address a clause in the Industry Canada
review of the Small Business Loans Act. Specifically in the
booklet “Meeting the Changing Needs” on page 17 there is a
reference to asset transfers.
1340
Included in this is a reference to non-arm's length transfers of
assets of going concerns.
The issue I raise is that specifically itemized as being
excluded from the CSBFA act guaranteed loans would be the sale of
a business from a parent to a child. This needs to be reviewed
and for very good reasons. We no longer live in a time where the
purchase of family businesses is financed by long
apprenticeships, that is to say children working at below market
value with the understanding that some day the businesses will be
theirs.
Rather, the inherent value of small businesses represent the
equivalent of an RRSP to many business owners. This provision
would result in children being unable to secure the proper
financing. What would happen then? I suggest that parents who
are facing the insecurity of retirement would be forced to look
at selling their business to a non-relative who would not know
the ins and outs of the particular company and would have access
to the Canadian small business financing act loan guarantees.
Is this fair? I think not. At a time when high taxes and a
lack of opportunity are leading to brain drain and breaking down
the family unit, we do not need to make the situation worse with
punitive anti-family legislation.
Once again I look forward to working at the committee level to
see if we can change this.
Mr. Dick Harris (Prince George—Bulkley Valley, Ref.):
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to offer some comments on the debate
today because it concerns a subject that is very near and dear to
my heart, small business. Having been in small business for over
20 years, when I had a real life before I became a politician, I
was aware of many things that were lacking in what it took to run
a successful small business.
I cannot let this debate go by without revisiting a couple of
things that this government has failed to recognize. At the top
of that list is the level of EI premiums.
Small businesses and the people they employ are currently being
overcharged by some 33% on EI premiums that are necessary to not
only sustain the program but also to provide a reasonable rainy
day fund in case we have a downturn in the economy.
Not only do we have that rainy day fund available but the
finance minister has decided that he wanted to create a hurricane
fund. We now have a surplus of $20 billion in EI premiums for
this year. Let me clarify that. There are many workers who
think there is $20 billion in the fund but in fact all that is
there is an IOU from the finance minister who has scooped the
entire pot and it looks like he is intending on defying or
changing the law that governs EI surpluses so he can continue to
scoop an extra $6 billion per year.
I know members want me to conclude but I cannot stop without
talking about the high taxation level. Canada is the highest in
all the G-7 countries. Small businesses are stressed under a
burdening tax regime that makes us uncompetitive. I would like
the member from the fifth party to elaborate. I know this is the
Reform issue but I am sure the Tories can try to elaborate on it.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Just before the hon.
member for Markham responds, I make the point that this is a
small business act. We are allowing a fair amount of latitude in
the questions and comments and debate but let us try to touch
every once in a while on the touchstone of the bill that is on
debate.
Mr. Jim Jones: Mr. Speaker, I could not agree more that
there is a virtual surplus of over $20 billion. We know a tax on
unemployment insurance is really a tax on small business and
other employment. The government should be reducing that. Also
we are too highly taxed in this country .
It was interesting to see over the summer when the Asian flu was
starting to impact the dollar in Canada that all the money that
was leaving those countries was not coming to this country but
was going to the U.S. I think a good reason for that was that
investors viewed the risk they saw in this country as not being
worth the payback. Maybe our taxes are too high, both our
personal income taxes and also the way the government is milking
the employment insurance fund.
1345
Mr. Nelson Riis (Kamloops, Thompson and Highland Valleys,
NDP): Mr. Speaker, I want to join my colleague to my
left who raised the issue of the EI fund.
On the weekend I saw a fellow on the street with a huge sign
that said “Paul the pirate”. I approached him to see what on
earth he was up to and he said “The Minister of Finance is
pirating funds that working people and small entrepreneurs have
put into the EI fund for the last number of years. He is
stealing $5 billion this year”. How can he do that?
My friend from Markham made reference to the changes in the
legislation that would result in a five year opportunity to
review the success of the program, particularly the pilot
studies, and that the minister would have significantly more room
in terms of regulatory change. I know there has been a change in
government policy, perhaps in every department, where more
emphasis is being given to providing responsibility and authority
to the minister to change regulations having to do with certain
pieces of legislation.
Does my hon. friend from Markham not have some concern about
this area in terms of ministerial influence, in terms of
adjusting or changing legislation, in terms of where that might
take us?
Second, does he feel, as I do, that there is a crucial area in
the field of financing for tourism related projects? I do not
think this legislation meets that area of the economy in any way
and it is something that we should be looking at as
parliamentarians.
Mr. Jim Jones: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for
his question.
With respect to legislation on tourism, I am not aware if
funding is adequate in that area.
The area I am concerned about, which this act does not address,
is the knowledge based sector. I believe that at least 10% of
all funding should go to the knowledge based sector because the
knowledge based sector is the future of this country. We should
be willing to take a risk and look after that industry too.
The five year timeframe is something that we will be discussing
in committee, so I will comment on that later.
* * *
BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
STANDING COMMITTEE ON PROCEDURE AND HOUSE AFFAIRS
Mr. Bob Kilger (Stormont—Dundas, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
there have been discussions among all parties and if the House
will give its consent I move the following:
That the membership of the Standing Committee on Procedure and
House Affairs be modified as follows:
Gurmant Grewal for Ken Epp; Lynn Myers for Mac Harb; Joe Fontana
for Carolyn Parrish; and Gar Knutson for Rey Pagtakhan.
[Translation]
And that the following Members be added to the list of
Associate Members: Joe Jordan, Jay Hill, Garry Breitkreuz,
Grant McNally, Deborah Grey, Elinor Caplan, Steve Mahoney and
Mac Harb.
[English]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The House has heard
the terms of the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to
adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
(Motion agreed to)
* * *
1350
CANADA SMALL BUSINESS FINANCING ACT
The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-53, an
act to increase the availability of financing for the
establishment, expansion, modernization and improvement of small
businesses, be read the second time and referred to a committee;
and of the amendment.
Mr. Walt Lastewka (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Industry, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, just a few weeks ago, at the
end of August, we all witnessed how volatile and unpredictable
economic forces can be.
Stock markets and national currencies were whiplashed overnight
during a sudden explosive global crisis of confidence.
Fortunately it was short-lived panic, but at times like this
every sector of the economy feels vulnerable. Particularly
vulnerable to cyclical economic shifts are small and medium size
businesses.
Many do not have the financial resources to wait out economic
swings. Even in periods of stability, largely because of the
difficulty of getting adequate credit at reasonable rates, it is
a formidable challenge to manage a small business profitably.
However, manage and succeed they do. The vision, the energy,
the perseverance and the plain hard work of Canadian
entrepreneurs have made small business an absolutely
indispensable component of our national economy.
These businesses continue to be the fastest growing segment of
the economy. They also continue to be the biggest generator of
jobs by far in every region of the country. It is obvious that
this community will continue to benefit many Canadians if we take
the measures necessary to facilitate its health, expansion and
profitability.
An important contribution that we make at this time for this
sector is to provide it with stability. The House can go a long
way to help establish a climate of stability for small business
by giving its approval to Bill C-53, the Canada Small Business
Financial Act. This stability is provided through the bill which
will continue to provide the small business community with access
to financing.
Maintaining the program on a cost-recovery track will enhance
the certainty of continuing taxpayer support for this important
risk-sharing program.
We are eliminating the aggregate lending ceiling which has
created uncertainty about the program in recent years and
replacing it with a more realistic mechanism to continue the
program.
This will enhance lenders' and borrowers' confidence that the
program will be there in the future to facilitate financing.
Stability will be enhanced by eliminating the sunset clause and
replacing it with a regular review during which lending will
continue.
Finally, by maintaining most of the parameters of the current
legislation, stability is further ensured. Everyone who deals
with the program knows where they stand.
The bill also contains a major benefit for Parliament. This is
the provision for a recurring five year parliamentary review of
the Canada Small Business Financing Act program.
It also provides for the development of a comprehensive
accountability framework which will give Parliament improved and
more accurate data and performance measurements against which to
evaluate the program's financial standing, its efficiency and its
success in meeting cost recovery.
The program evaluation framework and the performance measures
that are being developed will also address the concerns raised by
the auditor general and the Standing Committee on Public
Accounts. When he appeared before the committee, the auditor
general stated that the program was generally well run, with a
minimum of costs.
The program, as hon. members know, has since been subjected to a
comprehensive review, analysis and assessment. This review took
account of the observations and recommendations of the auditor
general. This will eliminate the periodic concern that the
program will not be available and will permit Parliament the time
it needs to carry out a careful review of its operation. This
has not always been possible in the past because of the deadline
on lending authority created by the sunset clause.
When the minister launched a review last November he set three
goals for any program that would emerge as a result. He wished
to ensure that the program would remain relevant to the needs of
small business, be financially self-sustaining and have an
adequate accountability framework.
The comprehensive review conducted by the department included
examining issues with borrowers, potential borrowers, lenders and
major industry associations.
1355
This review included a series of studies in the following broad
areas: economic impact studies, compliance and default studies,
stakeholder consultations, cost benefit analysis, and future
evaluation and capital leasing studies.
In launching the comprehensive review the Minister of Industry
set the goal of developing an appropriate accountability
framework for the program as one of the three conditions for
continuing the program. The framework is intended to provide
parliamentarians with answers to questions that have frequently
been asked about the program, questions such as the relevance of
increasing access to financing for small business; the need for
continuing federal government involvement; its impact on the
creation, maintenance and displacement of jobs; the performance
of borrowers; whether the program as designed meets its
objectives; whether it overlaps with other programs; whether
small businesses have other financing needs not met by the
program; and whether program costs can be predicted accurately
and recovered.
In addition to this, the framework will also report on progress
toward achieving cost recovery and the reliability of forecasting
for the program.
The pertinent information that parliamentarians will need to
accurately measure the performance of the program will be
provided through better methods of collecting data.
Administrative changes and new regulatory provisions will ensure
that information is collected. For example, the new legislation
requires lenders and borrowers to provide certain information
needed for program evaluation. An accumulating database will
monitor performance and aid in assessing the targeting of the
program. More categorized information on program use and on
impacts such as job effects will be included in the annual
reports.
There is a provision in the bill for recurrent five year reviews
of the program. These will be conducted with the evaluation
framework and empirically sound performance measurements. They
will provide the House with the information it needs to make
decisions about the program.
The accountability framework for the program that I have just
described is the kind of tool that this House needs to make
well-informed judgments and appropriate decisions on complex
issues that have a direct bearing on the livelihood of millions
of men and women, the small entrepreneurs in this country and the
millions more that they employ.
I know that members of the House are well aware of the crucial
significance of small business. I also know that each one of
them would want to have available the best evaluation tools and
the most reliable information possible when making decisions that
can affect the health and prosperity of the small and medium size
business sector.
It is for this reason that I am glad this bill has been tabled
so early in this session so the industry committee can have a
thorough review before passing it on to the other House.
[Translation]
The Speaker: It being almost 2 p.m., we will now proceed to
Statements by Members.
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
[English]
LITERACY
Mr. Mac Harb (Ottawa Centre, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, Canada
spends close to $50 billion on education and still over 25% of
Canadians cannot read, write or use numbers well enough to meet
the demand of our society. Obviously our education system is
failing.
As we move into the 21st century it is imperative to rethink the
way we educate our children. As a start, the provinces have an
obligation to work together to implement important initiatives
such as establishing national literacy and education standards.
I am pleased to report that yesterday our city, Ottawa, hosted
its first “Word on the Street” festival to celebrate the
pleasure of books and reading. This event highlighted the work
of local writers and was organized in support of literacy
programs.
I would like to congratulate and thank everyone dedicated to the
promotion of literacy, especially Peter Calamai and Joyce
Fairbairn. Their work has not gone unnoticed.
* * *
EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE FUND
Mr. Darrel Stinson (Okanagan—Shuswap, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I have received many complaints from laid off workers in
Okanagan—Shuswap who cannot qualify for employment insurance
benefits under this government's new rule.
When times were good they paid in but now they cannot get
benefits.
1400
Employment insurance is supposed to be part of our Canadian
social safety net. Instead of the fund being insurance for
workers who get laid off, this government has been using the EI
fund as its own personal piggy bank, piling up a surplus of $20
billion.
The finance minister is even trying to keep the premiums high
rather than cutting them as the law requires. That this
government sees itself as being above the law is the best
argument yet that the EI fund must be removed from this
government's back pocket and administered instead by a board of
private sector employees and employers. It is their money.
This government's EI administration inside general revenues is
nothing less than legalized theft. If this was in the private
sector—
The Speaker: My colleagues, once again I think we are
getting a little bit close to the line. Words such as “theft”
and “stealing” should not be used in the House of Commons.
* * *
CHIN WING CHUN TONG SOCIETY OF CANADA
Ms. Sophia Leung (Vancouver Kingsway, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
I am very pleased to announce the 80th anniversary of the Chin
Wing Chun Tong Society of Canada.
This organization provides many programs for the Chinese
community in Canada. For 80 years it has been making a great
contribution to business, culture and education in Canada.
Recently the first North American Chan's Kinship Conference was
held which brought together descendants of the Chan clan from all
over North America.
Congratulations to the organizers and members of the Vancouver
Chans for making their organization a great success.
* * *
TRADE 98
Ms. Sarmite Bulte (Parkdale—High Park, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to inform the House about
Trade 98 which took place recently in Magog, Quebec.
Twenty-five leading women exporters were invited to work
together with senior government officials to address trade
barriers facing women entrepreneurs.
The focus of Trade 98 was to learn why export markets are not
being tapped to their full extent by women entrepreneurs and to
launch a national research program to address and remedy the
situation.
This research is being undertaken by the trade research
coalition which was established by the Minister for International
Trade following the overwhelming success of last November's
Canadian businesswomen's trade mission to Washington, D.C. Their
findings will be the basis for trade policy discussions at next
May's Canada-U.S. Women's Trade Summit.
As I have said many times in this House, women business owners
are a major force in our economy today leading over 700,000 small
and medium size businesses and employing in excess of 1.7 million
Canadians. While this trend continues to grow, this government
continues to work with women business owners.
* * *
AMNESTY INTERNATIONAL
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
Amnesty International is a membership movement dedicated to
protecting human rights. It is also independent of any
government, political persuasion, or religious creed.
Its main focus is to work for the release of all prisoners of
conscience who have not used or advocated violence. This
includes people detained anywhere for their beliefs or as a
result of their ethnic origin, sex, colour, language, national
origin, social origin, economic status, birth or other status.
Amnesty International also works for the fair and prompt trials
of all political prisoners, abolition of the death penalty,
torture and other cruel treatment and to end extrajudicial
executions and disappearances.
As 1998 marks the 50th anniversary of the UN Universal
Declaration of Human Rights, I am sure that all hon. members
would like to pay tribute to Amnesty International for its
important efforts to promote, defend and protect internationally
recognized human rights.
* * *
CANADIAN BLOOD SERVICES AGENCY
Mr. Grant Hill (Macleod, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, today
Canada's new blood agency takes over the duties of the Red Cross.
Will this new Canadian blood services agency be better
positioned to prevent infected blood in the future? In my
judgment the following issues still need to be addressed.
One, ultimate authority for the blood system should rest with
the federal health minister. His accountability should be clear
and precise.
Two, Canadians should be encouraged to donate their own blood
prior to elective surgery. This would reduce donor demand and
increase safety.
Three, research into blood substitutes should be a primary focus
of any modern blood agency.
Only when these three issues are addressed will we begin again
to trust our blood transfusion service.
* * *
1405
[Translation]
COMMONWEALTH GAMES
Mrs. Maud Debien (Laval East, BQ): Mr. Speaker, it is with
great pride that I welcome the return of two Laval athletes from
the games in Kuala Lumpur: Alexandre Despatie, who, at age 13,
became one of the youngest athletes in the history of the
Commonwealth Games to win a gold medal, and Kasia Kulesza, who
won a gold medal in synchronized swimming for her duo with
Jacinthe Taillon.
Kasia Kulesza won a bronze medal twice already: first, at the
1996 Olympic Games in Atlanta and then at the 1997 world
championships in Ganzhou, China.
Kasia is a resident of Laval East, the riding I have the honour
of representing in this House.
She is one of the finest up and coming young athletes in Quebec.
On behalf of the people of Laval, I congratulate you, Kasia, and
wish you the best of luck in the coming Olympics.
* * *
[English]
HOUSING
Mr. Bill Graham (Toronto Centre—Rosedale, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, Toronto Centre—Rosedale is home to many diverse
co-operative housing units. In bringing together people from
different backgrounds in a secure housing environment, co-ops
play an important role in providing stable communities in our
fragile inner cities. The people who live there genuinely seek
to improve their communities.
As we await the report of the Advisory Council on Social Housing
Reform and the Ontario government's response to it, we find that
the Ontario government, by downloading the responsibility for
social housing to the municipalities, has created serious
difficulties in how to deal with both social housing generally
and co-ops in a way that ensures the viability of this important
Canadian resource.
Co-operative housing is a unique form of housing. It is an
important component in any comprehensive social housing policy.
All levels of government together with the co-operative housing
movement must work together to craft a viable and thoughtful
solution to this issue, one that will preserve this important and
unique form of housing.
* * *
MAGAZINE ADVERTISING
Mr. Réginald Bélair (Timmins—James Bay, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, on July 29 the government announced a new measure which
will regulate the supply of advertising services directed at
Canadian consumers by foreign publishers of magazines. The
legislation will soon be tabled in the house. Without this
measure foreign publishers would enjoy significant advantages
over Canadian publishers.
[Translation]
Advertising revenues are essential in order to be able to
produce stories, commentaries and ideas that reflect our values,
heritage and opinions, which constitute a line of communication
at the heart of our culture and identity as Canadians.
The new measure does not restrict in any way the access of
Canadians to foreign periodicals. Canada is and will remain one
of the most open countries in the world in terms of foreign
publications. At present, more than 80% of periodicals sold in
Canadian newsstands are published abroad.
[English]
This new measure—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Saskatoon—Humboldt.
* * *
FIREARMS
Mr. Jim Pankiw (Saskatoon—Humboldt, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
last year the Canadian government sponsored four UN workshops on
issues of firearms ownership. Canadian bureaucrats chaired those
meetings. As an elected member of parliament representing
Canadians, I requested observer status at the UN meetings.
However, the Minister of Foreign Affairs repeatedly denied my
access.
Those UN workshops culminated in a seminar in New York last
week. The seminar was sponsored by Canada. Once again Canadian
bureaucrats participated. Much to the surprise of the foreign
affairs minister, I was present not as a Canadian but as an
Australian.
Next on the UN agenda is a small arms convention.
Given that more UN meetings are planned for the future, the
minister should reconsider his decision to handcuff Canadian MPs
and grant observer status to those of us wanting to attend.
Canadian MPs should not have to continue to go as Australians in
order to monitor the activities of this government's bureaucrats.
* * *
[Translation]
GEMINI AWARDS GALA
Mr. Claude Drouin (Beauce, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the Gemini Awards
gala took place yesterday evening. It was the 13th edition of a
great event that pays tribute to the very best people in
television.
People were nominated in a number of categories, and the winners
displayed all kinds of emotions ranging from joy and wonder to
amazement, as is often the case in such circumstances.
Whether these people work in the field of information, whether
they are producers or authors of the best documentaries, or
whether they are the best performers, one thing is certain: the
Canadian public is lucky to enjoy so much talent and
originality.
I congratulate all those who contribute to this truly dynamic
industry that television is.
Ultimately, it is Canadians who benefit from the talent and
know-how of our authors and performers. We can never
overemphasize their important contribution to the Canadian
cultural identity.
