House of Commons Hansard #157 of the 36th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was businesses.

Topics

Canada Small Business Financing ActGovernment Orders

5:30 p.m.

NDP

John Solomon NDP Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, SK

Liberals have to have friends too.

Canada Small Business Financing ActGovernment Orders

5:30 p.m.

Reform

Lee Morrison Reform Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK

The hon. member for Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre says that the Liberals have to have friends and he makes a very good point because aside from the type of people I have been discussing, I do not know who they would have for friends.

I have spoken as much on this piece of obscene legislation as I care to. We know from what the hon. member for Broadview—Greenwood said earlier that it is a waste of time to debate things in this House. I will leave it to my colleagues if they wish to continue the debate. Perhaps my colleague from Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre will say a few words.

Canada Small Business Financing ActGovernment Orders

5:35 p.m.

St. Catharines Ontario

Liberal

Walt Lastewka LiberalParliamentary Secretary to Minister of Industry

Madam Speaker, I would like to focus my remarks on Group No. 4, Motions Nos. 7 and 8.

Motion No. 7 basically wants to eliminate the pilot projects as mentioned in the bill. We have had committee hearings and consultations with the stakeholders and we have had an indication of strong support for this innovative pilot project under Bill C-53. The removal of the clause would eliminate the proposed pilot projects which respond to the express support for innovation by the stakeholders and various Senate and Commons committees. As was mentioned in committee, the industry committee would be instrumental in designing the proposed pilot program which would operate independently on a cost recovery basis.

Given these measures the government sees no reason to eliminate an element of this bill which responds to the clearly expressed wishes of various parliamentary committees.

To point out what the Reform Party wants to eliminate, I will use as an example the Merritton Lions Club. It is a very strong club which is non-profit and is volunteer based. It has a large community centre and a large community arena which are operated on a not for profit basis and which address the concerns and needs of the community.

The Merritton Lions Club raises a lot of money to put on Labour Day parades and various other functions. It does good work in the community and returns everything back to the community. As far as I am concerned, it is a very responsible and accountable group and its objective is the betterment of the community.

This non-profit group could borrow money in a pilot program perhaps to renovate the kitchen facilities which have become obsolete. This would better serve the community at large and all visiting teams at the arena and various participants that use the community centre and bowling alley. That could be a typical pilot project.

Eliminating that pilot project would shortchange us for being innovative and looking to the future on how the citizens of Canada could benefit. For that reason I cannot support Motion No. 7.

Motion No. 8 would include working capital as one of the pilot projects. It was clear from the consultations that access to working capital remains a critical problem for small business. However, during our consultations on the Canada business financing act and specifically with the stakeholders, we heard over and over again that this was not the right tool for working capital. Stakeholders, including the Canadian Federation of Independent Business, believe that the risks are too high requiring business owners and lenders to apply more due diligence and monitoring than is currently needed for loans under this program.

The CFIB stated in its presentation to the industry committee just a few weeks ago “We have long been on record as saying that working capital needs should not come under the SBLA because it could ruin the entire program. Lending for working capital purposes is a very different game”.

I want to commend the member for Mercier for her desire to continue to help small business, which is not necessarily the same for most of the parties in the House, except one. Her efforts continue to help small business get on with doing business and creating jobs for this country. I would like to thank her for her work on behalf of small business.

I am sure as a result of her amendment that further discussion needs to be done in the Standing Committee on Industry. She brings forward a very good suggestion. It is probably not the right one at this time, but the industry committee needs to look at how to provide working capital for small business in a better manner. I am sure that the Canadian Federation of Independent Business would be able to add its remarks on how that should be done.

I want to thank members for the opportunity to spend some time explaining Motion Nos. 7 and 8 which are in Group No. 4.

Canada Small Business Financing ActGovernment Orders

5:40 p.m.

Reform

Rob Anders Reform Calgary West, AB

Mr. Speaker, if the government members are not willing to speak about the glowing virtues of Bill C-53, this bill they say they are so proud of, then they are going to have to listen to me critique it a bit more. That is the way this place works.

I want the folks back home to clearly understand what is happening here today. We have a debate on Bill C-53, the Canada small business financing act. The opposition has once again made some very useful amendments to this piece of legislation. Once again, the government has brought in closure and is trying to shut down the debate. It does not want to seriously consider the amendments that have been brought forward by the various parties on this side of the House to try and make it a better piece of legislation.