* * *
1410
[English]
POLICE AND PEACE OFFICERS
Mr. Peter Mancini (Sydney—Victoria, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I
rise today on behalf of the NDP and all Canadians to
enthusiastically support the creation of a national memorial day
for police and peace officers to occur the last Sunday of
September of each year. This has been long overdue.
This will formalize a tradition observed for over two decades.
It is clear that the families and colleagues of fallen officers
count on all of us to pay tribute to the memories of police
officers who are no longer with us. It is a time when we all
pause to reflect on the contribution that police and peace
officers make to our society and to honour their sacrifice.
A formal national memorial day will serve Canadians well and
remind us that our safety often comes at the great sacrifice made
by our peace officers. We are all indebted to police and peace
officers for their hard work and sacrifice. They have paid with
their lives for their dedication to their communities. They and
their families deserve our gratitude and recognition.
* * *
[Translation]
INTERNATIONAL AID
Ms. Raymonde Folco (Laval West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the minister
responsible for international co-operation announced on Friday
that Canada would provide $600,000 in assistance to the victims
of the hurricane that devastated the West Indies. The money will
be distributed through CIDA.
This confirms once again Canadians' generosity when it comes to
helping those in need, or those who are victims of catastrophes
around the world.
The Canadian spirit of openness and co-operation is well-known
throughout the world, and I feel lucky to live in a country
where international assistance and co-operation are truly part of
our traditions and values.
* * *
FUSILIERS DE SHERBROOKE
Mr. David Price (Compton—Stanstead, PC): Mr. Speaker, for nearly
20 years now, the Fusiliers de Sherbrooke have been connected
with an important annual fundraising event for the Fondation du
Centre universitaire de santé de l'Estrie. Over the years, this
foundation has collected over $15,000 at this event, which is
held at the Sherbrooke armoury.
This year, the foundation is being penalized by the totally
unacceptable behaviour that took place at a regimental dinner
held by the Fusiliers on September 12. Until the investigation
into these incidents is completed, the armoury cannot be used
for social events.
Let us look at this objectively. The community ought not to be
punished because a few individuals acted in an unacceptable
manner. I am asking the minister to look into this matter,
which merits special attention, and to take the necessary steps
to allow the foundation to hold its fundraising event as
planned.
* * *
[English]
AGRICULTURE
Mr. Peter Adams (Peterborough, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, over
the years I have travelled around Peterborough riding in good
economic times and bad. During this time I have seen firsthand
the ongoing contributions of supply managed agriculture to the
rural economy and way of life.
Milk, poultry and eggs provide a steady flow of funds which
ripple into local economies. This allows rural areas which are a
vital part of our country's national fabric to continue to thrive
in today's changing marketplace.
Supply managed farms, their workers and families work in a very
sophisticated competitive environment. As a result the quality
of farms and farm workers in these sectors is extremely high.
Our rural areas have benefited from the presence of supply
management. Consumers benefit from high quality products and
stable, reasonable prices. It is easy to see why Canada's
effective use of supply management in agriculture has been a
model around the world.
* * *
[Translation]
MEMBER FOR SHERBROOKE
Mrs. Pauline Picard (Drummond, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the people of
Sherbrooke have spoken. They have just sent a clear response to
the Prime Minister of Canada, whom they recognize as responsible
for the huge cuts in health throughout Canada. They have just
told the federal government they will no longer put up with his
arrogant attitude toward Quebec, whether the issue concerned is
the Constitution or the millennium scholarships.
The people of Sherbrooke have figured out that electing a Bloc
Quebecois MP was, first and foremost, the way to ensure that
their interests would be defended. They have sent a clear
message to the rest of Canada: the Liberal government is not an
acceptable choice for them.
More than ever in Quebec, the centralist and invasive governing
style of the Prime Minister is not to our liking.
1415
The people of Sherbrooke have had the opportunity to express
aloud what a large majority of Quebeckers really think.
We wish our new colleague, the hon. member for Sherbrooke, a
warm welcome among us.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
* * *
NEW MEMBER
The Speaker: I have the honour to inform the House that the
Clerk of the House has received from the Chief Electoral Officer
a certificate of the election and return of the following
member:
Mr. Serge Cardin, for the electoral district of Sherbrooke.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
* * *
NEW MEMBER INTRODUCED
Serge Cardin, member for the electoral district of Sherbrooke,
introduced by Mr. Gilles Duceppe and Mr. Stéphane Bergeron.
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
[English]
EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
there is a law that says when the finance minister overtaxes you
with employment insurance premiums he has to return that money.
That is the law. It is a law that limits the tax grabbing power
of the minister.
Now we hear that the minister wants to change that law. Will
the finance minister tell Canadians here and now that he will not
change that law, that he will not continue to rob Peter to pay
Paul?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, first of all let me say that no specific proposition has
been made to cabinet. We have, however, had an important debate,
a debate which has existed since 1986 when the auditor general
insisted that the EI account be consolidated with the
government's general funds.
Let me point out that governments have to make choices and those
choices involve a reduction of EI premiums, absolutely, but they
also involve a reduction in personal income taxes and they
involve spending in important areas like health care.
We must have that debate and the government looks forward to
having that debate in the House and across the country.
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, we
can talk about choices any time. We are happy to do that.
However when it comes to employment insurance there is no choice.
The law says that the minister must give that money back.
Is he going to change that law to get his hands on the money
that the law says he is not entitled to?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the debate that is required in this country in an era of
considerable global volatility when country after country outside
our borders is in recession is: Is the government going to give
up that area of its financial manoeuvring which prevents us from
going into a deficit?
Is the government going to maintain a balanced approach? Are we
going to reduce debt? Are we going to reduce personal income
taxes? Are we going to reduce EI premiums? Are we going to
invest in health care?
1420
That is the debate. I would suggest the Reform Party ought to
begin to gauge it on that basis.
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
according to the chief actuary Canadians are paying 33% more than
they have to. This is a $6 billion a year tax grab.
Why does the finance minister not just give the money back? Why
does the minister not just drop the money and walk away, slowly,
and keep his hands where Canadians can see them?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, what is the debate the Reform Party is afraid of? Our
payroll taxes are substantially lower than those of most G-7
countries including the United States. Our personal income taxes
are higher.
Why will the Reform Party not engage in a debate as to the
proper allocation of those fundings? Why will the Reform Party
not debate the future of health care? Why will the Reform Party
not take a proper attitude toward the global economic crisis that
surrounds our borders? Why will the Reform Party not deal with
the real issues?
[Translation]
Mr. Rahim Jaffer (Edmonton—Strathcona, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the
Minister of Finance does not understand. The employment
insurance fund is not his personally, and amending the law would
change nothing. The Minister of Finance cannot use this money
to build up his slush fund.
How can the Minister of Finance justify pocketing the money of
Canadian workers and employers?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, is
the hon. member saying that employees in Canada are not going to
benefit from the protection of the Health Act? Is he saying
that they will not benefit from tax cuts? Is he saying that
employees in Canada would not suffer should we face another
deficit? Is that his position?
[English]
Mr. Dick Harris (Prince George—Bulkley Valley, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, it is amazing the finance minister just simply cannot
understand a direct question. It is clear that the finance
minister is thinking about changing the law that deals with the
EI surplus. We are talking about $6 billion here. That is a lot
of money out of the pockets of Canadian workers and employers.
What we want to know, what they want to know, what all of Canada
wants to know is: Does the minister intend to change the law so
he can get his hands on the $6 billion of EI surplus he is not
entitled to? Is he going to change the law or not? It is real
simple.
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, government is about choices but so is parliament about
choices. We ask the Reform Party—
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Speaker: Colleagues, I appeal to you once again. The
question has been asked. We have heard the question and I am
sure all of us would like to hear the answer. I invite the hon.
Minister of Finance to take the floor.
Hon. Paul Martin: Mr. Speaker, government is about
choices. The government's choice is to proceed on a balanced
approach.
I ask members of the Reform Party if Canadians are entitled to
know their position? Are they in favour of health care? Are
they in favour of lower income taxes for Canadians? Are they in
favour of reducing debt? Are they in favour of reducing EI
premiums to the extent we can afford? That is the issue.
Why is the Reform Party afraid to basically say what it wants to
do, or in fact do we now know?
[Translation]
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the
Bloc Quebecois has been saying for over a year now that
employment insurance premiums should not be used to increase the
government's budget surplus. The chief actuary at the Department
of Human Resources Development is now saying that the surplus
essentially belongs to the workers and businesses that have
contributed to the fund.
Now that the actuary is saying the same thing as we are, will
the Minister of Finance finally use the $20 billion surplus to
improve protection for the unemployed and to lower premium
rates?
1425
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, since
coming to office we have lowered employment insurance premiums
every year. Last year, we reduced them by 20 cents, for a total
of $1.5 billion.
We intend to continue with a balanced approach. This means that
we will invest in health. It also means that we will lower
personal taxes for Canadians. We will reduce the debt and
provide the economic activity and development that our country
deserves.
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, when
the Minister of Finance tells us about choices, he forgets an
essential reality, namely that three out of five people who are
currently unemployed and who paid premiums—in some cases
throughout their working lives—never qualify for benefits.
Does the minister not think that it is illegal and also
profoundly immoral to act in such a fashion?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the
Bloc Quebecois leader talks about morals. The Bloc wants us to
lower employment insurance premiums by $5 to $6 billion. They
want us to reduce taxes by $10 billion while at the same time
making a massive $11 billion investment in transfers to the
provinces. The total cost would be in excess of $25 billion. I
wonder what planet these people live on.
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques,
BQ): Mr. Speaker, the truth is that the latest statistics are
shocking.
Only 42% of the unemployed manage to get employment insurance
benefits.
Now that everyone can see the damage done by the employment
insurance reforms, how can the Minister of Human Resources
Development tolerate that his colleague, the Minister of
Finance, is preparing the legalize the misappropriation of
billions of dollars from the fund's surplus, when 6 out of 10
unemployed persons are not entitled to benefits?
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew (Minister of Human Resources
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as I have stated repeatedly in
the House, our government is concerned by the drop in
participation in the employment insurance system over the last
few months and the last few years.
This tendency has existed for the last ten years. It has reached
a point where I have asked Statistics Canada to tell us why the
participation rate has fallen over the last few years. I hope
the information we obtain will be useful to us, in October, so
that we can understand the problem better and take appropriate
steps to correct the situation.
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques,
BQ): Mr. Speaker, by waiting for the results of the Statistics
Canada study and letting the Minister of Finance do as he wishes
and misappropriate the surplus in the employment insurance fund,
are we to understand that the Minister of Human Resources
Development will once again submit to his colleague, the
Minister of Finance?
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew (Minister of Human Resources
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I can tell you that the
Minister of Finance has been very clear on this: no decision has
been made in this regard.
It is absolutely obvious, and you have my assurance, that in
discussions concerning the surplus in the employment insurance
fund, in my capacity as Minister of Human Resources Development,
I will continue to apply the policy of the government, whose
priority is to help Canadians get back to work, because that is
what the unemployed expect from us. And I will continue to
ensure that the employment insurance system serves Canadians wel
l.
* * *
[English]
APEC SUMMIT
Ms. Alexa McDonough (Halifax, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the
Prime Minister keeps giving assurances that the Public Complaints
Commission will get to the bottom of the Prime Minister's actions
and those of his staff in the Spray-PEC fiasco, but the
government's own lawyer says that documents from the Prime
Minister's Office are not even relevant to the inquiry.
How does the Prime Minister explain the contradiction?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, there is no contradiction.
The commission hearings will open on Monday. I am sure they
will look thoroughly into the matters that have been brought
before it by the protesters who have made complaints.
How does the hon. member explain that she once again said
something to the House on Friday that was inaccurate, and fails
to get up to apologize, when she claimed that Mr. Goldenberg took
an initiative to contact the president of the University of
British Columbia and it was just the opposite?
Why does she not get up and apologize? Explain that
contradiction.
Ms. Alexa McDonough (Halifax, NDP): Mr. Speaker, earlier
today a motion was filed with the Public Complaints Commission
seeking assurances that the commission would include the actions
of the Prime Minister and his staff.
1430
In view of the Prime Minister's stated commitment to co-operate
fully, will the government instruct its lawyers to immediately
support this motion?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, under the law setting up the commission, its terms of
reference are set by the commission itself and not by the
government.
Therefore I am sure the commission, which is at arm's length
from the government, a non-political and non-partisan body, will
listen carefully and make the proper decision.
I do not think it is appropriate for the leader of the NDP to
call on the government to in effect instruct the commission.
* * *
VETERANS AFFAIRS
Mrs. Elsie Wayne (Saint John, PC): Mr. Speaker, it is
really nice to be back in Wayne's world over here in the corner.
Tomorrow there will be merchant navy vets on a hunger strike on
the steps of Parliament Hill. After World War II they were
denied veterans job preference, rehabilitation grants, free
university education and land grants that went to all other
veterans.
Today these merchant navy veterans want to know if the veterans
affairs minister will bring in corrective legislation and
compensation to make them equal with all other vets.
Hon. Fred Mifflin (Minister of Veterans Affairs and Secretary
of State (Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency), Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I met with the veterans shortly after they arrived on
the steps of the House of Commons and I discussed the situation
with them.
In particular, I was concerned about their health and welfare so
I described the amenities that were available for their
sustenance on this strike.
The hon. member knows that legislation passed in 1992 gives
these veterans exactly the same benefits as armed forces veterans
to recognize the tremendous contribution they made to the freedom
and security of this country.
Mrs. Elsie Wayne (Saint John, PC): Mr. Speaker, in April
the minister at the committee meeting stated that he would be
bringing in a new bill to make them equal, probably by the end of
June. It is almost October and we have not seen it.
This minister and this government have squandered enough
taxpayer money to compensate the surviving merchant navy veterans
several times over. The cancellation of the Pearson airport deal
cost taxpayers over a billion dollars, enough to compensate
53,500 vets. There are only 2,300 of them.
When will this minister have the courage to compensate these
vets if they have—
The Speaker: The hon. Minister of Veterans Affairs.
Hon. Fred Mifflin (Minister of Veterans Affairs and
Secretary of State (Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency),
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member knows the legislation
that was passed was not retroactive. She also knows the
legislation gives these veterans exactly the same benefits she is
asking for.
I wrote her a seven page letter on August 12, explaining her 40
points. If she wants to know any more, she has to go back to her
Conservative cronies because it was they who passed the bill.
* * *
CANADA PENSION PLAN
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy (Calgary—Nose Hill, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, last week the finance minister protested loud and long
that there was no political interference with the work of the
chief actuary of Canada.
Was the minister aware of the high level gag committee chaired
by his assistant deputy minister that was set up to censor the
work of Mr. Dussault for “political sensitivity”?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, there is no gag committee. Given the changes and the
establishment of an independent fund within the Canada pension
plan, it is incumbent on the provinces and the federal government
to work together to basically determine new ways of operating,
ways that are really open to all the provinces.
Let me simply say one thing. There is no doubt that the chief
actuary's reports will be available to all the provinces and to
all Canadians. There will be no blockages or inefficiencies
placed in the way of Canadians or provinces dealing—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Calgary—Nose Hill.
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy (Calgary—Nose Hill, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, on June 4 in a letter to the province of Ontario,
Canada's chief actuary wrote that requests for actuarial
estimates on Canadians' pension plan “are now channelled through
and reviewed by a case review committee which is responsible for
determining whether the request must be disregarded on account of
its political sensitivity”.
How can the minister pretend the chief actuary is independent
when the government's censors are controlling the information he
gives out?
1435
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, let me repeat there will be no blockage or obstacle
placed in the way of provinces or Canadians dealing with the
chief actuary.
Second, I understand that the superintendent of financial
institutions has indicated that he will be available to meet with
the media later this week to discuss all these issues.
Third, a subcommittee has been struck by the House of Commons
finance committee to look at all these issues and the
superintendent would be delighted to appear before it.
* * *
[Translation]
EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Mr. Yvan Loubier (Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the
government seems to be having trouble deciding whether to use EI
surpluses to lower premiums and help contributors, or to lower
taxes generally. It appears to be leaning toward the second
course of action.
My question is for the Minister of Finance. Does he realize
that, by opting for a general tax reduction, he would have
decided to slough off the cost of the tax break for everyone,
including the rich, on those earning $39,000 and less, which is
complete nonsense?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, what
I realize is that, by lowering taxes, we will be easing the
burden for the elderly, who are living on a fixed income and do
not derive any benefit from reduced EI premiums.
There will be a tax decrease for self-employed workers who do not
benefit from reduced EI premiums.
I put the following question to the hon. member: Since he has
put the two choices on the table, will he have the courage to
tell us which he would favour?
Mr. Yvan Loubier (Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I take
the side of the most disadvantaged and the middle-income earners
of this country, because of the $37 billion in taxes the
minister has wrung out of them.
Mr. Gilles Duceppe: They do not have boats to sell.
Mr. Yvan Loubier: Is the Minister of Finance telling us that he
will do everything in his power to change the Employment
Insurance Act so that it is legal to take the money of
unemployed workers and low-income earners and use it to lower the
taxes of the richest members of Canadian society?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
there is no need for the hon. member to get so worked up.
The question is this: Is he in favour of lowering taxes for the
middle class and the most disadvantaged members of society? Is
he in favour—
An hon. member: Oh, oh.
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): —of other
investments in health for the provinces and to help the middle
class, or does he want to make empty speeches?
* * *
[English]
APEC SUMMIT
Mr. Jim Abbott (Kootenay—Columbia, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
the solicitor general loves to tell us that the public complaints
commission is going to get to the bottom of the APEC affair.
Under that commission it has been demanded that protester Jones
release between 800 and 1,200 documents to the public complaints
commission, including private correspondence even with his
girlfriend.
By contrast, the Prime Minister's office has released one thin
binder. Are we to believe a 33 year old student protester has
more documentation on this than the Prime Minister?
Hon. Andy Scott (Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, surely the hon. member, after all of last week, will
understand that the public complaints commission is the
instrument that has been established by parliament to get to the
truth. I think most Canadians would appreciate allowing it the
opportunity to find that truth, as that is ultimately what we are
all after.
Mr. Jim Abbott (Kootenay—Columbia, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
to be very candid, I do not believe the solicitor general is
interested in getting to the bottom of this affair. I believe he
is blocking it by using the public complaints commission.
How is it that a 33 year old student has more documentation
demanded of him by the public complaints commission than the
Prime Minister to this point has revealed? How can he explain
that this is not a cover-up by the Prime Minister's office?
Hon. Andy Scott (Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I can assure the hon. member that I do want to get to
the truth and I think most people are aware of that. The
instrument to do that is the PCC.
On the question of availability, the PCC makes the decisions as
to where to get its information. It is its job to get to the
truth and it will get there.
* * *
[Translation]
EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Mr. Serge Cardin (Sherbrooke, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my question is
for the Minister of Finance.
While the Prime Minister is literally up to his neck in the
employment insurance fund surplus, everyone is denouncing the
contribution rate, which is far in excess of needs. By
artificially maintaining employer and employee contributions at
a high level, is the Minister of Finance aware that he is
directly harming job creation, as well as slowing economic
growth considerably?
1440
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, to
begin with, allow me to offer my congratulations, and those of
my colleagues I am sure, to the hon. member on his election.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
Hon. Paul Martin: I understand that the hon. member is brand
new, and therefore perhaps not familiar with all the facts.
When we came to power, as the hon. member will learn,
contributions were about to be raised to $3.30. We froze them
at the $3.17 level, and have brought them down every year since
then. Last year we cut them by $1.5 billion.
Mr. Serge Cardin (Sherbrooke, Bloc Quebecois): Mr. Speaker, I
may be brand new here, but I am capable of reading the act and
of realizing that it is illegal to divert the employment
insurance surplus.
Instead of looking for ways to do what the legislation forbids
him to do, why does the minister not simply lower contributions?