Before I talk at great length about Group No. 4, I would like to note that this is not the first time the government has brought in closure. This is not the first time it has used time allocation or closure motions. As a matter of fact in the 35th Parliament the government brought in closure 35 times. There were 32 time allocation motions and three closure motions. In this brand new 36th Parliament since I was elected on June 2, 1997, the government has brought in nine time allocation motions, including the one on Bill C-53. The grand total is 44 times. There have been 41 time allocation motions and three closure motions.

The government likes to say that Bill C-53 is a boon to small business yet the Liberals want to bring in time allocation. If this were such a boon to small business, if these Liberals were so generous to small business, all of them would be in here giving speeches and sending copies off to their constituents, preening themselves about how they love small business. But no. I think they are ashamed of the fact that they have raised taxes 40 times. They have raised payroll taxes.

Canada Small Business Financing ActGovernment Orders

5:40 p.m.

Liberal

Walt Lastewka Liberal St. Catharines, ON

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. We have had a number of discussions here today about staying focused on the motions. I have heard this member a number of times go far away from the motions.

Canada Small Business Financing ActGovernment Orders

5:40 p.m.

The Speaker

I thank the hon. member for St. Catharines for raising this point. I am sure the hon. member was zeroing in on it.

Canada Small Business Financing ActGovernment Orders

5:40 p.m.

Reform

Rob Anders Reform Calgary West, AB

Mr. Speaker, focus we shall have. I shall focus on Group No. 4.

Motion No. 7, the Reform motion put forward by my friend the hon. member for Saskatoon—Humboldt, would change the nature of Bill C-53. We would not have as much of an expansion of the loans program.

The government across the way knows only too well about expansion. It started off as a fairly small government when the Liberals first got their hooks on it many moons ago and it has grown and grown. The taxes have gone up and up and up to deal with this growing government and this expansionist philosophy.

Speaking with the great focus which those Liberal friends of mine would like me to speak, I will deal with Motion No. 7. The volunteer sector is the not for profit organizations. There is a legitimate question to be raised about why the taxpayer should guarantee loans made to some of those organizations.

More important, Motion No. 8 expands the loan provisions. As well, this involves the ability of industry to grant loans to the volunteer and capital leasing sectors of this economy.

Industry is not just industry in terms of other businesses. More specifically, it means the department and that touches on the minister. It touches on political interference and there certainly is a history of that. When we look at government involvement in loans and the granting of loans, we could rattle off a litany of political interference with regard to loans by the Liberal administration.

I hearken to think of just a few days ago when I talked about the blood bank scandals in the fair province of Newfoundland. People are on the hook for millions of taxpayer dollars there. Jobs have gone belly up. The government loves to bleed on about how it wants to create jobs when just a few close friends are the ones milking the best of that.

Another example of political interference with regard to loans is one of the reasons we are opposed to this type of thing. I think of Charlottetown, that failed constitutional agreement that was rejected by Canadians from coast to coast. I remember how there were threats and musings over the phone by people who represented the government, saying that not for profit volunteer organizations better back the Charlottetown accord otherwise their grants might not be approved.

They went ahead and supported the Charlottetown accord. Then after they were told they had better get their grants in right away because they had been good loyal supporters of the Liberal regime. That is the reason we cannot have political interference. That is the reason we have problems with this legislation. That is the reason the opposition is talking about amending it.

Canada Small Business Financing ActGovernment Orders

5:45 p.m.

The Speaker

Pursuant to the order made earlier today, the divisions on the proposed motions in Group No. 4 are deemed to have been demanded and deferred.

The House will now proceed to the debate on Motions Nos. 9 and 10 in Group No. 5.

Pursuant to order made earlier today, the motions in Group No. 5 are deemed moved and seconded. This group contains Motions Nos. 9 and 10.

Canada Small Business Financing ActGovernment Orders

5:45 p.m.

Reform

Jim Pankiw Reform Saskatoon—Humboldt, SK

moved:

Motion No. 9

That Bill C-53, in Clause 14, be amended by replacing line 22 on page 7 with the following:

“subject to subsections (2), (3) and (3.1), on the recommenda-”

Motion No. 10

That Bill C-53, in Clause 14, be amended by adding after line 19 on page 9 the following:

“(3.1) No regulation made under subsection (1) shall come into force unless and until it is affirmed by a resolution of both Houses of Parliament introduced and passed in accordance with the rules of those Houses.”

Canada Small Business Financing ActGovernment Orders

5:45 p.m.

Reform

Rob Anders Reform Calgary West, AB

Mr. Speaker, if government members were so proud of this piece of legislation I know they would stand in this place to defend it, but they do not. There is a general lack of interest on the government side in this regard yet they have brought in closure. Something smells funny.

My Liberal friends across the way would like me to focus on the motions actually mentioned in Group No. 5. They are Motions Nos. 9 and 10. This is all about making the process a more open process. The way it is done right now we need an effective check to be placed on the minister, the minister's departmental officials and their ability to arbitrarily implement changes in the legislation.

I will talk about these back door regulations that the government can bring in. I remember in the red book promises of 1993 and 1997 how the government across the way, the Liberals, talked about wanting a more open, transparent government. I support that. I think we should have a more open and transparent government. The reason I do not vote Liberal is that I believe in those things but I have not seen them deliver. That is the problem.

Once again I speak to the people at home. They are the ones who will have to make these decisions in the next election. They should make sure they get a hold of Motions Nos. 9 and 10 in Group No. 5 with regard to Bill C-53, the Small Business Loans Act. The government has brought in closure. It has tried to stifle the debate the opposition has tried to generate and the amendments to improve the legislation.

The hon. member for Saskatoon—Humboldt put a lot of time, blood, sweat, effort and tears into coming up with these changes so that we could improve the legislation. The people across the way do not want to listen to these things. Indeed I mentioned before how 44 times they have brought down closure in the House because they do not like listening to the ideas of the opposition.

Why do we want a more open process? Why do we want to prevent departmental officials in their ability to arbitrarily implement changes in the legislation? It is because small business owners want some sort of degree of predictability. They do not like being at the caprice or at the whim of the government and some of its back door officials or some of its henchmen. They do not like the idea of having legislation changed just because some bureaucrat some place, some hidden face in the bureaucracy, would like to make their lives a little more difficult or change the circumstances upon which they started their business and upon which they are going ahead and pushing forward with that business, or their ability to go ahead and access capital and financing. They do not need that type of intervention.

I spoke with respect to political interference. When one allows some bureaucrat or departmental official the ability to go ahead and tweak these regulations and do with them as they please and to treat small businesses as though they were puppets, that can lead to all types of interference and all types of corruption. We have seen that before.

It is not as though I stand in this place to speak about these things as something theoretical. They are very practical. On a day to day basis we stand in the House to put forward statements, to ask questions and to try to find out about some of the spurious activities that have gone on with regard to loans. Friends of the government have been able to benefit from loan arrangements to the tune of millions of dollars.

Canada Small Business Financing ActGovernment Orders

5:50 p.m.

An hon. member

Name one.

Canada Small Business Financing ActGovernment Orders

5:50 p.m.

Reform

Rob Anders Reform Calgary West, AB

The Blood Bank Corporation. The hon member asked me to name one. I would only be too happy to talk about these types of things and how insidious they can be. It is not the only example.

Just in the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency one can count a number of problems where the Liberals promised to create jobs and did not do the job in a number of these cases just because of political interference. People overrode guidelines that were set for the granting of money or for providing a loan and the Liberals closed their eyes because they were political friends.

They covered them up despite the fact they knew it would not work and that they knew they did not have a commitment from the Chinese government for $300 million worth of business for the storage of blood. They went ahead and gave out over $2 million of federal taxpayer money. The Government of Newfoundland helped out with another $500,000. They used that to finance from private people $6.3 million. Now everybody is holding the bag for about $10 million.

With a million here and a million there, pretty soon we are talking real money. That is the problem when we allow tinkering behind the scenes by bureaucrats. They go ahead and they put taxpayers dollars at risk.

I look around and see the pages in the House. They are the ones who will have to pay taxes because of what the government has done. They are the ones who will have to pay for the mistakes. They are the ones who will be left holding the bag on some of these bad loans and these defaults.

Canada Small Business Financing ActGovernment Orders

5:50 p.m.

Liberal

Walt Lastewka Liberal St. Catharines, ON

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I bring to your attention again, as I have numerous times this afternoon, the importance of staying focused on the amendments on regulation change. I would hope that we would stay focused on them, because I am at the point where I think my privileges as a member of parliament have been broken. I believe that if there is a ruling concerning—

Canada Small Business Financing ActGovernment Orders

5:50 p.m.

The Speaker

The hon. member intervenes again. The first time I thought the member was going to come around and he did a little bit. I know the hon. member for Calgary West will focus his last three minutes or so on the regulations.

Canada Small Business Financing ActGovernment Orders

5:55 p.m.