That is what small and medium sized business wants.
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, had
the hon. member spent a little more time here, he would know
that, last year for example, we put $50 million into helping
small and medium sized businesses, to help these businesses with
the millennium bug problem. That we have a tax deduction for
small and medium sized businesses, from which they benefit,
instead of big business.
That, between 1980 and 1987, we lowered employment insurance
contributions only for them, and that last year we eliminated
contributions for young people, the bulk of whom are hired by—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Skeena.
* * *
[English]
INDIAN AFFAIRS
Mr. Mike Scott (Skeena, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, six months
ago after the department of Indian affairs breached Bruce
Starlight's confidentiality and privacy, the minister apologized
and promised it would never happen again.
On August 24 Leona Freed of the Dakota Plains Band wrote a
confidential letter to the Indian affairs minister and the health
minister complaining about the sewage system on her reserve.
Three weeks later Mrs. Freed received a letter from the chief's
lawyer threatening a lawsuit. This is exactly the same thing
that happened to Bruce Starlight.
Can the minister tell us, since she promised this would never
happen again, how Mrs. Freed's privacy and confidentiality was
violated?
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am glad to be able to
clarify the record here because indeed the Winnipeg Sun
wrote an article that was misleading and incorrect. It would
have us believe that the letter that Mrs. Freed was referring
to was written recently and that in fact her confidentiality had
been breached recently.
The initial letter was written in 1995. Indeed the letter did
find its way to the band council and that is why we have changed
our approach, why we have entered new requirements in the
department to manage that information.
So we are making progress. We do respect the confidentiality of
information and we will ensure in my department that it is
protected.
Mr. Mike Scott (Skeena, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the minister
is badly misinformed. This is the second time that Leona Freed's
privacy has been violated.
The first time she got a letter from the minister of Indian
affairs apologizing and saying it would never happen again. Now
it has happened again. She wrote the letter on August 24 of this
year. Three weeks later she was threatened with a lawsuit. This
is six months after the minister said that this kind of stuff was
going to end, that she was going to make sure to take steps.
How could this possibly have happened after she promised it
would never happen?
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, let me carry on with the
clarification.
The letter the member was referring to, dated August 24, was
sent to the Ministry of Health. That is not the ministry of
Indian affairs.
In my ministry we have taken action to deal with confidential
information. We understand that as it is received by my
department, so it should be managed effectively. It is my belief
that the Minister of Health will also take such precautions
because it is important that all constituents of this government
feel that their information can be protected.
* * *
[Translation]
SCRAPIE
Ms. Hélène Alarie (Louis-Hébert, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my question is
for the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food.
The massive destruction of sheep to eradicate scrapie is killing
Quebec's sheep industry.
1445
If the minister really wants to save this industry, what is he
waiting for to stop the massive and useless destruction of sheep
and offer the producers affected a financial compensation that
is fair, adequate and, above all, retroactive?
[English]
Hon. Lyle Vanclief (Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we are continuing our discussions with
representatives of the sheep industry in Canada and following the
explicit instructions they gave us many months ago. They want
this disease to be eradicated.
We are working to eradicate this disease and we are treating
those affected by it in exactly the same manner in which we treat
the owners of all reportable diseases in our livestock herds and
flocks in Canada.
* * *
FISHERIES
Mr. Paul Steckle (Huron—Bruce, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the
Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Organization recently held its
annual meeting in Lisbon, Portugal.
For the sake of moving forward with enforcement and conservation
measures necessary for the recovery of the northwest Atlantic
fish stocks, I now ask the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans what
was accomplished at this meeting.
Hon. David Anderson (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am happy to report to the House that
Canada achieved virtually all of its objectives at the NAFO
meeting. We achieved a continuation of 100% observer coverage
past 1998. We have also achieved moratoria on a number of stocks
at risk, including groundfish and other species.
We are very pleased with the results. We believe NAFO to be a
very important part of the international management of stocks in
the Atlantic.
* * *
ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Jay Hill (Prince George—Peace River, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the revelations of the Minister of Indian Affairs and
Northern Development were very enlightening to the House today.
She just stated that it is her belief that the leak took place
in the office of the Minister of Health.
Leona Freed took the minister at her word when she said awhile
ago that her government could be trusted by the aboriginal
people. Look what happened.
I ask the Minister of Health, since it has been revealed that
the leak took place in his department, what is he doing about it?
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, let us see if we can clarify
things a little more.
There was an article written in the Winnipeg Sun that
talked about letters received by my department. I want to
clarify to the House that the letter that was referred to was
written in 1995 and that, indeed, it did find its way to the band
council. But we have subsequently introduced a whole new regime
of controls and management for confidentiality.
Now opposition members are getting confused. They do not really
understand that all departments of the federal government have a
role and a relationship with First Nations.
Mr. Jay Hill (Prince George—Peace River, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, let us really clarify this issue. The letter in
question was not written in 1995, as the hon. minister would like
us to believe, it was August 24 of this year. That is about a
month ago, not a long time ago.
I ask the Minister of Health again. Did the leak take place
from his office or did it take place from the office of the
Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development?
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, this government believes
that confidential information should be protected. That is why
in my department we implemented a whole new strategy of managing
work that comes from First Nations so we can control
confidentiality.
What is confusing here is that the opposition does not
understand that different departments of government have
relationships with First Nations. In this particular case the
letter which is being referred to was not sent to my department
but indeed to the Department of Health.
* * *
EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE FUND
Mr. Pat Martin (Winnipeg Centre, NDP): Mr. Speaker, to
deduct money from a person's paycheque for a specific use and
then to use it for something completely different would be
nothing short of fraudulent, yet that is exactly what the
Minister of Finance is proposing to do with the EI surplus.
Will the Minister of Finance agree that using the EI surplus for
anything other than income maintenance and training would mean
that EI premiums are nothing more than yet another tax on the
employers and employees who pay for it?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, what I would agree with is that we have to have an
important debate in this country.
The government has essentially said that health care is
important. The government has said that lowering taxes for low
income and middle income Canadians is important. The government
has said that making sure this country does not go into deficit
in the midst of enormous global volatility is important.
1450
I can understand that the Reform Party may not want to debate
unimportant social issues; I am amazed to understand that the
member from the NDP does not.
Mr. Pat Martin (Winnipeg Centre, NDP): Mr. Speaker, what
we are seeing in the Liberal cabinet is sort of a clash of the
Titans. The Minister of Human Resources Development is sitting
on this absolute windfall of money that is growing at $500
million a month and the Minister of Finance cannot wait to get
his hands on it.
Will the Minister of Human Resources Development tell us today
that he is going to fight for Canadian workers and make sure the
money is used for its intended use—unemployment income,
maintenance and training—and not for the leadership aspirations
of the Minister of Finance?
The Speaker: The last part is getting a little close
again. The hon. Minister of Human Resources Development.
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew (Minister of Human Resources
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have already been very
clear in the House. No decision has been made on this specific
issue, but as a government we have insisted on having good,
active labour market measures to help unemployed Canadians
reintegrate into the labour market. That priority will not
change.
Mr. Scott Brison (Kings—Hants, PC): Mr. Speaker, the EI
fund is wholly funded by workers and employers. The government
has a legal and a moral obligation to give the surplus back to
those workers in the form of lower premiums.
The minister has said that breaking the law and raiding the EI
fund is simply a matter of choice, a matter of political
priorities.
Will the minister do the right thing today and simply lower EI
premiums, or will he pillage the fund like Genghis Khan the
finance minister and his marauding hordes of Liberal
backbenchers?
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Speaker: Last week we had Jesse James and Bonnie and
Clyde. Today we have Genghis Khan. I think we are getting a
little carried away in our statements and our questions. I am
going to permit the hon. Minister of Finance to answer the
question.
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, if the hon. member's idea of Genghis Khan is somebody
who in each of the last four years has reduced EI premiums, then
what would he call the previous Conservative finance ministers
who every single year increased those premiums?
Is it Attila the Hun? Is it Tamerlane? Or is it other things
which are equally unparliamentary?
Mr. Scott Brison (Kings—Hants, PC): Mr. Speaker, the
Liberal government has made it open season on anybody who
disagrees with it, including students at APEC or public
actuaries.
The finance minister says that the CPP actuary, Bernard
Dussault, was fired for management differences. Since then the
EI actuary, Michel Bédard, has publicly disagreed with the
minister's plans to raise the EI fund.
Will Michel Bédard's management differences with the minister
result in his being fired?
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew (Minister of Human Resources
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, Michel Bédard is the chief
actuary of the employment insurance branch in my department. He
is doing a fine job. His analyses and advice are very important
to me. It is an opinion that is very important, but the opinions
of all Canadians are also very important when we make decisions
about the employment insurance system.
* * *
[Translation]
TAX RETURNS
Mr. Mark Assad (Gatineau, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, my question is for
the Minister of National Revenue and concerns information
released on September 22, 1998, on Radio-Canada's RDI news
network.
It appears that a former journalist from The Gazette has been
under surveillance and that information from his personal income
tax returns has been obtained from Revenue Quebec.
Could the Minister of National Revenue assure this House that
his department protects confidential information through
specific mechanisms to prevent the leaking of information
contained in individual tax returns?
1455
Hon. Harbance Singh Dhaliwal (Minister of National Revenue,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his question. I
realize that this issue concerns all Canadians.
[English]
I can assure the House and Canadians that confidential
information obtained by Revenue Canada is vigorously protected.
Confidential information may only be used or disclosed in
accordance with specific exceptions contained in the legislation
which Revenue Canada administers.
Maintaining the privacy and confidentiality of information by
Revenue Canada is fundamental to the confidence that Canadians
have in the department's self-assessment system.
* * *
YOUNG OFFENDERS ACT
Mr. Chuck Cadman (Surrey North, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
Ontario's attorney general has been reported to be astounded over
the Minister of Justice's proposals to further weaken the
controversial youth justice laws.
Is the minister really planning to introduce mandatory release
of young offenders after they serve only half of their sentences?
Yes or no, please.
Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Justice and Attorney General
of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member should
know, we are in the process of consulting on the working paper we
released in May of this year. As the hon. member knows, we are
responsible for the enactment of the law. The provinces are
responsible for the administration of the law and it is our
intention to consult closely with the provinces.
It is our intention to consult closely with all the provinces
before introducing legislation in this House.
* * *
[Translation]
MONTREAL CONGRESS CENTRE
Mr. Antoine Dubé (Lévis, BQ): Mr. Speaker, every time we ask
the secretary of state about the expansion of the Montreal
congress centre, he says that the infrastructure program has
ended and that a decision on this project should have been made
before it had ended.
Are we to understand that from now on every time federal
participation is required in an economic development project in
Quebec the secretary of state will tell us that the
infrastructure program ended in 1996 and that it is too late to
hope for any help?
Hon. Martin Cauchon (Secretary of State (Economic Development
Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec), Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
in essence, what the member must understand is that, because the
PQ in Quebec City dragged its feet and failed to submit the
Montreal congress centre proposal within the right program, the
people of Montreal run of the risk of having to do without a
totally remarkable development tool.
However, despite the negligence of the PQ, I have said that the
members on this side of the House will continue to work very
hard to come up with a solution.
* * *
[English]
NUCLEAR TESTING
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis (Winnipeg North Centre, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, radioactive fallout from the nuclear tests of the 1950s
and 1960s in the Nevada Desert have been documented in a recent
study by the National Cancer Institute in the United States.
The poisonous fallout from those tests crossed into Canada, but
the health impact study stopped at the border. One American
scientist said that there was almost disinterest from the
Canadian government on this issue.
Who is standing up for Canadians on this issue? Will the
Minister of Health take charge of the file and agree to ascertain
the impact of the cold war era bomb tests on the health of
Canadians?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
I will take the question under advisement and determine what, if
any, information has been put together and advise the member as
soon as I have that information.
* * *
APEC SUMMIT
Mr. Peter MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC):
Mr. Speaker, day after day Canadians have been forced to witness
the sad spectacle of the Prime Minister cowering behind the
solicitor general and his broken record responses about the
independence of the APEC inquiry that is going on.
Why should Canadians have any confidence that a government that
ignored the findings of the Krever commission and the findings of
a human rights tribunal on pay equity will respond to any finding
by that so-called independent body when it has ignored the
findings of every other independent inquiry the country has had?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the hon. member is quite wrong in the premise of his
question, as usual.
The government has not ignored the findings of these other
commissions. It has taken them very seriously.
I want to say that the commission is not a “so-called
independent commission”. It is based on legislation presented
by a previous Conservative government that created the commission
as an arm's length, independent civilian body. And certainly the
government will take very seriously the report of this commission
once it concludes its work.
* * *
1500
SWISSAIR FLIGHT 111
Mrs. Judi Longfield (Whitby—Ajax, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
Canadians are still mourning the tragic death of the victims of
Swissair Flight 111. We all want answers.
Could the Minister of National Defence tell us what Canadian
forces are doing to help with the recovery and the investigative
process?
[Translation]
Mr. Robert Bertrand (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of
National Defence, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I would first like to
thank my colleague for her question.
It must be remembered that this tragedy is far from over for us,
since the military, Transport Canada, the RCMP, the Canadian
Coast Guard and local and
provincial authorities are still looking for the causes of this
horrible event.
Some 2,000 regular and reserve members of the navy, the army and
the air force from all across Canada met the challenges raised
by this catastrophe. Today some 600 military personnel are
involved in search and recovery efforts.
* * *
[English]
THE SENATE
Mr. Eric Lowther (Calgary Centre, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, for
a solid week we have been asking the justice minister questions
about Senate reform. We have asked questions about the
Constitution and about the democratic rights of Albertans.
These are questions a real justice minister from Edmonton
Alberta should be able to answer. She sits quietly and smiles as
her boss attacks her home province.
Has the justice minister been told not to talk about Senate
elections, or does she agree with the Prime Minister's position
that Senate reform is a joke? Which is it?
The Speaker: Preambles to the questions sometimes
necessitate that I even intervene before we get to the question.
I ask members to be a little more judicious in their choice of
words, especially in the preamble. The question is in order but
that preamble is questionable.
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, people watching us on television should know the hon.
member is abusing the process of the House by suggesting that the
Minister of Justice, because she is from a certain region, should
answer questions that are not under her direct jurisdiction.
The fact is that the Prime Minister is following the
requirements of the Constitution. If the hon. member and his
party do not like the Constitution then let them propose to the
provinces to begin the process of formal amendment, not call for
an election which is an election for life and for which there is
no public accountability. That is not democracy either in
Alberta or anywhere else in our country.
* * *
[Translation]
MONTREAL CONGRESS CENTRE
Mr. Réal Ménard (Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the
decision to expand the congress centre is a major decision for
Montreal, and one that even Claude Ryan's Liberals supported.
Does the minister responsible for regional development realize
that, because his government is denying financial support, the
minister is jeopardizing some 14 regional, national and
international conventions scheduled to be held in Montreal,
thereby making Montreal grow poorer?
Hon. Martin Cauchon (Secretary of State (Economic Development
Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec), Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
it is the Quebec government's carelessness that could result in
the greater Montreal area being deprived—
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
Hon. Martin Cauchon: —of the economic spinoffs from these
conventions.
I will remind the House that, as we know, the Canadian
government plays a major part in terms of economic decisions
affecting the province of Quebec and Canada as a whole.
Members will recall that this project was discussed in 1996, at
the socio-economic summit from which the Canadian government had
been excluded. Yet, this project has not been submitted under
the infrastructure program.
What I have been saying over and over again is that all members
on this side of the House are fully aware of the importance of
the congress centre and will try to find a solution.
* * *
[English]
PRESENCE IN GALLERY
The Speaker: I draw the attention of hon. members to
the presence in the gallery of His Excellency Ismail Cem,
Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of Turkey.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
1505
The Speaker: I recognize the hon. opposition House
leader. Is this on a point of order or a point of privilege?
Mr. Randy White: Mr. Speaker, it is really a matter of
privilege arising from question period.
The Speaker: A privilege arising from question period.
Mr. Randy White: That is why I called it a point of
order.
* * *
POINTS OF ORDER
COMMENTS DURING QUESTION PERIOD
Mr. Randy White (Langley—Abbotsford, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
the Deputy Prime Minister in his response just a moment ago to
our member accused him of abusing his authority in the House by
directing a question to the justice minister.
Mr. Speaker, I think you realize in the chair that our member
has a responsibility to direct a question, as you so said last
Thursday in the House, to the government or to a member of the
government. The Deputy Prime Minister is completely incorrect in
his response and should apologize to the member.
The Speaker: I do not want to get into a debate about
this whole thing, but perhaps on both sides we tend to exaggerate
a little bit. I know we are just coming back.
I am going to permit the government House leader to intervene on
this matter, but I do not want to enlarge it too much.
Hon. Don Boudria (Leader of the Government in the House of
Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the House and the Chair will be
fully cognizant of the fact that under Beauchesne's it is
specifically prohibited for any member to ask a minister a
question regarding regional responsibility. On several occasions
last week this occurred and in a tangential way there are always
attempts to bring this back.
The Minister of Justice, as the minister from Alberta, or I as a
minister from Ontario, cannot answer questions in our capacities
as regional ministers. This is quite clear in Beauchesne's and
it is equally clear that the Deputy Prime Minister was perfectly
correct in bringing this matter to the attention of the House
today.
The Speaker: Colleagues, as you are all aware, when a
question is posed it is posed to the government. Ministers
cannot be queried on their political responsibilities; it is
their ministerial responsibilities. That is why I said at the
beginning that the preamble to the question itself was
questionable.
Colleagues, we have quite a leeway in asking questions but
sometimes you force your Speaker, you force me, to intervene
before I get to the question.
The point of order was brought up. I am going to rule it was
not a point of order, and we will let this matter rest at this
time.
I am going to go to the House leader of the opposition. I have
notice of a point of privilege and I will hear what he has to say
about that.
* * *
PRIVILEGE
MEMBER FOR SAINT-MAURICE
Mr. Randy White (Langley—Abbotsford, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
I rise on a question of privilege today in regard to the conduct
of a member of the House.
My specific charge is the improper use of public funds by the
member for Saint-Maurice.
My information as of 12.06 today is that the amount of money
that I am going to speak about has not been paid back.
1510
Since I view this charge or any charge against another member to
be very serious, I withheld bringing this matter up until now
because I needed to confirm all the facts which I have completed
this morning.
Before I get into the details of the charge I need to briefly
comment on the authority and the responsibility of the House in
this regard. This charge, while separate in itself, does involve
other jurisdictions such as the Board of Internal Economy and the
Treasury Board.
I will submit—
The Speaker: I am sure the hon. member is very much
aware of what he is doing here. What he is doing is charging
that a criminal act, an illegal act, has taken place by one of
the members of this House. He has of course the option, not
under a point of privilege but under a substantive motion, to
bring this charge to the House.
I want to make it clear and I want to understand what the member
is doing. Is the member bringing a specific charge, a
substantive motion, then, against one of the members of this
House? Could he answer that question now?
Mr. Randy White: Mr. Speaker, my charge was clear. It is
the improper use of public funds.
The Speaker: My colleagues, we are not dealing here with
a question of privilege. We are dealing with a substantive
charge against another member of this House.
If that is what the hon. member is doing, I am going to listen a
bit more, but a motion should be brought to this House. I want
to make it clear that this is not a question of privilege that we
are dealing with now. We are dealing with something altogether
different, and I want to know that the hon. member understands
that.
Mr. Randy White: Mr. Speaker, I will continue with my
statement. As I was going to say at the end of my
presentation—and I am prepared with the motion here—I was
prepared to say if you rule this to be a prima facie question I
am prepared to move the appropriate motion. I think if I can go
on then you can further make an assessment if you so wish. Do
you instruct me to proceed?
The Speaker: At this point I am going to instruct you to
proceed, but I want you to know that this is not a question of
privilege we are dealing with. I want to hear what you have to
say.
Mr. Randy White: Mr. Speaker, before I get into the
details of this charge, I need to briefly comment on the
authority and the responsibility of the House in this regard.
This charge, while separate in itself, does involve other
jurisdictions such as the Board of Internal Economy and the
Treasury Board. I will submit precedents demonstrating that a
breach of the rules under another jurisdiction embodies a breach
of a standard of behaviour for members of parliament that
Speakers have considered in the past when deciding prima facie
questions of privilege.
In addition, I will argue that the jurisdiction of the House
over its members and its right to impose discipline is absolute
and exclusive, and that the conduct of members that touch on or
is part of another jurisdiction does not preclude the House from
taking action.
But first I will present the details of my charge against the
member for Saint-Maurice. It has been brought to my attention
and to the attention of the public by journalist Sean Durkan in
articles published in the Ottawa Sun on August 2 and August
5, 1998, that the Prime Minister used taxpayers' money to pay
campaign workers which helped him secure a victory in his riding
in the last election and the election before that.
1515
The records of Elections Canada, which I have here, will say
the Prime Minister's office paid campaign workers $43,389 with
taxpayer money. This is more money than the average candidate
gets to spend on the total of their campaigns.
Mr. Durkan reported in the Ottawa Sun that an official in
the Prime Minister's office confirmed that this money was spent
deliberately. In the same article there is confirmation from
Treasury Board that its guidelines for cabinet ministers
regarding paid staff during election campaigns apply to the Prime
Minister and that they were breached by the Prime Minister. These
guidelines can be found on page 19 at section 3.5.6 of the
document entitled “Guidelines for Ministers' Offices” dated
June 6, 1997.
The national director of the Liberal Party confirmed with the
Sun that the Prime Minister kept about 15 of his political
staff on the public payroll during last spring's election
campaign and also paid campaign workers with public funds when he
led the opposition in 1993.
I reviewed the rules set out by the Board of Internal Economy
regarding this issue and it is clear that the Prime Minister
breached the rules set out by the Board of Internal Economy.
Mr. Speaker, at the end of my presentation I will provide you
with a copy of this rule, copies of the news articles and the
relevant sections from the records of Elections Canada and the
guidelines from Treasury Board. I will now address why and how
this House should take up this issue.
I refer to page 115 of Erskine May's 21st edition, page 192 of
Joseph Maingot's Parliamentary Privilege in Canada and to a
Speaker's ruling from Hansard of October 29, 1980. These
references describe acts which may constitute contempt as having
no limits and how it would be impossible to discount any act or
omission as a contempt just because there were no specific
precedents for that act or omission.
Since there do not need to be clear guidelines in the way of the
usual precedents, a Speaker, in deciding these matters, may have
to consider some other standard of measure. I will present
examples where it is apparent that Speakers use the standards of
behaviour found and set out in the common law as guidelines for
appropriate behaviour for members of parliament.
In relation to the responsibility of this House and the conduct
of members, I will establish a parallel between the common law
and the laws of the Board of Internal Economy and the Treasury
Board.
There are many examples where the House involved itself in
matters relating to members of parliament and the law. In many
of these cases the Speaker ruled in favour of a prima facie
question of privilege allowing the House to consider whether or
not the violation of the law was offensive and inappropriate
behaviour for a member of parliament.
My point is not that the violation of these laws has anything to
do with the jurisdiction of the House but they represent
standards which the Speaker can use to determine that a charge
against another member is valid enough to be considered prima
facie.
With that in mind, I refer to page 103 of the 21st edition of
Erskine May:
The two Houses are enabled to safeguard and enforce their
necessary authority without the compromise or delay to which
recourse to the ordinary courts would give rise.
Citation 46 of Beauchesne's sixth edition tells the story of the
House taking action against a member for an old conviction of
forgery with respect to the granting of timber limits.
In 1891, for instance, there was the case of Thomas McGreevy who
was charged with scandals in the public works department. The
House was satisfied that there was enough evidence against Mr.
McGreevy and took action before the courts came to a conclusion.
In 1995 the member for Charlesbourg was charged by another
member for sedition even though the matter had been raised in the
courts. The Speaker in ruling that the matter was a prima facie
case of privilege was not concerned with the details of the
Criminal Code nor the court case itself. The Speaker was
influenced by the fact that sedition is a serious charge and
considered as evidence the facts contained in the letter sent to
the Canadian military from the member for Charlesbourg.
In both the 1995 case and this 1998 case there were reports in
the media complaining of an activity of the members and a concern
that nothing can or will be done under the law. Another
similarity is that in both cases the evidence was conclusive.
In the 1995 case the House took up the matter independently from
the common law and independent from any guidelines set out by any
other body. It is my hope that the House will do the same with
this 1998 case against the Prime Minister.
1520
As stated earlier, the conduct of a member measured against the
standard of appropriate behaviour set out by a law often adds
sufficient weight to the argument against the accused member,
resulting in the Speaker's ruling in favour of a prima facie
question of privilege.
Other references setting standards can be found in the second
edition of Joseph Maingot's Parliamentary Privilege in
Canada on page 238. It states that while the standing orders
refer only to offering money for the promotion of any matter
before parliament, the House would treat equally severely the
acceptance of money by a member for anything a member may do. In
the final analysis “the House of Commons may set whatever
standard it sees fit in respect to the conduct of a member”.
The Board of Internal Economy has set a standard for all members
of parliament when it created bylaw 305. The Treasury Board has
set the same standard for cabinet ministers in guideline 3.5.6.
Both these bodies consider the use of public money in the way the
Prime Minister has used public money as improper.
The Prime Minister, in authorizing and accepting public money to
help him win an election, violated a serious bylaw and a
guideline, bringing into question his integrity as a member of
parliament. The Speaker must take into account the violation of
this bylaw and the guidelines of the Treasury Board in his
determination as to the validity of this charge.
The other matter that must be addressed is that this violation
has been reported in the media and the impression left in the
public's mind is that one of the members of this House has acted
against the law and because of his position is exempt from the
law. The article of August 5 says: “Guess what folks? If our
Prime Minister doesn't like the rules, he can break them and
there's nothing we can do about it”.
In addition, there is the impression left in the minds of the
members of this House that the Prime Minister is more equal than
other members with respect to their privileges and their standard
of conduct.
I believe that both these impressions are serious enough on
their own merit to be considered by this House on a question of
privilege. Such impressions left unchallenged cast a dark shadow
over this institution. Accordingly, I believe this House must do
three things.
First, it must invoke consequences against the member for
Saint-Maurice for his improper use of public funds. Second, it
must clarify the impression left in the public's mind that a
member of this House is above the law. Third, it must return
confidence to all members of this House that the Prime Minister
or any other member does not enjoy special privileges above those
enjoyed by the rest of the members of this House with respect to
their conduct as members of parliament.
Mr. Speaker, if you rule this to be a prima facie question of
privilege, I am prepared to move the appropriate motion.
Hon. Don Boudria: Mr.
Speaker, I wish to take only a few minutes to respond to the
issue raised—
The Speaker: At this point at least, we do not know what
the specific charge is.
Before I go to the government House leader, I would like to have
the hon. House leader of the opposition either give me a copy or
cite the specific charge that he is going to make against another
member of this House.
1525
Mr. Randy White: Mr. Speaker, I am prepared to move a
motion. The documents that I just read to you contain therein
all the facts as I have them. The motion I am prepared to move
is that the matter of the member for Saint-Maurice paying
campaign workers with public funds, as reported in the Ottawa
Sun on August 2 and 5, be referred to the Standing
Committee on Procedure and House Affairs.
The Speaker: My colleague, I refer you to Beauchesne's
6th edition. I am seeking guidance as I go on with this. I
refer to citation 50:
In any case where the propriety of a Member's actions is brought
into question, a specific charge must be made. The Speaker will
not allow the Standing Committee on Elections, Privileges and
Procedure to examine the actions and statements of a Member
relating to the question to report generally on the matter.
The motion is that the matter of the member for Saint-Maurice
paying campaign workers with public funds as reported in the
Ottawa Sun on August 2 and 5, 1998 be referred to the
Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs.
I do not view this to be a specific enough charge and I would
invite the hon. House leader of the opposition to make a specific
charge against one of our sitting members.
Mr. Randy White: Mr. Speaker, my notes are at the table,
but when I started speaking I believe my comment was the improper
use of public funds which is a violation of Treasury Board. It
is a violation of the Board of Internal Economy rules and the
Elections Canada Act. It is pretty specific.
The Speaker: What I require from the hon. House leader of
the opposition is a specific charge, a specific motion to be
written out and put in my hands, not a referral to a committee. I
want it in writing so that I will know specifically what the hon.
member is referring to.
1530
If he wants to do that and that is his wish, I will listen to
what the government House leader has to say, if the opposition
House leader wants to proceed in this fashion.
Hon. Don Boudria (Leader of the Government in the House of
Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I know that you are seeking
further information from the opposition House leader. I will not
comment on that. I am sure those arrangements can be made at
another time.
If I understood the allegation, it was described as the matter
of. I believe what we are referring to is an allegation as
opposed to the matter of. In other words, nothing here has been
proved nor acknowledged to be as the hon. member has said.
If I understand correctly what has been alleged is that the
Prime Minister's exempt staff disobeyed Treasury Board guidelines
which require that staffers working on a campaign must do so on
their own time and not during office hours. I believe the member
also alleged that the rules applying to the Board of Internal
Economy for the employees of the House of Commons also apply to
others who are not employees of the House of Commons. I believe
that is the second point he raised. In view of the imprecision,
it has to be gleaned that way.
First, I suggest that the salaries of ministerial staffers are
paid for by government funds. That is why the guidelines provide
that staffers who work part time on campaigns must do so outside
regular office hours. There is difficulty in ascertaining what
are off-hours particularly in offices such as the Prime
Minister's given that people work very long hours and the hours
of work vary on a daily basis. Staffers as we know, especially
those of us who have seen how hard the Prime Minister works, may
work at all hours of the day and evening and sometimes even later
than that.
To ensure complete transparency accounts followed the Chief
Electoral Officer's guidelines concerning campaign workers. The
value and the number of hours worked by staffers on the Liberal
campaign on a part time basis were estimated. This sum was
accurately recorded in the party's election expense return as a
contribution to the Liberal party. The Liberal Party then
settled the cost of these salaries with the Government of Canada
and paid the amount. To remove any doubt, salaries have been
paid back to the government so that no one would actually make
the allegation that has been made today, or at least if it was
made, it would be totally invalid.
The Treasury Board guidelines referred to earlier today, albeit
somewhat indirectly as the Chair has just reminded us, say
“Should a member of the minister's or secretary of state's
exempt staff decide to become actively involved on a full time
basis in a federal, provincial or territorial election or
by-election, the member is required to take leave without pay or
resign their position”.
The following sentences are the operative ones: “If a member
becomes engaged in campaign activities on a part time basis,
their involvement must be on their own time and not during
regular office hours. No vacation leave or any other form of
leave with pay will be permitted for election purposes”.
The Elections Canada Act provides that labour donated to a
campaign which is paid for from a source other than the
registered party must be recorded as a contribution to the
registered party.
The Liberal Party returns for the June 2, 1997 general election,
and those can be proven, included a contribution of $43,389 which
represents the salaries of several of the Prime Minister's staff
who worked part time on the Liberal Party's campaign. The cost
was correctly recorded as a contribution. We did this in order
to be more prudent than was absolutely necessary.
However, to address the fact that the salaries of such workers
were paid by the Government of Canada and not the Liberal Party
of Canada at that time, the Liberal Party subsequently reimbursed
the government for the cost of the salaries. In other words, not
only were the rules strictly observed, but we went overboard to
ensure that nothing would be seen, albeit incorrectly, as being
untoward.
The allegations made by the member are incorrect.
1535
Finally, the member informs us that even if contempt is not
defined and not restrictive, the Speaker should rule nonetheless
that this issue is one of contempt of the House. It is correct
that contempt is not strictly defined in the rules but that does
not mean that Mr. Speaker nor the House should get themselves
involved every time someone from the newspapers alleges there has
been what he considers to be a breach of the law, even when such
is not a breach of the law in particular.
The Speaker: I have heard allegations at this time
but I am loath to proceed unless I have a specific charge in
front of me. At this point unless and until I have the specific
charge in front of me so that I can have a look at it, I am not
saying that this action would be terminated here. I am saying
that I want to see the specific charge that is going to be made.
I invite the hon. opposition House leader to submit that to me.
In the absence of that, I will let this point move on for now.
If necessary, I will come back to it. But first I want to see
the very specific charge. For the time being this matter is held
in abeyance.
An hon. member: Point of order, Mr. Speaker.
The Speaker: Does the member have a point of order
outside of what we are discussing?
Mr. Ken Epp: It is on this very issue.
The Speaker: Then we are not going to address this right
now.
Mr. Ken Epp: Although we charged him with contempt there
was no specific charge?
The Speaker: I will hear further argument after I have
received the specific charge.
Mr. Ken Epp: One rule for them and one for us.
The Speaker: To the hon. member for Elk Island, even I
could not say that I did not hear that. I must ask the hon.
member with all respect to you, would you please withdraw those
last comments. I invite you to withdraw your final comments.
Mr. Ken Epp: Mr. Speaker, I am frustrated but I will
withdraw it.
The Speaker: I accept the withdrawal.
* * *
PORT MOODY—COQUITLAM BY-ELECTION
The Deputy Speaker: I have the honour to lay upon the
table the report of the Chief Electoral Officer of Canada on the
administration of the Port Moody—Coquitlam by-election held on
March 30, 1998. This document is deemed permanently referred to
the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs.
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
[English]
SMALL BUSINESS LOANS ACT
Mr. Walt Lastewka (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Industry, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order
32(2), I have the honour to table before this House the annual
report of the Small Business Loans Act for the year 1997-98.
* * *
[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 three
petitions.
* * *
1540
[English]
INTERPARLIAMENTARY DELEGATIONS
The Deputy Speaker: I have the honour to lay upon the
table the report of the Canadian parliamentary delegation to the
Republic of Poland from May 18 to 23, 1998.
* * *
PETITIONS
SRI CHINMOY PEACE BLOSSOMS PROJECT
Mr. Mac Harb (Ottawa Centre, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, given
Canada's historic role as a supporter of peace, it would be fully
appropriate for Canada to join the ranks of peace blossoms
worldwide with the symbolic designation as a peace nation. There
are many petitioners in my constituency and throughout the region
who are calling on parliament to officially endorse Canada as a
peace nation through the Sri Chinmoy peace blossoms project.
MARRIAGE
Mr. John Duncan (Vancouver Island North, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I have a petition with over 100 signatures from
residents of Campbell River in my riding.
The petition asks parliament to enact Bill C-225, an act to
amend the Marriage Act and the Interpretation Act to define that
a marriage can only be entered into between a single male and a
single female.
[Translation]
BILL C-68
Mr. Jean-Guy Chrétien (Frontenac—Mégantic, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
pursuant to Standing Order 36, I rise to table an important
petition prepared by Nelson Guay and signed by over 800
inhabitants of the Lac-Mégantic region.
These people are calling for amendments to Bill C-68, primarily
because of the costly and ineffective regulations. I support
the petitioners.
The Deputy Speaker: The member for Frontenac—Mégantic is very
experienced and knows full well that he must not offer his
opinion on the subject of petitions.
He may table petitions, and I invite him to continue to do so,
but without any editorial comments.
[English]
MARRIAGE
Mr. Gordon Earle (Halifax West, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
pursuant to Standing Order 36, I table a petition with over 200
names on it concerning Bill C-225, an act to amend the Marriage
Act and the Interpretation Act.
GRANDPARENTS' RIGHTS
Mr. Dennis J. Mills (Broadview—Greenwood, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, I have a petition here
that is certified correct and signed by thousands of Canadians.
It pledges “We, the undersigned residents of Canada, draw the
attention of the House of Commons”—
The Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. member for
Broadview—Greenwood also knows that it is improper to read
petitions. He is invited when he presents a petition of course
to give a brief summary of it to the House. I know that is what
he intends to do and not to read it.
Mr. Dennis J. Mills: Mr. Speaker, with respect, that is
exactly where I was going.
The petition asks parliament to recognize that grandparents, as
a consequence of death, separation or divorce of their children,
are often denied access to their grandchildren by their
guardians. This petition asks parliament to consider Bill C-340
so that this can be corrected.
PROSTITUTION
Mr. Eric Lowther (Calgary Centre, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
present a number of petitions today in support of making changes
to the Criminal Code at section 213 to make prostitution a hybrid
offence, to be either a summary offence or an indictable offence.
These petitions have been presented by the constituents of my
riding of Calgary Centre.
DIVORCE ACT
Mr. Steve Mahoney (Mississauga West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
I have a petition to present that in essence asks parliament to
amend the Divorce Act to allow for spouses, parents and
grandparents proper access to or custody of the children involved
in such a divorce.
* * *
QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
Mr. Peter Adams (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
Questions Nos. 78 and 79 will be answered today.
.[Text]
Mr. Jim Pankiw:
Can the Government of Canada indicate how much was spent to send
government employees to Paul A. Douglas' 25th Annual Assistants
Seminar held in Banff, Alberta, November 13-16, 1997?
Mr. Peter Adams (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): I am informed by the
following departments and agencies as follows:
Canadian Heritage
Canadian International Development Agency
Correctional Services Canada
Fisheries and Oceans
Human Resources Development Canada
National Defence
Royal Canadian Mounted Police
Statistics Canada
Transport Canada
Transportation Safety Board of Canada
$46,488.23
Mr. Jim Pankiw:
Can the Government of Canada indicate how much was spent to send
government employees to Paul A. Douglas' Banff Management
Courses held in Banff, Alberta, in February, April and October
1997?
Mr. Peter Adams (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): I am informed by the
following Departments and Agencies as follows:
Atomic Energy Control Board
Canadian Heritage
Canadian International Development Agency
Canadian Space Agency
Canadian Transportation Agency
Correctional Services Canada
Fisheries and Oceans
Health Canada
Human Resources Development Canada
Indian Affairs and Northern Development
National Energy Board
Royal Canadian Mounted Police
Statistics Canada
Transportation Safety Board of Canada
$65,975.21
[English]
Mr. Peter Adams: Mr. Speaker, I ask that the remaining
questions be allowed to stand.
The Deputy Speaker: The questions enumerated by the hon.
the parliamentary secretary have been answered. Is it agreed
that the remaining questions stand?
1545
[Translation]
Mr. Jean-Guy Chrétien (Frontenac—Mégantic, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I
rise on a point of order regarding the Notice of Motion for the
Production of Papers No. P-10.
The Deputy Speaker: Perhaps we could wrap up the points on the
Order Paper first.
Shall all questions be allowed to stand?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Deputy Speaker: The hon. member for Frontenac—Mégantic.
Mr. Jean-Guy Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order
regarding Notice of Motion for the Production of Papers No. P-10.
This motion was tabled on December 9, 1997. I merely wish to
make sure that the move of the Lac-Mégantic HRDC office was
carried out efficiently and without waste.
I have trouble understanding the Liberal government's delay in
responding. Does it have something to hide? I formally ask the
government when it will respond to this question, which was
first asked ten months ago.
[English]
Mr. Peter Adams: Mr. Speaker, I listened very carefully
to what the member had to say. Unfortunately I do not have my
records with me, but I will look into the present situation of
P-10.
[Translation]
The Deputy Speaker: I must also inform the House that the matter
of these motions and notices of motion will be examined
Wednesday during Routine Proceedings and that perhaps the hon.
member and the parliamentary secretary would have something to
say at that time.