Reform

Rob Anders Reform Calgary West, AB

Mr. Speaker, let me read it verbatim for members across the way so they can make sure they get the full benefit of it. The amendment was brought forward by the member for Saskatchewan—Humboldt, a Reform colleague of mine. I want to focus the debate for them because I was talking about political interference. I will read it as it stands: “This amendment is brought forward in order to make the bill's regulatory process more open”.

That is what the Reform Party is trying to do. We are trying to make the regulatory process more open. I hope the member across the way has his ears open. We are trying to make it more open and make it more accountable.

That is speaking about as directly as I can to Motions Nos. 9 and 10. By tabling regulations in parliament and having the House of Commons or a committee subsequently pass them, we want to make sure an effective check is placed on ministers or departmental officials in terms of a bill to arbitrarily implement changes in the legislation. That is as straightforward as it gets. I am reading it straight up.

There is a widespread problem where departmental officials and ministers will bring through the back door via regulations what they would not or will not spell out in legislation. We are opposed to this practice and are attempting to remedy the problem. That is about as direct as I can be in terms of the problems we are facing and why we brought forward Motions Nos. 9 and 10.

The problem is that we have too many examples in this place of where the Liberals have said “Trust us”. They were to put the legislation forward and not cross all the t 's and dot all the i 's. They said “Don't worry. Some capable technocrat or bureaucrat will know what is best for you”. They will tinker with it and and make whatever changes they feel best.

Shame on them. Fool me once and shame on the Liberals. Fool me twice and what we have is a government that has broken trust too many times. We put our faith in the government and it went ahead and raised our taxes and brought in more regulation. It made it more difficult to do business and to generate jobs. The Liberals say they believe in creating jobs, jobs, jobs, but we see the record of political interference, bad loan policies and defaults. I am sorry I cannot put my faith in them on this one.

I want to see it printed in black and white. I want to be able to debate it in the House as we are doing now. Members across the way would be content to sit down, not debate and allow it to pass. It is evidence, point in fact, because they brought forward closure legislation that they do not want the legislation looked at with any great degree of scrutiny or a microscope brought to it. They want it shovelled through so they can leave for Christmas, not worry about it any more and pass it off to the bureaucrats.

That is what they would prefer to do. They do not like the business of governing. It would be a lot easier to set up third party arm's length relationships so that when something happens the minister cannot be blamed. It will be some nameless, faceless bureaucrat they can fire and blame the problem on. That is not good enough. They are the stewards of taxpayers money. They are the ones who vote for the increase in taxes.

If they do that, the onus is on them. They have a responsibility as Liberal legislators to make sure we debate these issues and that they are not being decided by some bureaucrat behind closed doors. They should be brought out for scrutiny so that we have a chance to debate the decisions. They should be accountable for them without arm's length relationships or firing somebody in the bureaucracy or in the ministry.

Canada Small Business Financing ActGovernment Orders

5:55 p.m.

Reform

Gurmant Grewal Reform Surrey Central, BC

Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to speak to Group No. 5.

Group No. 5 contains two motions, Motions Nos. 9 and 10. Both these motions are presented by the hon. member for Saskatchewan—Humboldt. I appreciate his vision, the way he thinks, in terms of his amendments to the Small Business Loans Act.

Motion No. 9 reads:

That Bill C-53, in Clause 14, be amended by replacing line 22 on page 7 with the following:

“subject to subsections (2), (3) and (3.1), on the recommenda-”

What this means is that two sections in the regulations under paragraph 1 shall be made on the recommendation of the Minister of Finance. Whereas under subsection (3) of the bill, the minister shall call for a copy of the regulations proposed to be made under subsection (1) to be laid before each House of parliament before it is made and the House shall refer the proposed regulations to the appropriate committee of each House.

This is a housekeeping amendment that I am delighted to put in order.

Motion No. 10 reads:

That bill C-53, in clause 14, be amended by adding after line 19 on page 9 the following:

“(3.1) No regulation made under subsection (1) shall come into force unless and until it is affirmed by a resolution of both Houses of Parliament introduced and passed in accordance with the rules of those Houses”.

Let me give our rationale for this amendment. This amendment is brought forward in order make the bill's regulatory process more open and accountable. What Canadians want from this government is accountability in Bill C-53 which deals with the Small Business Loans Act. We need the process to be more open, transparent and credible.

By tabling regulations in parliament and having the House or a committee subsequently pass them, an effective check is placed on the departmental officials' ability to arbitrarily implement changes in legislation. That is important.