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[English]
CANADA SMALL BUSINESS FINANCING ACT
The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-53, an
act to increase the availability of financing for the
establishment, expansion, modernization and improvement of small
businesses, be read the second time and referred to a committee;
and of the amendment.
The Deputy Speaker: When the House broke for question
period there remained a period of five minutes for questions and
comments.
Mr. Rahim Jaffer (Edmonton—Strathcona, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I would like some enlightenment on the issue of revising
Bill C-53. I have heard a few comments from members in the House
that specifically the revisions to the Small Business Loans Act
would increase the ability of small businesses to attain
financing within Canada.
However, my question goes to the fact that I have heard this
program has been in place for 37 years. If we are actually
trying to allow companies to have access to capital and if we are
trying to make it easier for companies to have access to capital
through this program, why has the program been carrying on for
such a long period of time and now finally, after 37 years, we
are introducing changes to the program?
Is that not an indication there is a problem with the small
business financing approach of the government? Maybe we need to
look at an option of creating more competition among lending
institutions and allowing them to go that route rather than to
continue with a program like this one. Maybe the hon.
parliamentary secretary could clear that up for me.
Mr. Walt Lastewka: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the comments
made by my colleague, but he must understand that in each
government program there is always continuous improvement going
on to make sure that we are in with the times.
Last spring when Bill C-21 was brought forward it was requested
by all parties that extra time be taken in the House to review
the Small Business Loans Act. This has been done. During the
various committee debates witnesses will be brought forward to
review the Small Business Financial Act and to understand the
benefits of it. There are benefits right across the country.
The Small Business Loans Act has proven in the past that it
assists businesses in areas of a little higher risk to make sure
they get financing. There has obviously been much improvement
over time to this act. Again, we have done an extensive review
from the time Bill C-21 was approved until now.
1550
The industry committee, including my colleague opposite, will
have a chance to review all the statistics. The report of the
Small Business Loans Act was tabled today in the House to allow
all of us to take a look at the report and to move forward on the
new bill in the House of Commons.
Mr. Steve Mahoney (Mississauga West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
I am particularly pleased to talk about the Small Business Loans
Act and the impact of the changes.
When a member from the Reform Party asked the previous speaker
in the question and comment period about a suggested reform, it
was implied that we somehow made the atmosphere more competitive
for lending institutions instead of dealing with people in small
businesses who need assistance. I guess I should not be
surprised that someone from the Reform Party would see that the
goal would somehow be to help banks and lending institutions
instead of helping people access the money they need to expand
their businesses.
Clearly that is one of the fundamental differences between this
side of the House and that side. We understand the reason the
Small Business Loans Act has been such a success over the past 37
years. It has made available a reserve of capital to people who
otherwise would not have access to it.
How does it work? The bank gets a bank guarantee for 90% of the
loan. The loan is also targeted specifically to an asset that
would be added to the business. It could be leasehold
improvements. It could be a die-cast machine. It could be a
transportation trailer, something that can actually have affixed
a value which could be recovered if the small business were not
successful and winds up owing the money.
The vast majority—well over 90% or closer to 95%—of small
business loans are paid back, but there will always be as in any
economy from time to time the odd problem. As a result we have a
situation where some value will be added to the product financed
by the lending institution. In essence that is what this bill
does.
The member opposite also asks “What are the changes? What is
new?” I invite him to take a look at them because I think they
are quite significant.
First, one of the changes in this act will allow for the program
to continue with a five year review instead of eliminating the
ability to lend. That has been one of the problems in the past.
There is a little black hole, a spot, a period of time, when it
needs to come before parliament to get restarted or kick-started.
This will allow for a five year mandatory review, but the lending
authority side of the legislation will continue.
Second, and I find this particularly interesting, is that we are
looking at a capital leasing pilot project. In some ways this
does exactly what the member opposite in the Reform Party was
asking. It expands the marketplace to allow leasing companies
now to access a loan guarantee from the federal government.
It is an option for businesses in many cases that need to
acquire very expensive equipment in the transportation or
manufacturing sector.
Perhaps they are at their maximum in terms of a line of credit or
something of that nature with the bank, or they do not have the
personal assets or the corporate assets to back up the loan, so
they go to a leasing company. This part has not yet been
designed, but it seems to be a positive change that would allow
leasing companies across Canada to access loan guarantees and
would encourage them to make loans to small business.
1555
The third reform in the bill is a voluntary sector pilot
project, which is extremely exciting. People in the voluntary
sector who do such good work in the community may from time to
time need to acquire something of a fairly substantial capital
nature. This will allow them on a cost recovery basis to access
money through the Small Business Loans Act.
Those are three of the changes the act will put in place that
are very positive. It is not designed to favour big banks or
lending institutions but rather to offer them some security when
they are in a situation where they otherwise might not make the
loan.
The Small Business Loans Act requires that the applicant fill
out a very extensive business plan. It requires that the
applicant does the homework. That is a positive thing, aside
from the fact that it may give the government, the taxpayers and
the lending institution more confidence in understanding how the
loan will be repaid. To fill out a detailed business plan small
business entrepreneurs have to understand their businesses, their
problems and their strengths. It is very positive that the
application is as detailed as it is.
The city of Mississauga in my riding of Mississauga West is
known as a city of small businesses. Many of the businesses will
benefit from the changes in the bill. Many of them have
benefited over the last 37 years from the Small Business Loans
Act which has been put forward by everyone who has held
government in the country over the last 37 years.
In 1998 the business directory in Mississauga listed just under
10,000 business. Out of those 33% had between one and four
employees and another 25% had between five and nine employees.
Almost 60% of the businesses in Mississauga have fewer than 10
employees. When we add in the other 10 to 20 employees it is
18%. Almost 80% of the businesses in my city run businesses with
fewer than 20 employees. In an area like mine some understanding
of the significance of small business is critical.
I was privileged in 1988-89 to be appointed as the small
business advocate by then Premier David Peterson in the province
of Ontario. We did some analyses. Every year the small business
advocate would file a report with the Ontario legislature on the
state of small business. We found that the top three problems
concerning small business in those days—and from my prospective
in Mississauga they continue to be the top three problems—were
access to properly qualified and trained staff and the ability to
keep them once they have been trained, the taxation burden, and
access to capital.
The Small Business Loans Act improves access to capital for
small businesses. It lays out the ground rules so they
understand what is involved and gives some confidence to the
financial sector that these loans can be made without total fear
they will not be paid back.
1600
On the issue of taxation, it is my view that small business, not
unlike every other sector of our society, feels that we are
indeed taxed too high. The finance minister made announcements
on tax reductions in the last budget and there will be more
announcements coming on tax reduction. I would suggest to all
members, when I hear all the hue and cry about employment
insurance premiums, et cetera, that the small business people in
this country want to have a fiscally responsible and prudent
government. They want to see us tackle the debt.
I have round tables four times a year in my community with
business people and the number one issue I hear about from those
business people is that we have to get a handle on the debt. The
debt alone is a serious problem. These business people want us
to have a proper, responsible financial plan and the small
business loan legislation is part and parcel of it. It is one of
the legs in the stool that will continue to make our economy as
great as it is.
Mr. Jim Pankiw (Saskatoon—Humboldt, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
the hon. member for Mississauga West said that under this program
the banks would get a guarantee. In other words, taxpayers would
guarantee the loan.
Then the member made the point that the money can only be lent
for assets. The first example he gave was leasehold
improvements.
That is a perfect example of the problem with this government.
We have career politicians making decisions for business who are
completely out of touch and without any understanding of the
realities of running a business.
With respect to leasehold improvements, the member clearly does
not have a clue what they entail. A leasehold improvement is an
asset to a business. However, if the business fails it may be a
liability to the next person. In many instances leasehold
improvements are not consistent. They are not what is required
of the next business coming in.
Therefore, there may be a liability on the business if the
venture is not successful. There may be a requirement for them
to remove those leasehold improvements, in which case they would
be destroyed and the asset would become a liability.
I have made leasehold improvements to businesses. In fact I
borrowed money under the Small Business Loans Act for leasehold
improvements. I am an example of a business person who was
unnecessarily burdened by government excess regulations.
I would have qualified for a bank loan, but the bank said that
the government had a plan which the taxpayer would guarantee, and
I was forced to pay a premium on it. That is one of the ways in
which the mentality of this Liberal government ends up burdening
small business people such as myself.
The reason government members do not understand that is because
they are career politicians. The hon. member for Mississauga
West said that in 1988-89 he was appointed small business
advocate by Premier Davis. That member's connections to politics
and getting appointments to different things goes back years and
years. I would not be surprised if he was a lawyer.
The member said that we found what the top three problems were.
Notice that the member said “we found”. He did not say “I
know what they are”. How would he know? He is not a small
business person and he is out of touch with the needs of small
business people.
He said that taxation was a problem. If that is the problem,
then why is he in a government that has increased taxes 37 times
in the last four years? That seems to be an inconsistency to me.
The member also said that access to capital or financing was a
problem. My only comment to that is, why has the government of
which he is a member not lowered EI premiums, reduced taxation or
ended the excessive burden placed on business by government
regulations? Why is the member part of a government that acts
against small business?
1605
Mr. Steve Mahoney: Mr. Speaker, some of those comments
hardly merit a response. The hon. member's personal attacks
about my background notwithstanding, if it is of any interest to
him or if anyone really cares, I am indeed a small business
person. The problem is that while I am here in Ottawa my
business seems to be getting smaller because I am spending too
much time here. In any event, I found that comment to be
somewhat irrelevant.
One of the real issues here is the access to capital for
leasehold improvements. The hon. member says that I do not know
what I am talking about. I would tell the hon. member that the
small business community out there faces extraordinary capital
requirements to effect leasehold improvements so they can
increase their sales, so they can market their products and so
they can do more business. The gentleman from the Reform Party
says that is a liability?
It is not a liability. Without leasehold improvements many
small businesses would simply not be able to function.
The mentality that is there is just trying to find something
wrong with the legislation, rather than recognizing the fact, in
a non-partisan way, that indeed the Small Business Loans Act has
been a success. This bill will make it more successful, will
refine it and make capital available to small businesses. Why
does the hon. member not support that?
Mr. Rahim Jaffer (Edmonton—Strathcona, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House today to speak to Bill
C-53 with my hon. colleague from Saskatoon—Humboldt.
Bill C-53, an act to increase the availability of financing for
the establishment, expansion, modernization and improvement of
small business is the government's attempt to put a band-aid
solution on the problem of small business access to financing, a
problem the Liberal government has helped to create.
The mandate of the Small Business Loans Act is to facilitate
debt financing to small, young businesses that would likely not
obtain it otherwise. This mandate, which will be maintained
intact under Bill C-53, essentially dictates that the government
and therefore the taxpayer should take on more risk than private
lenders are prepared to incur. Even with the changes contained
within Bill C-53 the taxpayer still covers 85% of any small
business loan defaults.
I do not think any member of the House can ignore this point.
Whether the members choose to support or oppose this bill, it
must be remembered that the essential aspect of Bill C-53 is to
provide high risk loans that the private sector cannot or will
not provide.
If members of the House believe this is a fair risk to place on
the shoulders of Canadian families, they should support this
bill. If they believe it is an unfair risk to place on
taxpayers, they should oppose the bill.
Two questions immediately came to mind after reviewing Bill
C-53: Why should the taxpayer take on more risk than the banks?
Is there no other way to ensure that small businesses have access
to much needed investment capital?
It is widely understood in economic circles that government
intervention leads to a misallocation of resources. This is not
free market sophistry, it is the thinking of Nobel laureates like
Milton Friedman, James Buchanan, Gary Becker and Frederick Hayek.
We can trust the opinions of some of the greatest economic
thinkers in the world or we can trust a government that continues
to put obstacles in front of business in the form of more
government regulations at the cost and peril of Canadian
business.
The intervention by the government maintained by Bill C-53 will
remove important market forces from the lending processes and
will lead to the funding of less viable business ventures. This
may help to garner political support for the Liberals, but will
continue to do nothing to foster a healthy economy.
To return to my first question about why the Canadian taxpayer
should be expected to accept such high economic risks, the answer
provided by the Liberals seems to be so they can win political
favour. This government seems to have no concern for the average
Canadian families who struggle every day under the highest tax
burden in the G-7.
In fact, clause 5 of Bill C-53 illustrates the government's
indifference to the fact that it is playing politics with the
paycheques of Canadian people.
This clause refers to the minister's liability should a loan not
be repaid. However, it is clear that the liability is that of
the Canadian taxpayer. It is not the industry minister's problem
if high risk loans are defaulted on, it is the taxpayers'.
1610
The issue of risk should be examined more closely. Risk is a
key element in the proper functioning of a free market. If it is
artificially lessened or eliminated from market interactions, it
leads to a misallocation of scarce resources. That is, lending
institutions will be less inclined, despite the provisions for
due diligence contained in Bill C-53, to evaluate the long term
viability of a business venture.
This situation will lend itself to the financing of
unsustainable market ventures and it is the taxpayers under this
regime who will inevitably be the losers.
This is supported by the government's own statistics which show
that the default rate under the SBLA was about 6%, while the
private sector was at approximately 1%. This is substantial when
we consider the amount of money at stake.
The Minister of Industry proudly claims that the taxpayer has
only a $1.5 billion liability. This is not an insignificant sum
of money. The Canadian taxpayers are at their breaking point and
someone has to say enough is enough.
Everyone in this House understands the vital role small business
plays in the Canadian economy. Both my colleague from
Saskatoon—Humboldt and I are small business operators. We both
understand the difficulties small business owners face. High
taxes and regulations come first to my mind when I think of how
tough it is to survive in a small business. If payroll and
income taxes were lower, life would be easier for all small
business owners. But the government does not care enough to do
anything about these problems.
The impact of small business on the Canadian economy is
substantial and Reformers have always supported the needs of
small business. However, Bill C-53 is not a debate about whether
small business is valuable, it is a question of whether small
businesses can get access to financing without the government
intervening in the economy.
High risk small business ventures can be financed in a
competitive banking system provided the lenders are not
unnecessarily restricted from conducting their affairs in a
manner that allows them to incur risk without incurring losses.
The Reform Party is committed to getting government out of the
business of doing business and out of the pockets of average
Canadian families.
This bill further entrenches the government's role in the
banking industry. Bill C-53 and its predecessor, the Small
Business Loans Act, allow the government to ignore the real
obstacles to small business financing. No more taxpayer dollars
should be placed at risk until the government has deregulated the
banking industry to create real competition. At this point small
business access to financing can be reviewed and new legislation
can be tabled if the government can demonstrate a legitimate
market failure.
This government just cannot seem to get the fundamentals right.
It has tinkered with the Small Business Loans Act and has made
improvements recommended by both Reform and the auditor general.
However, if the government really cared about small business
access to financing it would create more competition in the
banking industry, it would lower taxes and reduce the regulatory
burden faced by small businesses which now consumes the
equivalent of almost 12% of GDP.
Bill C-53 plays politics with the taxpayer's paycheque. It
demands that the taxpayer take on more risk than the banks by
guaranteeing loans. Let us get the government out of the
business of doing business and off the backs of the Canadian
taxpayer.
Bill C-53 does not address the problem of small business access
to financing and places a financial liability on the taxpayer
that is higher than the level deemed acceptable to the private
sector.
[Translation]
Now, for a recap in French of the main thrust of my speech for
those Canadians whose preference is for that language.
According to the present object of the SBLA, which will be
maintained with Bill C-53, the government and consequently the
taxpayer are taking greater risks than the private lenders.
Even with the changes proposed in Bill C-53, the government
covers 85% of any unpaid amounts.
1615
There are two important questions. Does the Minister of
Industry think it is reasonable to use tax dollars in such a
risky manner? And why should the taxpayer take more risks than
the banks?
In economic circles, people are very much aware that government
intervention always goes along with poor resource allocation.
The government intervention set out in Bill C-53 will do away
with important market forces, in the process of making loans, in
favour of loans to less viable businesses, and this will do
nothing for economic prosperity.
Clause 5 of Bill C-53 demonstrates the government's total lack of
scruples about playing political games with the Canadian
taxpayers' dollars.
This clause addresses the minister's responsibility if a loan is
not paid back. It is clear, however, that responsibility falls
to the taxpayer.
As for the matter of risk, when a risk is eliminated—one of the
key elements of a properly functioning open market—a moral danger
is created. In other words, the lending institutions are less
inclined, despite the obligations for reasonable diligence
imposed by the law, to assess the long-term viability of
businesses. As a result, non-viable businesses will end up
receiving funds.
Under such an arrangement, the taxpayer is inevitably the loser.
Government statistics support this thesis. In fact, the
default rate under the Small Business Loans Act is 5.6%,
compared to 0.8% in the private sector.
Small and medium sized businesses play a vital role in the
Canadian economy, and the Reform Party has always supported the
needs of that sector. The purpose of debate on Bill C-53,
however, is not to determine the value of small and medium sized
business, but rather to determine whether these can access
financing without government intervention.
I would like to point out that the importance of small and
medium sized businesses in the Canadian economy cannot be
under-estimated. The question we need to ask ourselves is the
following: Is it possible to use deregulation in Canada to
create a framework that will provide financing in a more
efficient way? I believe the answer is yes, and that is why I
cannot support this bill.
[English]
Mr. Alex Shepherd (Durham, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
listened with great intent to the member for
Edmonton—Strathcona.
I am very surprised the Reform Party has taken the position
today to argue against the Small Business Loans Act, an act which
has been in place for over 37 years. It has been very
successful. I think the member earlier said if it has been
around for 37 years, what is wrong with it? Something that has
been around for 37 years is a testament to its success and the
need for it within our economy.
The member seems to talk about a perfect world. Maybe on the
Reform benches it is Christmas every day, I do not know, but the
reality is that it is not a perfect world.
Institutions not only in Canada but worldwide and banks often
are short term lenders. They lend basically on current assets.
This program addresses the concern for longer term assets, fixed
assets. We talked about capital leases earlier. This is money
that actually goes over a longer period of time.
The member talks about a burden on the taxpayers of Canada but
the reality is that these are also the employers. These are the
people who get jobs from these very businesses. They are also
the taxpayers. We have created jobs. We have created taxpayers
by assisting these businesses.
The member seems to think the SBLA program is a subsidy.
He talks about the program as if it is a subsidy. I can assure
him that people applying for these loans face the same screening
devices as for any other form of loans and they are rejected on
the same basis.
1620
The member talks about a 5.6% default rate, but he fails to
acknowledge the fact that 94% of these loans are successful. I
suggest to the member that in spite of what he wants to do in the
regulatory environment of banks that without government support
in this area of those 94% of successful loans, those successful
jobs would never have been created.
I am very surprised that the member and his party would be
opposed to the best interests of small and medium size businesses
today. I would like him to comment on that.
Mr. Rahim Jaffer: Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. member
hit it on the head when he said that 94% of those loans were
actually successful. My question throughout my whole discourse
is why is the government involved in that process if in fact the
private sector can do it itself. That is the key.
The hon. member even mentioned the fact there is scrutiny placed
on these businesses going through the process of applying for
these loans. That can be done without government intervention as
well. He reaffirmed that.
The hon. member also mentioned that it is not a perfect world. I
would say that it is not a perfect world especially for small
business in this country because of all the obstacles this
government has placed in front of them. What the Reform Party is
trying to do is stand up for small businesses in allowing those
small businesses to create opportunities for themselves and not
try to create this false impression that wealth and jobs are
created by governments. As we have seen, there is a limited
growth when it comes to that. The taxpayers' money is
unfortunately recycled.
One thing the hon. member mentioned which I would like to
address was the issue I had brought forth earlier. The program
has been in place for 37 years, yet I continually hear from the
members opposite that the single most important concern from
small business continues to be the access to credit. If the
program has been so successful, why are there still so many small
businesses that are not achieving the financing for their
enterprises or their businesses?
As a small business person myself, one of the biggest problems I
had looking for financing was not because the government had
created a program that was going to secure financing for me, the
biggest problem was the fact that there was not enough
competition willing to lend to me and other small businesses
across the country. This is why we cannot confuse the issue, as
the Liberals have done, in this debate.
It is not an issue of not supporting small business. That is
exactly what we want to do in the Reform Party. We would like to
support small business. We would like to support the free market.
We believe that can be well achieved by getting government out of
the regulation that it continues to create and which continues to
put obstacles in front of small business.
Let us create an atmosphere of positive competition in this
country where real entrepreneurs have the choice through the
access to capital. Let us work with businesses to do that not in
a way that creates more regulation and unfortunately keeps some
entrepreneurs out of the loop, but let us try to widen that so
everyone has an equal chance in achieving financing.
Mr. Paul Bonwick (Simcoe—Grey, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, make
no mistake in what the hon. member had to say. Very clearly he
does not support government sponsored small business loans. Yet
he clearly identifies access to capital as one of the greatest
deterrents to expansion and creation of small business. If that
is not an obstacle against small business, then I do not know
what is. Small business loans work.
As a government we encourage schedule A banks to get involved
and create a higher level of loans to small and medium size
business, but we also appreciate the fact that when starting out
some businesses in fact do require extra support. We do not
pretend that we would be setting the exact guidelines on how
schedule A banks will extend funds. We see ourselves as a
partner. My hon. colleague very clearly outlined that 96% of
these do work, 96% of these small businesses that are securing
loans work.
I would like to give the hon. member a scenario and I would be
curious what his response is. I would also ask him to take some
time out and actually visit some of the people, some of the small
businesses, the mom and pop stores, the mom and pop businesses
around this country that have qualified and succeeded. Tell them
that the government should not have been involved, that the
government should not have been partnering with the banks and
with the small business community to allow that job growth and
job creation to take place.
1625
I would be interested in the hon. member's comments on this
scenario. An average Canadian has a great idea for a business,
an idea which both I and the person think is very viable. The
person has the management expertise and ability to carry forward
that idea but he or she is missing one small thing. He or she is
missing equity and therefore does not meet the basic lending
guidelines set in place by schedule A banks.
The banker sees an opportunity. Understanding of course that
there is some onus and some responsibility on the banker as well
and a certain amount of prudence in regard to lending, the banker
sees there is an opportunity to extend funds, and this is
typically not the only source of funds I might add, to this small
business, to this great idea, to this Canadian to succeed if in
fact there is partnering.
If that does not take place, that small business will not get
off the ground because traditional lenders require some equity.
They require a capacity with respect to 25% or 30% equity. When
government partners with schedule A banks and with small business
people, it allows some latitude in this area for these small
business people to create a business or to expand.
This has been a very effective tool for small and medium size
business all across the country. Bankers and branch managers who
are very active in the community will tell us that. Small
independent business people will tell us that. I am also saying
that. I have business people in my riding who have qualified for
it and have been successful simply because it would not have
taken place if they had to qualify under the strictest of
traditional lending guidelines.
When the hon. member was talking about accessing taxpayer
dollars for small business, does he not consider small business
an integral part of our national economy? If great Canadians
with great ideas have small business opportunities, does the
member not see a role for the government to play if traditional
lending guidelines are not being met?
Mr. Rahim Jaffer: Mr. Speaker, I will begin by putting to
rest the hon. member's concerns. Being a member of a small
business association within the area that I did business prior to
being elected, one of the biggest concerns people within that
organization raised was not so much that they did not think
access to capital was an important issue, I do not think anyone
is arguing that, but what they did raise was that there was
limited choice, as the hon. member mentioned, with traditional
lenders. That is the whole problem of our system and the problem
I tried to raise.
We cannot fix the problem with band-aid solutions as we have
seen in the Small Business Loans Act and the revised version. We
need to address the issue of choice within the financial sector.
That is the issue we are talking about.
The Reform Party and all its members in opposing this bill are
telling the government that it is time to address the issue of
access to capital with the issue of choice. Do not continue down
this road of government regulation which unfortunately continues
to put obstacles and additional costs in the way of small
business.
If the hon. member really felt that he was putting business
first, I think he would come to see the same light the Reform
Party has seen.
Mr. Dennis J. Mills (Broadview—Greenwood, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I have to begin my remarks to my friend from
Edmonton—Strathcona by going back to 10 years ago when I came to
this House. One of the first things I noticed at that time when
we were in opposition is that we only had one member of
parliament in western Canada.
A little team in our office organized a program called the best
of the west. We had some bright, articulate, liberal minded
university students come to Ottawa, get used to working on the
Hill and develop ideas on public policy so that one day they
could come back as elected officials and take some of those
thoughts and ideas and represent the regions.
1630
The member for Edmonton—Strathcona was one of those young
university students who was on my staff for that best of the west
program. I am happy to see him in the House, but I am shocked to
see that he did not learn some of the Liberal values, vision and
principles that we worked on during that period of time.
I want to be very specific about an experience we had 10 years
ago. At that time we were in opposition. The member was around
when the then Conservative government brought amendments to the
Small Business Loans Act before the House. It was at a time when
the banks were doing very little for small business men and
women. The Conservative government amended the bill to try to
urge and push the banks to provide more access to capital. At
that time this was not a Conservative idea but it had the insight
and the understanding that it was listening to small businesses
when they were saying they were getting turned down on a regular
basis. The Small Business Loans Act with the government
guarantee was something that would make sure the small business
realm would stay healthy.
I stood in this House in opposition and supported the
government's amending that bill. We got it through three
readings in one day. In opposition we are not there just for the
sake of opposing. If the government comes up with a good piece
of legislation, which the member knows from experience, then we
support the government. To this day we still do not have the
banks doing enough for small business.
I challenge the member to stand up in the House and say that he
thinks the banks and financial institutions are doing a great job
in providing all kinds of capital for small and medium size
business men and women. I challenge him to stand up and say that
in his own riding. What will happen if he says that? He will be
blown out of here so fast that he will not know what hit him.
His riding is no different from my riding. Even with the
pressure this government has put on banks in the last few years,
with the pressure from the Prime Minister and the Minister of
Finance and every member of this side of the House, it is still
tough to get banks to shift from words to deeds and actions
toward loaning capital to small business men and women.
This is what this government has done, what this Minister of
Industry has done repeatedly since he has been in charge of this
portfolio. This is my third time since we have been in
government that we have amended this bill. Each time we fine
tuned it. We have been responsible with the fiscal framework. To
stand in the House and suggest that the Small Business Loans Act
is really nothing more than government intervention and that it
is counterproductive to small business defies logic. It defies
experience. His words are so distant from reality. It boggles
my mind. I am stunned that somebody who used to be on my staff
would come up with such stuff.
I have to say to my dear friend that I do not want him to loose
some of those great Liberal principles that he once had. He can
loose them in certain sectors.
I appeal to him not to walk away from small business men and
women. It does not matter whether you are a member of the
separatist party or a member of the Conservative Party, whatever
party you are with, the economy of this country is run by the
small business men and women. They are creating 80% of the jobs.
If we have to guarantee a float of about $10 billion and if in a
bad year $1 billion goes bad but it meant that there were tens of
thousands of entrepreneurs out there creating jobs and creating
vitality, so be it.
1635
There is a notion of letting banks do it on their own. Is there
anybody in the Chamber who believes we should stand back and
trust the banks to look after the small business men and women in
the country and that they would do a great job? I defy anybody
to stand up and say this would happen. I will never desert my
core values when it comes to small business men and women. I
will never waiver or walk away.
That is part of the reason why I came to Ottawa early today, to
support the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Industry.
The bill should pass all three readings the same day with all
party support, just the way we handled it when we were in
opposition. No member of parliament in the House cannot ever be
seen doing anything other than putting our shoulder to the wheel
for small business.
Mr. Dick Harris (Prince George—Bulkley Valley, Ref.):
Mr. Speaker, you can tell it has been a long day when the member
opposite stands up and tells the House and the television
audience how much his government and minister have done for small
business.
There are a lot of small businesses right now that are taking
some Tylenol, some Pepto-Bismol because that speech must not only
give them headaches but make them absolutely nauseous.
They say they do not want to stand in the way of small business
and that they are helping small business. They have breached
their obligation to small business. They have thrown up obstacles
which small business has to struggle over just to do what it
wants, to try to make some money.
I want to talk about the incredible tax regime that the Liberal
government has laid on the backs of small business. Where does
the money come from that the government says it is giving to the
small business program? It rips it out of the pockets of small
businesses and then it comes like heroes and tries to give it
back to them. The best thing it could do is to stay out of the
pockets of small businesses and let them get on with business.
That would be better than any program it could put on the table
for small business.
How can the Liberals stand up in the House and say how good they
are to small businesses while at the same time they are taxing
them by over 33% more on their EI premiums? They are ripping it
out of their payrolls, their investment capital and their
profits. How can they stand there and say how good they are
being to small business? It is astonishing and it is dishonest.
Mr. Dennis J. Mills: Mr. Speaker, the member just threw
me a lob ball that I do not deserve.
For 10 years we have been talking about the notion of
comprehensive tax reform and I will admit that this is a very
tough, complex issue.
1640
The member knows that I have worked on this issue in a very
diligent, focused way. When the Reform Party came to this House
and became Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition, I was excited and said
at last we have a group of men and women here who will help
produce a critical mass of debate so that we can really shake the
tax system in this country and get something going.
This is the first time this member has stood and talked on this
issue about tax reform since we have come back. Where is the
Reform Party on tax reform?
I have been advocating simplifying the tax system for the last
few years. If I had my way, I would abolish federal income tax
for small business in this country.
They do not understand how things get done in this Chamber. It
is give and take. We have a bill today which Reformers should be
supporting us on and they are running the other way. They say
they are going to oppose. There is an issue where I think they
are on the right track in terms of comprehensive business tax
reform.
They hide it. Bring forward the debate and there will be many of
us on this side of the House who will support the idea. Bring it
forward in a consistent, steady as she goes way. Don't just throw
it up every now and again because they find there is something
worth saying and the only thing they can throw out is tax reform.
I pray that the Reform Party gets on to the game of
comprehensive tax reform. Just like the Minister of Finance said
about two weeks ago, we do need it but both sides of the House
have to engage in the debate.
Mr. Alex Shepherd (Durham, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have
always respected the hon. member who just spoke for his
work in the area of small and medium size business.
It was interesting that the members opposite talked about the
tax situation. What people possibly do not understand is that
with the small business tax deduction available to incorporated
small businesses that have incomes of $200,000 or less in Canada,
they are treated probably the best of the OECD countries.
I really question whether we could consider that an obstruction.
This government and governments before us have recognized the
concerns of small and medium size business.
I am concerned by the opposition members who clearly are opposed
to the Small Business Loans Act itself, not just to this
legislation. They talk endlessly about a subsidy.
I have practised in the small business area. A lot of my
clients would have been very surprised to think that what they
were doing when they walked to the bank and paid prime plus 3%
and paid a 1.5% or a 2% service charge to access the SBLA program
was paying a subsidy. I do not think anything could be further
from the truth.
The reality is 94% of these loans are effectively repaid under
the terms and conditions. Why 94%? The reality is that when
there are new start-up companies there is a significant amount
of risk involved.
Why are banks not interested in taking those kinds of risks?
Some of the members opposite say we should change the regulatory
burden and somehow the financial institutions, banks in
particular, will become great lenders to small and medium size
business.
I point out one obvious factor. When they start talking about
banks, they have to think where did their capital come from,
where do they get their capital to loan to small and medium size
businesses. They get it from the depositors of this country.
Then they have to start asking constituents in their ridings if
they want to see all their savings being allocated more toward
small and medium size businesses which have high significant
start-up costs and risks and the possibility of loss on their
deposits.
That is the real issue we should be talking about. We can
legislate and regulate all we want, but the reality is that there
is a dichotomy within our economy that requires some kind of
assistance. When I say assistance I do not mean subsidy. I do
not mean a grant to small and medium size business. I mean
something that will fill that gap and allow small and medium size
businesses to access the capital they require.
1645
I mentioned earlier in one of my questions and comments that our
banking institutions quite often are more oriented toward short
term lending. This is not just true of the small and medium size
business sector but also of farms. That is why we have the Farm
Credit Corporation. Often the supply of long term capital,
patient capital, is missing.
The Small Business Development Bank has given over $21.7 million
to about 110 businesses in my riding of Durham. This has created
many jobs in my riding. Small business operators are happy about
the process and happy they have been able to access that money.
Some members talked about access to capital. The reality is
that 85% of those loans are guaranteed. That means that
somebody, the banks in particular, are picking up 15% of the
liability.
The purpose of the act is to move us more toward cost recovery.
I would have thought the Reform Party would have applauded that.
Yes, there have been incidents in the past where the program has
actually cost the taxpayer some money. However, by reducing the
amount of the guarantee by the government, plus the fee structure
that is put in place, we are moving more toward not costing the
taxpayer one cent.
This seems to be something that is totally missing the Reform
Party which keeps talking about subsidies. The reality is in the
successful operation of the bill it will not cost the government
any money. I note we have restricted our total liability to
$1.5 billion. That is a lot of money. I think one member of the
Reform Party mentioned that is not small change. I agree. It
does not mean we will lose $1.5 billion. In fact, the way the
program is structured it reduces the liability on a bank by bank
or institution by institution basis.
Some members said they wished there was more competition. The
reality is that this act actually breaks down the number of
lenders. There are approximately 1,500 lenders in Canada who can
access this legislation.
Another thing the legislation does which I find very exciting,
very attractive, is that it talks about capital financing or
capital leases. Unlike the member who got off on leasehold
improvements, what it really means is financing leased equipment.
In Durham, and indeed I believe in most of Canada, 80% of new
business formations are service industries. What do they
require? They require the technological equipment to make them
efficient and productive in the business community. Often that
is computer equipment.
Here is a situation where the government is saying that they do
not have to put all their money into computer equipment if it
takes it over on a long term lease agreement. This gives a very
important incentive for small and medium size businesses to be
technologically efficient.
We were told time and time again in the House how important it
was that Canada be competitive in a global environment and that
its small business sector be competitive in a global environment.
I am happy to say this legislation addresses that.
Some of the comments and earlier studies done by the auditor
general talked about the need for more accountability by
parliamentarians. I note that one of the provisions in the
legislation is to study the program on a case by case basis and
not just the defaults.
1650
Before this legislation we as a government were sent information
by the financial institutions on cases where default had
occurred. We could then question whether they had met the
parameters of the act, et cetera. This legislation expands the
whole accountability framework by basically allowing the
government to look at the whole range of lending going on within
those financial institutions. This is very important because we
can monitor whether or not that system is meeting its objectives
and the demands of small and medium size businesses.
I cannot stress too much that I believe this act is an
improvement. Some members have said that it has been around for
37 years and we still have not accessed the capital problem. That
should not be unusual.
Our economy is growing and some of the small businesses have
become big businesses and moved on. Fortunately many other
businesses stand in their place and continue to expand. That is
why we need the constant support of government for the small and
medium size business sector. These businesses pay taxes and
create jobs. As many of my other colleagues have mentioned, they
are the fastest creators of jobs in the country.
In conclusion, I am surprised by the policy of the Reform Party
that would object to something that has been successful and which
the small business community applauds. On behalf of the small
business sector, I point out to the Reform Party that this not a
subsidy; it is just good business.
* * *
BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Mr. Peter Adams (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
seek unanimous consent for the following motion:
That at the conclusion of this debate we will call Bill C-51 but
that we will then hear only the minister's speech and at that
point, at the conclusion of her speech, we will see the clock as
standing at 6.30 p.m.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The House has heard
the terms of the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to
adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
(Motion agreed to)
* * *
CANADA SMALL BUSINESS FINANCING ACT
The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-53, an
act to increase the availability of financing for the
establishment, expansion, modernization and improvement of small
businesses, be read the second time and referred to a committee;
and of the amendment.
Mr. Eric Lowther (Calgary Centre, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
have a few brief comments and perhaps a question for the previous
speaker from the government side.
I want to clarify a couple of things that have been said back
and forth here. First, the Reform Party is very much concerned
about the health of small business in Canada. I guess the debate
here today is whether or not the changes to the SBLA really help
small business. Is it the best place where we can spend some of
our efforts to help small business?
Our approach is adding to the amount of money that is available
to small business ventures. The SBLA is perhaps one way to go,
but we do not feel it is the best way to go.
I refer to a letter I recently received from the Canadian
Restaurant and Food Association. I will read from it and ask the
member to comment on what would really help small business. The
letter states “As noted in previous correspondence, the huge and
growing federal payroll tax burden on food service businesses is
constraining job growth among the association's 40,000-plus
members. Economic theory and empirical evidence both support the
strong correlation between significant payroll tax reduction and
employment generation, particularly in labour intensive
industries like food service”.
There is one industry that is pointing to the common sense
solution to help small business. We seem to put huge burdens
like high taxes, and the high payroll taxes to which this
association refers, in front of small businesses and then help
them to get access to capital so they can effectively go out
there and hang themselves.
1655
Would the member across the way comment on the relative priority
of expanding the SBLA as opposed to giving small business,
particularly those in this industry, a break on payroll taxes?
Mr. Alex Shepherd: Mr. Speaker, I am happy to reply to
the member for Calgary Centre.
I understand the issue of payroll taxes. All of us would like
taxes, no matter where they are, to be lower than they currently
are. We have heard the Minister of Finance say it in his view,
and indeed that of the Prime Minister, taxes in Canada should be
reduced. I am very heartened that we are actually moving in the
right direction.
To answer the member's direct question, I suggest that he should
read the OECD report on Canada's economy. It will show that
payroll taxes in Canada are one of the lowest in the OECD. In
other words, once again we are looking at the competitive global
environment in which we are competing. The reality is Canada's
payroll taxes are one of the lowest.
I am not saying that is something of which we should be totally
and utterly proud. Certainly we would like to reduce taxes at
all levels, but relative to the ability of the restaurant
industry to compete both domestically and in the tourist
industry, which is very related to international competition, our
payroll taxes are one of the lowest. They already have a
competitive advantage because of that.
Mr. Gurmant Grewal (Surrey Central, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
rise on behalf of the people of Surrey Central who oppose Liberal
government Bill C-53, an act to increase the availability of
financing for the establishment, expansion and improvement of
small businesses in Canada.
The lofty claims of the title of the bill as we shall see are
not accurate. The contents of Bill C-53 do not live up to the
claims in the title of the bill. It looks on the surface very
good, yet it needs improvements and we need to modernize the act.
Canadian taxpayers, Canadians without jobs and Canadian small
businesses are disappointed with Bill C-53 that we are debating
today. On this side of the House we wish the government would
introduce legislation that would be of assistance to Canadian
small and medium size businesses. The official opposition would
support modernization of the small business loans program and
would like to support the improvements in financing for small
businesses, but what the Liberals are proposing is not good
enough. No one is fooled by Bill C-53. The Liberals are
ignoring small business.
Earlier we debated Bill C-21 to extend the Small Business Loans
Act to March 1999 and to raise the government's total liability
to $15 billion. The official opposition opposed it because the
government was failing to address the real issues.
The government does not listen to the official opposition or the
other opposition parties, to small businesses, to the Canadian
Federation of Independent Business or to the auditor general. In
terms of the Small Business Loans Act the auditor general has
some concerns.
For example, I would like to address some of the main concerns
the auditor general has cited in his report. There is a need to
define the results expected from the SBLA program. We need to
ensure that it is designed to maximize its impact. The
department needs to clarify expectations and to develop
indicators of the program performance in establishing, expanding,
modernizing and improving small businesses. What is needed is a
performance evaluation framework to ensure the program is
achieving its intended results.