The Liberals passed the following amendment at a clause by clause committee consideration:

(3) The Minister shall cause a copy of each regulation proposed to be made under subsection (1) to be laid before each House of Parliament before it is made.

This is wholly inadequate. Reform's amendment at clause by clause stipulated that the regulation itself, not a draft of the proposed regulations, be put before the committee. Also, Reform's amendment placed a 15 day timeframe on the committee reporting the regulations back to the House. There is no similar requirement in the Liberal amendment. That is why this amendment becomes important.

There is a widespread problem where departmental officials and the minister's officials will bring regulations through the back door what they would not or will not spell out in the legislation. We do not want to fool anyone here. We want the legislation to be transparent, open and accountable. We do not want a back door open to introduce these regulations. Reform is opposed to this practice, and this motion attempts to remedy that.

The Liberals voted against our motion and passed their watered down version. That is why we are trying to move this one again at report stage.

The Minister of Industry tabled with the committee, on three days short notice, the parliamentary draft of regulations for Bill C-53. It consisted of 25 separate sections dealing with changes in the approval or application process. Not one of them dealt with the most contentious issues like expanding the parameters to include pilot projects for volunteers and capital leasing.

It is very important to discuss these issues in detail but unfortunately the government has put time allocation on this so that we cannot debate and argue those issues.

While every regulation made by the government stands permanently referred to the committee for the scrutiny of regulations, that committee does not have the authority to revoke the regulations. The hon. member knows very well. It merely has the power to recommend a disallowance. It cannot revoke. It can just disallow.

In the absence of a statutory disallowance procedure, abuse of the regulatory process by officials and ministers has taken place in the past. There is the recent example of aboriginal-only fisheries. Beyond that, the scrutiny of regulations committee has a very narrow band in which it can recommend action on any regulations. That becomes the place where Canadians cannot raise their argument, where Canadians cannot discuss the advantages and disadvantages. We do not get the opportunity to debate. That is the point I am trying to make here.

In many cases there is an unfair onus to prove through legal precedent that the regulation is ultra vires of the Constitution. In such cases this is impossible to do because the regulation has never before been implemented. It cannot have been challenged before a court because it has not been tabled before nor has it been implemented.

Like an iceberg, legislation like Bill C-53 provides only 10% of the equation. Only 10% of the equation is provided by the House. The other 90% comes from the back door via regulations from the minister after the legislation is passed in parliament. What good is this debate?

What good is this debate if we only have 10% of the agenda before us while 90% or some significant amount is added through the regulations? That is what we are trying to stop. That is why we want the system to be transparent and accountable right here in the House where we are debating the bill. Having regulations reviewed by parliament ensures a modicum of accountability rather than just a rubber stamp of approval by the minister. We cannot have that shoved through the opposition or through the members and we cannot have that pass through this House.

Bringing regulations before parliament ensures the publication process and review of regulations is more open to the public. Witnesses can add their concerns or bring about improvements. They can do so in more of a public forum. As it is now the publication period merely allows for the opportunity to comment. Comments are reviewed by officials within the department. In many cases they are the same people who drafted those regulations. So where is the justification? As such they must be seen to be in a conflict of interest position.

With respect to changing the wording of the regulations, the prime example is the Canadian food and restaurant association. It has serious problems with the regulations that were given to committee members only last week. The regulatory process is largely unacceptable to Canadians. Putting it before committee would to some extent allow for more public input by stakeholders.

I will be supporting the motions put forward by the hon. member for Saskatoon—Humboldt.

Canada Small Business Financing ActGovernment Orders

6:05 p.m.

St. Catharines Ontario

Liberal

Walt Lastewka LiberalParliamentary Secretary to Minister of Industry

Mr. Speaker, Motion No. 9 ensures the minister can only make regulations after first tabling in the House as provided in the new clause 14(3). The intent of this amendment is contained in the existing clause. Therefore this amendment is redundant.

Motion No. 10 would mean that a resolution of both Houses of parliament would be required before a regulation could be made. The proposed amendment is contrary to the established process for making regulations. Requiring a resolution of both Houses of parliament before proceeding to making a regulation is opposite to the principle of delegated authority.

Furthermore, it appears to contradict clause 14(1). This would amendment would impose significant limitations on the ability of the government to respond when regulatory changes are required for the effective administration of the program or when regulations must be adapted to respond to program abuse.

Subsection 3 already requires that the proposed regulatory changes be laid before each House of parliament, giving parliament and the standing committee notice of all proposed regulatory changes. These items were discussed very thoroughly in the committee meetings. As far as I am concerned it did the committee well in making this recommendation for the minister.

I submit the ongoing delay by the Reform Party and its continuous attacking of small business or the tying up of this bill so as to not make things happen is the debate that we have carried on this afternoon. There have not been any valid points brought forward. It is only an attempt to delay this small business financing act.

The intent to stop the bill in any which way, including the front door and the back door, is not going to work with this government. I propose that both these amendments be defeated.

Canada Small Business Financing ActGovernment Orders

6:10 p.m.

The Speaker

Pursuant to order made earlier, the questions on Motions Nos. 9 and 10 are deemed put and a recorded division deemed requested and deferred.

The House will now proceed to the debate on Motion No. 12 in Group No. 6. Also pursuant to order made earlier, Motion No. 12 is deemed moved.

Canada Small Business Financing ActGovernment Orders

6:10 p.m.

Reform

Jim Pankiw Reform Saskatoon—Humboldt, SK

moved:

Motion No. 12

That Bill C-53, in Clause 16, be amended

(a) by replacing line 38 on page 10 with the following:

“liable to a fine of not less than $500,000 or to”

(b) by replacing lines 42 and 43 on page 10 with the following:

“summary conviction and liable to a fine of not less than $50,000 or to imprisonment for”

Canada Small Business Financing ActGovernment Orders

6:10 p.m.

Reform

Rob Anders Reform Calgary West, AB

Mr. Speaker, I care deeply about Bill C-53.

Once again for the folks at home so they know what is happening, Bill C-53, the small business financing act, is what we are debating. Motion No. 12 has been put forward by a Reform colleague of mine, the member for Saskatoon—Humboldt. He wants to make sure there is proper accountability with regard to this. Lo and behold, the Reform Party is once again talking about accountability and is trying to amend a government bill to make it a better bill and to make the world a better place.

As it does with most motions put forward by the opposition, the government has grouped them according to how similar they are. Reform Motion No. 12 is in Group No. 6.

We want to see changes. Members across the way like to see change. That is what I am going to talk about. They want to see changes.

We want to see a minimum sentence as opposed to a maximum sentence of six months which an individual can receive for making a false application for fraudulent claim in relation to the act. The motion also established that fines can also be issued in a minimum as opposed to a maximum. In severe circumstances the minimum length of incarceration, if warranted, would be six months. This is taxpayer money. Serious theft thereof should carry something more than a slap on the wrist or a fine.

Let me boil down what the Reform Party is trying to do. The government talks about a maximum sentence if someone makes a false—

Canada Small Business Financing ActGovernment Orders

6:15 p.m.

The Speaker

I was just getting into this bill myself, but it is 6.15 p.m. and pursuant to order made earlier the division on Motion No. 12 is deemed requested and deferred.

Also, all remaining motions are deemed moved.

Canada Small Business Financing ActGovernment Orders

6:15 p.m.

Reform

Jim Pankiw Reform Saskatoon—Humboldt, SK

moved:

Motion No. 13

That Bill C-53, in Clause 17, be amended by replacing line 9 on page 11 with the following:

“Consolidated Revenue Fund and the aggregate of these amounts for any fiscal year is to be shown as a separate item in the Main Estimates that are tabled in Parliament for that fiscal year.”

Canada Small Business Financing ActGovernment Orders

6:15 p.m.

Bloc

Francine Lalonde Bloc Mercier, QC

moved:

Motion No. 14

That Bill C-53, in Clause 18, be amended by replacing lines 12 and 13 on page 11 with the following:

“to be made a report on the administration of this Act during the preceding fiscal year, specifying in the report any macro-economic effects and any effects on employment.”

Canada Small Business Financing ActGovernment Orders

6:15 p.m.

Reform

Jim Pankiw Reform Saskatoon—Humboldt, SK

moved:

Motion No. 15

That Bill C-53, in Clause 19, be amended by replacing lines 15 to 19 on page 11 with the following:

“months after March 31, 2001 and every two years after that, cause to be made a comprehensive audit and review, reporting on the provisions and operation of this Act during the preceding two years.”

Canada Small Business Financing ActGovernment Orders

6:15 p.m.

Bloc

Francine Lalonde Bloc Mercier, QC

moved:

Motion No. 16

That Bill C-53, in Clause 19, be amended by replacing lines 16 to 19 on page 11 with the following:

“years after that, cause to be made a comprehensive review and report of the provisions and operation of this Act during the preceding five years, specifying in the report any macro-economic effects and any effects on employment.”