1700
There is a need to strengthen SBLA program management and
delivery mechanisms. Incrementally, it is also critical for the
purpose of this program that lending should be additional to
lending that would have occurred anyway and not merely replace
it. The latest study indicates that only 54% of loans,
particularly to newly created enterprises, could be considered
incremental. It is important for Industry Canada to define the
levels of incrementality it expects for these loans.
The department should provide parliament with better information
to assess whether the program is achieving its objectives. For
example, the auditor general estimated that the program will
incur a net loss of $210 million for loans issued between April
1993 and March 1995. This compares with a surplus of $72 million
reported for those years on a cash basis. The difference occurs
because the department does not include a provision for loan
losses in its annual report.
In the last two years, Industry Canada has placed considerable
emphasis on moving the program toward full cost recovery. Under
the present fee structure and loss sharing ratio, it is uncertain
whether full cost recovery will be achieved. The department
should carefully study the extent to which the objective of
increasing the availability of loans at reasonable rates can be
achieved simultaneously with the objective of full cost recovery.
The government does not listen to the opposition parties, nor to
the small businessmen, nor to the auditor general.
The department needs better tools to properly forecast future
loan losses and monitor any changes in its loan guarantee
portfolio. For example, the auditor general finds that the files
did not show information on thorough credit risk analysis. In
some instances, lenders had charged administration fees for
granting loans, contrary to the act. Also, related borrowers
were found to have obtained numerous loans whose total exceeded
the $250,000 loan limit to operate the same business.
These practices are contrary to the intent of the act which we
are debating today. Currently there are no provisions under the
SBLA to prevent this particular abuse.
The Canadian Federation of Independent Business would remind the
government to stick to its knitting with respect to this program.
It says that working capital needs should not come under SBLA
because it could ruin the entire program. The government should
test a program on its own merits and see whether it works because
lending for working capital purposes is a different game
altogether.
We worry about the long term sustainability of the SBLA program.
Every conceivable need cannot be put under the umbrella of the
SBLA.
The government must reject the suggestion that the only way the
banks will lend to a small business is under a credit guarantee
scheme. SBLA in no way is to be used by the banks as their
response to the broad financing problems experienced by the
majority of small firms in Canada. The objective of SBLA is to
ensure the sustainability of this program and keep it effective
and relevant.
The present SBLA loan size threshold is $250,000. There should
not be any increase in the threshold because the average loan
size is well under $100,000 for small businesses. If the limit
is increased, it will create problems related to larger firms
trying to beat the system. They will abuse the system.
Similarly, the sales volume threshold is set too high.
According to the CFIB only 7% of firms are larger than $5 million
and 18% of firms are larger than $4.2 million. Statistics Canada
numbers indicate much the same. Loans of this size are beyond
the fundamental intent of this program.
1705
The SBLA application forms also must be transparent. Loan
officers should fully explain the opportunities and the costs of
this form of financing. Many loan applicants do not know what
they are receiving. They do not know they are receiving money
under a government guaranteed program for which they are paying
the premium.
In the past the method of assessing the program has been a
weakness. Tighter monitoring and program evaluation is a must.
For those issues that are fundamental to the program, for
instance, structural changes to the program such as lenders
permitted, loan thresholds, qualifying loan recipients, et
cetera, these should be dealt with under this legislation, not
regulation, in order to ensure accountability and transparency
under the program.
It is important to differentiate between loans under the SBLA
and normal bank loans. Solutions practical to small firms must be
pursued with more vigour. Better solutions to the equity issue
for small firms will do much to build not only the financial
health of the firm but also its ability to grow and contribute to
the economy in terms of jobs and wealth creation. The outcome
would be less reliance on government subsidized credit guarantee
programs such as the SBLA. Government should use instruments of
fiscal policy to resolve the equity gaps for small firms.
The legislation governing the program has remained unchanged
since 1961 with respect to the types of assets eligible for
financing. It needs to be reviewed and will need to continue to
be reviewed as our economy becomes more complex. For example,
the service sector and the knowledge sector are expanding and
create significant numbers of new jobs. The Small Business Loans
Act needs to take into account the needs of these sectors. At
present the SBLA is not considering these needs.
Financial institutions are coming up with new services and new
products. Are these institutions able to take full advantage of
the SBLA? Are the Liberals investigating the financial, service
and knowledge sectors of our economy in order to ensure that
small businesses in these sectors are receiving the assistance
they need to develop, to compete internationally and to create
jobs at home for Canadians? The answer is no. By introducing
Bill C-53, the Liberals are not concerned. They are not looking
to the future.
For about 10 years the CFIB has been fighting the changes the
Liberals are going to make with this bill. Before the Liberals
came to power, the Tories were trying to increase the financing
along the same lines as the Liberals are finally doing with this
bill without cleaning up the operations of the act.
The CFIB has been saying that if the current abuses of the Small
Business Loans Act were curbed and if the parameters of the
program were restricted, this program would require less of an
allocation of funds while being effective in meeting the
program's objectives. The Liberals are not addressing these
issues in Bill C-53.
The thresholds for financing are too high. The legislation
defines small businesses as those firms that have up to $5
million in sales. That is not a small business. That is a
medium business.
The 1998 CFIB presentation is remarkably similar to its 1993
letter to the prime minister.
In other words the CFIB has been asking for these changes for
five years. What does the minister responsible for small
business give us? Bill C-53 indicates only the amount of money
that Canadians can lose on small businesses that fail.
1710
If the size of the loan and the size of the annual sales of the
business were reduced, we would have a system that serves small
businesses. We would also have a system with a drastically
reduced rate of abuse.
Small businesses create jobs. It is not the government that
creates jobs.
Why should Canadian taxpayers support the increase in the amount
of money taxpayers are on the hook for if the program is flawed
and we are not fixing the program?
This is the same government that gives big businesses big
subsidies. The Liberals have just given Bombardier a $25 million
interest free loan. Do the Liberals give interest free loans to
small businesses? No. Canadians know they do not. The Liberals
are also giving big corporations sole source contracts, for
example a $2.85 billion sole source NATO contract.
The Reform Party is not in accord with the Liberal government
but is in accord with successful business. We will continue to
push for transparency in government. It is not enough for the
government to say that the loans are fully repayable on
commercial terms. At the heart of it, we want to see it as a
payment so that taxpayers can be confident that arrangements can
be made. We will welcome Bombardier's help in pushing the
government to implement a reporting regime that would protect
both the company's competitive position as well as allow public
scrutiny of the grant program.
Canadians know the abuses in the small business loans program.
We know that the parameters of the program need to be
constricted. We know that a lot of work needs to get done so
that financing is available to small businesses in our country.
Helping our small businesses access financing is one of the most
important things we can do for job creation in the country.
The Liberals are tinkering with the small business loans
program. The Liberals do not see the need to improve the program.
There is a need because if the problems of the program were
addressed, there would be more financing for small businesses.
Small businesses face a high tax burden. The government has
placed tax increase after tax increase on Canadian businesses and
individuals. We must not forget that individuals own small
businesses.
Payroll taxes, including the CPP and EI premiums, and the GST
are killing jobs in Canada. The personal and retail tax rates
are killing small business owners.
The Liberals are doing nothing about the underlying economic
problems small businesses face. The Liberals by ignoring these
issues are killing job creation. I want to find out from my
colleagues, where are those jobs which they promised?
The Liberals are failing us in this regard. They are not taking
advantage of the opportunity Bill C-53 offers to create jobs.
They are not even doing what the CFIB has been asking them to do
for the last 10 years. The CFIB represents 90,000 businesses
across Canada from virtually every sector of our economy.
We can see the long laundry list of problems and areas that need
to be improved in the operation of the small business loans
program which the CFIB presented to the Standing Senate Committee
on Banking, Trade and Commerce in July 1998. The CFIB's
presentation to the committee refers to the CFIB's 1993 letter to
the Tory minister responsible for small business.
The department should look into and correct various elements of
the act such as capital leasing and delivery mechanism. Lack of
working capital is not covered in this bill. The department needs
better tools to monitor the loan program. The department needs
better forecasting techniques. The department is not reviewing
risk analysis in this bill. Loans made to related parties and
charging of administration fees are not reviewed. Related
articles in the Income Tax Act need to be fixed so that this bill
can be effective. The financial information presented to
parliament is not enough, following a cash basis versus accrual
system.
1715
There is no provision for losses on outstanding balances in this
Small Business Loans Act which is $6 billion. The borrower is
not guaranteed but the bank is guaranteed for its bad decisions.
Thus the objective is to promote the small businessman and not
the small business. The job creation record is very bad. The
displacement effect is negative. Job creation figures under SBLA
have been inflated by this government as much as five times.
Industry Canada does not do an audit of an account until a file
becomes a claim file. A complete cost benefit analysis has never
been done.
The list is long but my time is up. I urge Industry Canada to
look into these conditions so that we can improve and make this
program effective. Therefore we cannot support this bill.
Mr. Walt Lastewka (St. Catharines, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
listened very intently to my colleague from Surrey Central. But I
am really not sure what is happening.
My understanding was that the Bloc was looking at expanding the
bill in some areas that were not included but should be. Another
party said that there are some improvements required in
amendments. I welcome the NDP's concern with small business now.
My understanding from the Reform Party is that it does not want
the bill at all. I might be wrong on that. I think it needs to
clarify it because my understanding from another colleague from
the Reform Party is that it would like to just do away with it.
It wants to support small business but not through the Canada
small business financing act.
I would like the member to clarify his position. I did hear
that there are items like audits and so forth which by the way, I
would like to inform my colleague, are included in the bill. So
it will be very interesting when this bill goes to committee.
I would like the member for Surrey Central to enlarge on his
suggestions for improvements.
Mr. Gurmant Grewal: Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for
his question. He has been frank because he does not know or
probably is not up to date on how many recommendations from the
auditor general's report have been incorporated into the new act.
When we debated Bill C-21 we had concerns and we mentioned them.
The auditor general has a full chapter on this, chapter 29, and
he has included all the details. I had a long list of the
changes which are expected to be made in this bill so that this
bill can be effective.
We will support this bill once it is effective. It will be a
good bill provided these changes are introduced which are not
introduced at this time. Who would not support modernization and
improvement to small businesses? Who would not support
increasing the availability of financing for small businesses for
their expansion? We will, but only when this whole program is
effective.
The system is abused. The banks are using all kinds of
practices to abuse the system.
It is not the small businessman who is taking advantage of the
system. There are many examples that can be put together.
1720
This bill needs a lot of amendments. The whole small business
loans program, introduced in 1961, has not been renovated.
Once the changes I mentioned in the conclusion of my speech are
incorporated, we will be more than happy to support this bill.
Until then, we ask the government to take this opportunity, take
the free advice from the official opposition and include it in
the bill so that it affects small businesses.
We want small businesses to progress in this country because
they are the ones creating jobs. Let us create the tools.
Industry Canada has the opportunity to have those tools in its
hands and to give those tools to small businesses to take
advantage of.
Mr. John Bryden (Wentworth—Burlington, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I wish to draw the attention of the House and anyone
watching this debate to the fact that there has been quite an
innovation introduced into this bill that I am very much in
favour of. I do not think members of the House have noted it.
There is the suggestion that the small business loan program
will be extended as a pilot project to the voluntary sector. In
other words, the minister is suggesting this at least as an
experiment to see what it is like to provide loan guarantees to
organizations financing charities and non-profit organizations.
What is important here is that very clearly the not for profit
sector is taking more and more of a role in society in providing
certain social services, certain benefits.
In many senses this is a positive thing and in another sense it
is a negative thing. What it really means, especially in
Ontario, is that the Ontario government is getting out of
providing the social services that governments normally provide.
It is leaving it to non-governmental organizations like charities
and non-profit organizations.
This minister has recognized that there is a major change coming
in society. He is obviously, in this legislation and in the
regulations that will follow, preparing for it by providing at
least an experimental try at how we go about financing or giving
loan guarantees to those who would finance not for profit
businesses.
There are dangers to this because not for profit organizations
operate as businesses but they have advantages in the sense that
they do not have to pay taxes. If they are a charity, they
actually can issue tax receipts that help them cut their costs
when they enter into the marketplace.
There is a lot of controversy out there right now with not for
profit organizations competing with for profit organizations in
the marketplace. As an example, in my riding there is quite a
controversy about the YMCA coming in to build an enormous
facility for one of my communities. It will be financed entirely
out of memberships.
The YMCA is a charity and the complaint is that private
entrepreneurs who are selling fitness in the area are complaining
that they are getting unfair competition from a charity.
There is some merit to the complaint of for profit companies
when they find themselves up against a charity or non-profit
organization that has the advantage of tax receipts or tax
breaks.
Another instance is in Winnipeg where the Habitat for Humanity
charity is in competition with a for profit used lumber recycler
called Happy Harry's. Happy Harry creates jobs. He pays taxes
and he is up against a non-profit organization that has
advantages in the marketplace.
The warning is simply this. A not for profit organization is an
umbrella term for non-profit organizations that do not pay taxes
and for charities that do not pay taxes and issue tax receipts.
Those are two categories of not for profit organizations that
stand to benefit from the proposal in this legislation.
1725
We cannot assume that because this is a non-profit organization
or a charity it will be running more efficiently. The reality is
that no matter what kind of business someone is in, if there is a
profit incentive it usually leads to efficiencies. Take away the
profit incentive then we run into the danger of a lack of
accountability in the actual organization, the actual costs and
the revenues and expenditures.
While I think this is a very intriguing and interesting
experiment proposed by the minister and it is a good thing that
we do this pilot project, I stress that we need to have a strong
debate at the committee level and we need to make it very well
known in the entire business community that we are proposing this
initiative. We then may find a way we can support particularly
charities that are engaged in business activities to the public
good. However, we have to define the parameters and those
parameters can only be defined through proper debate in this
House and in committee.
Mr. Gerry Ritz (Battlefords—Lloydminster, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, it is certainly a pleasure to rise today and speak in
this debate on Bill C-53. I will be splitting my time with my
colleague from Prince George—Bulkley Valley should we have time
left.
The title of this bill is a real mouthful in itself. Bill C-53
is an act to increase the availability of financing for the
establishment, expansion, modernization and improvement of small
businesses. It sounds like we are going to be all things to all
people here.
In every area of economic activity we find taxpayer sponsored
programs whose objectives claim to be that they will help people
work more or expand their businesses or make more money. The
problem is this is precisely what people naturally want to do
with their businesses in the first place. What we see is that
many of these government efforts are actually taking resources
away from people in taxes who would otherwise prosper on their
own.
Some members of this House may accuse me of preaching some form
of economic Darwinism, that the government should disappear and
let the strong survive at the expense of the weak. I do not
believe this would be a formula for success right across the
board. There are many situations in which incentives can be
provided to encourage certain outcomes but clearly we cannot be
all things to all people and we have to let small businesses make
many choices on their own.
As I said, people naturally want to succeed. That is the
direction that many small businesses like to see.
There are a variety of things a government can do to encourage
business success, just as there are many things it does to defeat
that success, and this bill does little to address either side of
those conditions.
At the moment we have many questions about government
participation in small business financing. The auditor general
raised several of them in his spring report. His figures
indicated that 46% of loans under the SBLA could have been
handled privately through normal financial channels. We have to
wonder if a moral hazard is not at work here. By that I mean
because the banks have a way to deflect risk on to the taxpayer
through this program, are they inclined to get on the SBLA
bandwagon because it is there?
We have no hard numbers to say this program is the difference
between success or failure at getting that financing. We know
that the CFIB places a high priority on access to financing as a
major factor for business success, and I do not question those
numbers, but do we have in this bill the best or most effective
way of doing that?
Recent figures indicate that 80% of small business loan
applications are successful but we have no figures to indicate
whether that is an optimum level or not. Is 100% a healthy
level, for example, or would that expose lenders to extraordinary
risk? In other words, should the government step in and drive
that loan approval rate up to 100% as a policy objective using
taxpayer money to subsidize it?
As a small business owner in a couple of different fields, I
have a great deal of sympathy for people who want to go into
business and need that first boost of capital to get them going.
Of course that does not mean that everybody with the same dream
is equally qualified to pursue it, so there are bound to be
rejections for a variety of reasons.
If we look at where those applications ended up we see that 68%
went to the chartered banks, 27% went to other financial
institutions, credit unions and such, and 11% went to the small
business loans program. No one on the government side of the
House can say that the 11% would go without financing if the SBLA
were not there. As we know from the principle of moral hazard,
people choose the easy route only if it is available. Without
the vast web of bureaucratic programs paid for by an equally vast
web of taxation, factors in the financial services sector of this
country could behave in a different fashion.
1730
As it is, the number of high risk loans has been increasing
along with the default rate and bankruptcies, although Industry
Canada has so far kept that report very close.
Speaking of missing documents, we also have to wonder about the
cost benefit of this program. This is one argument that pops up
to try to legitimize many government programs, particularly when
taxpayers see those billion dollar bottom lines starting to add
up.
As the finance minister often reminds us, governments have to
make tough choices. What we rarely see is this government making
a choice to give up on a cherished boondoggle when it is shown
that money is not being spent in a way that has a clear, positive
return to the taxpayer.
Often we see good money chasing bad in a futile effort to prove
that a program is working, not because it was wrong or
unnecessary in the first place, but because not enough money has
been poured down that sinkhole. This kind of thinking is
epidemic in government and never leads to good choices.
We should be looking at innovative new ways of making financial
support more available to our small and medium business sector.
In many countries around the world, and I understand even in
certain regions of this country, there is a system of micro
lending. Loans as small as a few hundred dollars show a
tremendous return on the dollars placed.
There is a system in the U.S. where lenders are required to
commit 6% of their profits to the communities in which they are
located. Of course there are hundreds of banks in the U.S.
versus a dozen in Canada, so the locality does not have the same
relevance. But perhaps there is a way to implement such a
requirement in Canada, as long as it does not lead us back to the
same situation we have now where the government seeks to force
choices on its lenders.
I think more important than inventing new government programs,
however, is taking a good look at the environment that exists for
business in Canada. Should we be rushing to enact this kind of
legislation when this government has yet to digest the Mintz
report on business taxation? The professor warned that
governments were relying increasingly on profit insensitive
taxes; taxes and charges that were not related to whether the
business was succeeding or failing, but were demanded of the
business owners regardless.
We have seen in recent years an explosion of user fees, which
are not by themselves a bad thing. That is, they are not bad if
the fee goes to the service being charged in the first place.
This government is not alone in preferring to pour all of its
revenues into one basket, but it has a lot to answer for in many
areas.
Gasoline taxes are outrageously high by themselves, but we see
very little of this windfall going toward transportation
infrastructure that would assist businesses of all kinds. Worst
of all are the payroll taxes that are a direct and undeniable
killer of jobs and entrepreneurship in Canada.
Not only does this government insist on imposing ridiculously
high rates, it also raises rates such as the CPP under the
auspices of what I mentioned earlier. Is the program not
working? Pour money down that sinkhole.
The case of employment insurance premiums has already been
broached in this House and by no means are we done with that
topic. Yes, the premiums have been reduced from the highs under
the former government, but this government's own experts are
declaring that they must go lower. Under the law they are
supposed to go lower, but the finance minister, instead of
returning money to employers and employees, threatens to change
the law and keep the money for choices that have nothing to do
with the original tax.
Canadians should take note that the finance minister has in fact
already taken that money to apply against his deficit last year,
so it is actually part of the Liberal smoke and mirror budget
plan to argue about where else to spend money that is already
owed to another program.
My point is that this bill is a questionable necessity and fails
to address the real needs of the business constituency that it
claims to help. What entrepreneurs in Canada need is the ability
to keep more of the profits they generate. Capital gains taxes
need to be at least minimized and at best eliminated. Payroll
taxes need to be kept low and directed where they were intended.
There has to be a serious study of the burden of paperwork and
overlapping regulations that exist in this country.
The GST regime should be overhauled for one thing, but the
layers of bureaucracy between federal, provincial and municipal
administrations have to be examined as well.
Employers need a flexible, well educated, motivated labour
force. Workers obviously need to keep more of their money as
well.
Finally, this government has to take a serious look at the
flexibility and competitiveness of our whole financial services
sector. We have the MacKay task force report to look at. We
should take the opportunity, use our combined imagination and
innovation in reforming the regulations of this industry to
provide real access to reasonable cost financing for business.
It is unfortunate that this government is in such a hurry to
push through Bill C-53 without answering some of the problems
that have been mentioned here today. What Bill C-53 represents
is not a helping hand to business but the hand of a government
stuck in the past with no new ideas.
I certainly commend and agree with my colleagues on their motion
earlier today to send this bill back to committee for more study.
1735
Mr. Dick Harris (Prince George—Bulkley Valley, Ref.):
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise again in the House to speak to
Bill C-53.
I am probably somewhat qualified to speak about small business
and some of the challenges it faces, particularly when it comes
to financing, having spent my entire life before politics in
small business. I certainly understand the challenges that small
business faces today.
The thing that really disturbs me about the Liberal government
is that it truly believes that the best help it can give to small
business is to be in its face with programs, regulations and
plans. It thinks it is being of assistance to small business.
CFIB surveys over the last few years have asked the question:
What can government do to help you? The number one answer, year
after year, has been “Just get away from us and let us run our
businesses. We know better than you how to run them”.
The Liberal government does not understand that request. It
believes it has to be involved in every single part of the
economy and in businesses whether they are large or small, either
through regulations or programs.
I am not convinced that it is the government's place to be a
guarantor of small business loans through its small business
program. I think the small business community in this country
would be quite happy for government to get out of that and let
the private lending sector look after their requirements.
There are those who say that the banks are not doing it. I
think that the regulations which are in place are a disincentive
for banks to get involved in small business financing. They are
trying. Let us give them credit for what they are trying to do.
But the fact is, if we look at the banking community in other
countries, and we will take the U.S. as an example, they have
some very creative ways of lending to small business that we do
not have in Canada because our regulations do not permit it.
I remember in the 1980s there were many small businesses moving
from Vancouver down to Bellingham and Blaine in the state of
Washington because the banks down there were saying “Come down
here and we will show you how you can establish your business,
how you can expand your business and even how you can start up a
business”. The banks would provide the funding. They had a
number of plans and options, ranging from some sort of
involvement in the company itself that was phased out over a
number of years while the loan was being paid off, to some very
creative venture capital financing.
We simply do not have that in Canada because the government's
regulations have forbidden it.
The best thing this government could do, instead of bringing in,
extending or amending yet another program that will keep it
involved in small business lending, would be to get out of the
way of bona fide private lending institutions and let them do the
lending. Let them bring in some sort of risk-based lending for
small business. They have said in their presentations that they
think this is a possibility, if they were allowed to do it.
There are many people in the country who have some great ideas
about how to start a small business, whether it is a small
home-based business or a business they are going to set up in an
industrial park or retail area, but they just do not have the
assets needed to go to the traditional lending institutions to
get the money.
They cannot do it through small business loans either. They
have to have some sort of security to offer.
If the traditional lending institutions were permitted to bring
in creative lending for small business, right down to micro
lending, then I think this would probably be the greatest gift
the government could give to small business.
1740
There are even greater disincentives to small business that this
government refuses to recognize. I cannot talk about small
business without talking about the incredibly burdensome tax
regime that the government has laid upon the backs of small
business in this country.
Small businesses create about 90% of the employment in this
country, and yet they are overburdened by the current tax regime.
Taxes eat into their profits. Taxes eat into their opportunity
for expansion. Taxes eat into their opportunity to hire more
employees. The regulations are all very costly. These are all
tremendous disincentives for small business to grow, prosper and
expand, and yet the government does not recognize it.
I am not just talking about the regular corporate taxes they
pay. The government has effectively decided that it is not going
to change the capital gains taxes which small businesses have to
pay. No matter how many times the CFIB has told the government
that the capital gains tax is a terribly burdensome tax, the
government has done nothing.
I take exception to the member for Broadview—Greenwood who said
earlier that the Reform Party has just woken up to the plight of
small business and taxes in this country. Since 1993 when we
arrived in the House we have been talking on a daily basis about
the tax regime in this country. Since 1988 we have been talking
about the tax regime in this country and how it affects people in
every walk of life, small business or otherwise.
Incidentally, that is why there were 52 of us elected in the
1993 election. We were talking about the very things that were
bothering Canadians. That is why, contrary to the wishes and the
dreams of the Liberal government, we returned in 1997 as Her
Majesty's loyal official opposition, to the surprise of the
Liberal government. We were talking about taxes. We were
talking about a government that was in the face of not only
private citizens, but small businesses all across this country.
Those are all disincentives. That is why we are here.
We will talk about this on a daily basis. We will never stop
because it is a big issue in this country. When we talk about an
engine that creates 90% of the employment in this country, it is
not something we could ever stop talking about.
Now we find that the government is about to do it again with the
EI surplus. The finance minister knows very well that a surplus
over a certain level, according to the guidelines that have been
set down by the EI commission, has to be returned to the people
who pay into the fund in the form of EI premium reduction. That
is perfectly clear. That is what the law says.
The finance minister, by continuing to take the surplus after
the date laid down, will be breaking the law. It has come to our
attention that he is going to change the law.
As I pointed out the other day in question period, it is sort of
like Jesse James making bank robbery legal. We can draw the same
comparison. He did not want to break the law, so he changed the
law to make it legal to rob banks. That is what our finance
minister is going to do. He is planning to change the law. He
is going to scoop that $6 billion over and above the allowable
rainy day surplus, the amount set down by the commission to
sustain the EI fund, when that money should be going back into
the hands of the employers and the employees in the form of EI
premium reductions.
1745
Each percentage of increase in EI premiums costs about 40,000
jobs in this country. Each time EI rises by 1% that is 40,000
jobs. It is estimated that since 1988 when the Tory government
was in power, the way it set EI rates cost the country 130,000
jobs. The Liberals have reduced it somewhat but it has another
$6 billion to pour back into it by reducing it by one per cent or
one and a half per cent more. If we work the numbers back, that
would probably create 40,000 or 50,000 jobs. Who would not want
that? The unemployment rate in my city is at about 17% right now.
If we had some tax relief and if we had a premier who knew
something about how to run a province we might have an
unemployment rate that was comparable with that of the rest of
the country.
While the Liberal government believes this bill will be a big
help to small business in Canada, it will not be. The best help
the government can provide is to lower EI taxes. It can reduce
regulations, in particular the federal-provincial regulations
that overlap and cause a lot of confusion and expense to small
business. In general it can get its hands out of the pockets of
small businessmen and let them do business. Let them continue to
expand, be prosperous and hire people in this country.
The Deputy Speaker: Is the House ready for the question.
Some hon. members: Question.
The Deputy Speaker: The question is on the amendment. Is
it the pleasure of the House to adopt the amendment?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Deputy Speaker: All those in favour of the amendment
will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed will please say
nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Deputy Speaker: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Deputy Speaker: Call in the members.
And the bells having rung:
The Deputy Speaker: At the request of the chief
government whip, the vote is deferred until Tuesday at the
conclusion of the time provided for Government Orders.
* * *
CRIMINAL CODE
Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Justice and Attorney General
of Canada, Lib.) moved that Bill C-51, an act to amend the
Criminal Code, the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act and the
Corrections and Conditional Release Act, be read the second time
and referred to a committee.
She said: Mr. Speaker, as part of its legislative agenda this
government is committed to the ongoing review and adjustment of
the criminal law. My officials and I routinely meet with the
provinces and territories, the police and interest groups on a
range of criminal justice and sentencing issues to consider the
state of the law and what could be done to improve it. We also
receive and review numerous proposals from ordinary Canadians
about criminal law, criminal justice and public safety issues.
As a direct result of this review process I have developed and
placed before this House Bill C-51, a series of omnibus
amendments to the Criminal Code and related statutes. These are
intended to address a range of specific policy concerns and to
make changes to correct drafting errors, cross references and
other legislative oversights which have been identified in recent
years.
1750
These amendments would normally have been included in a regular
omnibus bill. I felt that several were too important to wait
until the next major criminal law amendment package. The
government is particularly concerned about making changes to the
Criminal Code year and a day rule and conditional sentence
provisions, and the provinces are seeking other important changes
so we have decided to proceed with them at this time.
[Translation]
Parliament has the responsibility, and the constitutional power,
to pass legislation on criminal law, but the provinces are the
ones responsible for their application. We must therefore take
into consideration what the people who administer these
administrations tell us works and what does not.
We meet with the provinces regularly, and take their
expectations into consideration in drawing up action plans
relating to criminal law. Many of the proposed changes to the
legislation are the result of that process.
When these changes are being deliberated, we need to keep in
mind that they are the outcome of provincial demands and
proposals, and that the provinces play a significant role in the
application of criminal law in Canada.
[English]
I draw the attention of my colleagues to some of the more
important changes were are proposing. Concerns have recently
been expressed about the Criminal Code rule which limits
prosecutions for homicide and other offences which involve the
death of the victim. These offences can be prosecuted only if
the victim dies within one year and a day of the last act of the
accused on which the offence is based. Needless to say, this is
a very old rule. It predates Confederation and the first
Criminal Code of 1892. Authors have traced it in English
criminal law back to the middle ages.
In the modern era the rule can only serve to block prosecutions
which could now be placed before the courts on their merits. It
has been criticized by lawyers and academics. After due
consideration this government agrees that it should be repealed.
Modern forensic science has increasingly made it possible for us
to prove that the accused caused or contributed to the death of
the victim even where the victim survives for an extended period.
At the same time advances in medical science can result in
victims who would have died quickly in earlier eras surviving for
extended periods on life support systems before they eventually
succumb to injuries.
Such cases are best placed before the courts for a determination
of whether the accused committed a crime which caused death. The
year and a day rule prevents this.
The legislation proposes to simply repeal the time limit. This
would leave the existing Criminal Code and case law rules for
establishing the causation of death intact. Essentially the
rules say that where the accused is proven to have done anything
which contributed to the victim's death in any way, the accused
can be convicted of having caused that death if the contribution
was more than minimal or negligible. This was always the case
where victims died soon after the offence. We now propose to
apply the same principle regardless of when the victim dies.
We cannot reopen cases where the year and a day period has
already expired when the repeal takes effect. The charter
prevents parliament from creating retroactive criminal offences
or expanding existing offences to capture actions which would not
have been caught by the legislation when they occurred. As a
matter of policy, however, we are anxious to have the changes
apply as soon as possible. There is a good argument that cases
in which the time period is still running when the law changes
may be be affected by the repeal without infringing the charter.
The legislation provides for this. There is also no reason to
delay proclamation of this change. The bill provides that the
repeal will take effect on the day of royal assent.
As part of Bill C-51, the government also proposes series of
changes to sentencing provisions. These address policy concerns
and correct oversights which have been identified since the 1995
overhaul of sentencing law.
It took effect in September 1996.
1755
The most important of these are changes to the provisions
dealing with conditional sentences. These sentences are an
important means of dealing effectively with offenders while
ensuring that custodial resources are focused on those who
require custody under established sentencing principles. But
concerns have arisen which must be addressed.
Since September 1996 it has become apparent that in some cases
where offenders breach sentence conditions they cannot
effectively be brought before the courts and dealt with before
the sentence runs out and the courts lose jurisdiction.
To deal with this problem the amendments I am proposing would
stop the running of time on the sentence when the offender is in
breach. The time period, starting when a warrant to arrest the
offender was issued or the offender was arrested without one and
ending with the conclusion of court hearings into the alleged
breach, would not count as time served on the sentence.
Where an offender is found not to have committed a breach, to
have had a reasonable excuse or there is some other compelling
reason, the lost time could later be recredited by the court.
Other than this, offenders will not get any credit for the time
lost. Stopping the running of the sentence will also ensure that
the courts retain jurisdiction over offenders serving conditional
sentences until they have served all their time without breaches.
If an offender absconds, his sentence remains in effect
indefinitely until he can be arrested and brought back before the
courts. The amendments would also clarify arrest powers to
ensure that those in breach of conditional sentences can be
arrested on the same basis as if they had committed an indictable
offence.
The proposed legislation also contains other changes to Criminal
Code sentencing provisions. The 1995 amendments created general
rules for the administration of fine penalties and several of the
proposed amendments will clarify the application of these rules
to more specific offence provisions of the Criminal Code and
other statutes.
Where an offence carries a minimum prison term the amendments
provide that a fine could be imposed in addition to the minimum
but not instead of it. Where the offence provision requires a
minimum fine, the amendments would make clear that the general
rule which requires the courts to consider the offender's ability
to pay in setting fines does not allow judges to go below the
mandatory minimum levels.
As hon. members who represent northern constituencies will know,
a new diamond mine industry is beginning to take shape in the
Northwest Territories. This is expected to bring employment and
economic benefits to the territories, but the high value of uncut
diamonds has raised concerns about the potential for theft and
the possible use of diamonds as a means of smuggling or money
laundering by organized crime.
To protect the new industry and Canadians, the proposed
amendments would modernize old provisions dealing with the theft
and illegal possession of precious metals and ores. The term
previous metal would be replaced with valuable mineral to include
diamonds and other non-metallic minerals.
The legislation would also create a federal power to prosecute
some offences where uncut diamonds are involved to respond
effectively to organized crime and interprovincial smuggling
activities. This would be concurrent with provincial
jurisdiction so that either level of government could prosecute.
This would allow for federal prosecutions where an offence which
started in the territories involved one or more provinces as well
or where a major domestic or international organized crime
interests are involved.
The law does not affect any existing provincial powers and would
leave it open to federal and provincial officials to co-ordinate
who would prosecute on a case by case basis.
[Translation]
Fighting against organized crime effectively is a priority of
this government, and we are proposing many other changes to
fight various activities involving organized crime.
The bill,
if passed, would amend the Corrections and Conditional Release
Act so that persons found guilty of organized crime activities
would not be entitled to any sort of accelerated parole review.
1800
The legislation would permit electronic surveillance in the case
of serious offences involving prostitution and investigation of
prostitution telephone networks and indirect involvement in
organized crime.
[English]
Organized crime in Canada has also been linked to telemarketing
fraud and related offences. My colleague, the Minister of
Industry, already has amendments before parliament to criminalize
various forms of deceptive telemarketing activity and to allow
wiretapping to investigate them.
In this legislation I am proposing an additional amendment which
would allow the proceeds of deceptive telemarketing offences,
which can be a major source of income for organized crime groups,
to be targeted using the existing Criminal Code proceeds of crime
provisions.
The government is concerned about telemarketing fraud and
related practices, and we regard the confiscation of illegal
profit as a major step to counteract it.
The government has also been asked by the provinces for changes
to Criminal Code provisions dealing with gambling. Generally
gambling is a criminal offence unless the activity involved falls
within one of a series of exemptions created in the Criminal Code
such as those for operations conducted or licensed by the
provinces or parimutuel betting on horse races approved by the
minister of agriculture.
The changes I am proposing would create two new exemptions.
First, it would allow dice games in operations that are conducted
and managed by the provinces. Second, it would allow gambling
operations on international cruise ships.
I want to assure the House that changes are not intended to
increase the level of gambling activity in Canada. Nor do we
expect them to have this effect. What we are seeking to do is to
ensure that gambling and tourism operations in Canada compete
with those of other countries, especially the United States, on
an equal basis.
Dice games are not a major part of casino gambling, but casinos
which offer them may have a competitive advantage over those in
adjacent jurisdictions. Ontario is particularly concerned that
its operations offer a similar range of games to those in
neighbouring U.S. states. Once this amendment takes effect it
will be up to each province to decide whether it wishes to allow
dice games in its casinos.
In the case of international cruise ships, the amendments would
allow Canadian registered cruise ships which fall under Canadian
law regardless of where they are and foreign registered cruise
ships in Canadian waters to offer gambling to passengers. The
changes also ensure that the operators of cruise ships which
enter Canadian waters will not be charged with importing the
gambling equipment in their casinos. This is expected to provide
direct benefits to the cruise industry itself and indirect
benefits to tourism and other business in the ports where cruise
ships call.
Canadian registered cruise ships can compete effectively while
abroad and foreign registered ships will not be deterred from
calling on Canadian ports.
The cruise industry is an important and growing part of regional
economies, particularly in the St. Lawrence valley of Quebec and
the coastal waters of British Columbia.
I am happy to be able to propose amendments which will address
the economic concerns and interests of these provinces and their
populations.
Another area of the criminal law which is of concern to my
provincial counterparts is that of prostitution. Concerns have
been expressed to my predecessor and myself that the 1997
Criminal Code amendments making it an offence to obtain the
prostitution services of a person under 18 would be difficult to
prosecute. The provinces had asked us to bring forward an
amendment changing the offence from obtaining the services of a
young person to communicating with a young person for that
purpose. I am happy to propose such an amendment in this
legislation. Similar wording in other prostitution offences has
been held not to offend the charter by the courts.
1805
Several changes in the area of search and seizure are also
proposed in this legislation. The Criminal Code already provides
the courts with the power to authorize the use of electronic
surveillance of telephones and specified locations. Where this
permission is given, it also authorizes police to install the
necessary listening devices, but the legislation says nothing
about their subsequent removal. The proposed amendments would
address this situation by clarifying that judicial permission to
install and use these devices also includes permission to remove
them.
In many cases, the initial authorization runs out before police
can safely go back to retrieve the devices. In such cases, the
proposed amendments would allow the courts to specifically
authorize their removal. The wording governing a series of search
warrant provisions would also be amended to standardize the
provisions and ensure that only public officers who have law
enforcement responsibilities and peace officers could execute
search warrants.
In 1997 the Criminal Code was amended to allow a justice who
denies an accused person bail to also order that the accused not
communicate with any witnesses or victims while in custody. This
was identified by the provinces as particularly important in
domestic violence cases where victims are often subjected to
immediate pressure not to provide evidence or co-operate with the
police.
Provincial authorities have subsequently pointed out that these
non-communication orders are effective only after the accused has
been brought before a justice for a bail hearing. This could be
several days after the initial arrest, during which time accused
persons can and do contact victims or witnesses.
To respond to the province's concerns, the proposed legislation
would create a parallel provision allowing the first justice who
sees the accused after arrest to make an immediate
non-communication order. Once imposed, the temporary order would
bar communication while the accused is held pending the bail
hearing. It would be reviewed by the justice who hears the bail
application, who could replace it with a non-communication order
pending trial whether the accused is held in custody or released
on bail.
This government is committed to the ongoing review of the
criminal law and to the maintenance of effective legislative
measures to protect society. As part of this effort, this
legislation contains a series of other measures to address
concerns about the legislation, adjust offences and punishments,
modernize the statute and correct oversights enacted in other
recent legislative initiatives.
We will continue to monitor the legislation and bring forward
further changes as the need for them becomes apparent.
I look forward to the support of all members of the House for
this important Criminal Code omnibus legislation.
The Deputy Speaker: In conformity with an order adopted
earlier this day, I believe it is in order now to see the time as
6.30 p.m. even though it is not quite that.
[Translation]
It being 6.30 p.m., the House stands adjourned until 10 a.m.
tomorrow, pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).
(The House adjourned at 6.08 p.m.)