Lost his last election, in 2006, with 38% of the vote.
Small Business Loans Act February 16th, 1998
Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for the comment and question even though I am not sure I really understand it. It was very convoluted.
I think the point, though, needs to be made again that this legislation enables small businesses to proceed and do the kinds of things that enable them to do what they do best, conduct business and maintain the kind of activity that is in the best interests of the Canadian economy. I think we should proceed with that expeditiously.
Small Business Loans Act February 16th, 1998
Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for the point. It is an important one. There should be flexibility inherent in this loan system. I think that needs to be underscored to ensure that small business and Canadians who rely on this kind of legislation are able to work in a way consistent to enable the flexibility to be part and parcel of what they have to do in the course of what their business entails.
I think it is very important that flexibility be maintained. I think Canadians want it and certainly small business people want it.
Small Business Loans Act February 16th, 1998
Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for the question. I want to reiterate what I said in my speech. The process the government is taking with respect to small business loans and the act proceeding is very important on behalf of small business and for the economy of Canada as a whole.
I think it is important that we proceed accordingly and in a manner that fits with what we are doing for the overall benefit of the economy. It is important to note. We should do so expeditiously.
Small Business Loans Act February 16th, 1998
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak to the two amendments proposed for the Small Business Loans Act. The first one is the extension of the current SBLA lending period for one additional year, from April 1, 1998 to March 31, 1999. The second one is the increase in the aggregate lending ceiling by $1 billion, from $14 billion to $15 billion, and the unused authority to lend will expire at the end of the extended lending period.
At the outset I want to say that the people of Waterloo—Wellington and many small business people in my riding applaud this legislation. It is very important for them and they certainly want to see it proceed and go forward.
As we discuss the merits of extending the Small Business Loans Act, I would like to review some of the misconceptions which have been stated regarding the program. It is sometimes argued that the SBLA represents a subsidy to small business. However in 1995 the government took steps to move the program to financial self-sufficiency so that it will be paid for by those who borrow through it.
Current shortfalls are the result of actions taken in 1993. Their effects are now being felt on a time delayed basis since loans can have terms of five or even ten years.
I am pleased to see that the government has already taken the actions needed to rectify the causes of the present shortfalls. Indeed it has already acted on many of the suggestions made by the auditor general in his recent December 1997 report, and further changes are in the works. As a member of the public accounts committee I applaud the efforts of the government to ensure that the problems outlined by the auditor general are rectified and taken into account. That is very important.
Passage of Bill C-21 will enable the completion of the present extensive review of the SBLA program so that we can consider what further improvements can be made to this very worthwhile program.
It is important to note that Industry Canada has already taken significant administrative steps to improve the efficiency and productivity of the program, such as cutting claim audit times, thereby mitigating the cost to taxpayers.
Another false claim sometimes made by critics is that the banks do not risk their own money under the program. This simply is not true. Like other insurance programs, the SBLA pools risk across thousands of users. This of course diminishes risk, however, it does not eliminate it for the SBLA lenders.
The applicants to which the banks make loans under the SBLA are otherwise credit worthy but tend to be start-up companies or firms with low capitalized assets. Indeed the whole point of the program is to get cash to companies which might not qualify for conventional financing. It is very important to note that this is in support of small businesses. They rely on it and they most certainly need it.
Further, it needs to be pointed out with respect to loans made after March 31, 1995 loan losses are shared on the basis of 85% government and 15% lender. The program will pay a bank only 85% of the lender's loss after having liquidated all secured assets.
Second, the total claims which a lender makes cannot be more than roughly 10% of the value of the total SBLA portfolio. In other words, the lender's funds are at risk and the lender will lose money with every claim. This underscores that it is not an incentive to make poor credit decisions.
It also needs to be noted that 94% of the loans have been repaid over the course and the history of the SBLA program. Again this suggests that lenders have been exercising good judgment throughout.
The statistics indicate that the system is working well. In 1996-97 more than 30,000 firms used the SBLA to improve their businesses and created an estimated 73,000 jobs. That is most impressive.
Another false argument circulating with regard to the SBLA concerns small business access to unconventional financing. Some have suggested that small and medium size businesses do not need the SBLA, that they simply can resort to venture capitalists. That is wrong. It is more complicated than that. Venture capitalists are simply not a realistic option for many firms which seek these very important but small loans. At present a mere 2% of all businesses obtain financing from such investors, whereas 54% of all outside capital for business comes from debt financing.
Even if venture capitalists were to double their activity it would still mean that only about 1,200 firms would be able to find financing.
Therefore the SBLA fills a niche in the market for precisely those firms which venture capitalists ignore. Without the SBLA most of the 30,000 firms which were financed during fiscal year 1996-97 would have been unlikely to have found the cash they required. This would have meant lost jobs, which is unacceptable. It simply is not right. It is not what Canadians want and it is not what is good for small business.
The government is well aware that banks should be flexible and open to the needs of small businesses, particularly with respect to lending practices. The industry committee of the House of Commons has heard recently that it is important to have more transparency in the lending process.
For example, banks should move away from evaluating loan applications on the basis of points and formulas and should move more toward a comprehensive and flexible approach.
Second, banks should recognize that intellectual and knowledge based assets are as valuable as hard assets and traditional forms of collateral.
Third, banks should increase the number of smaller loans for youth and micro businesses.
At the urging of the government and the industry committee the banking industry has begun to respond. First, banks have introduced a code of conduct. All the major banks have put in place some form of alternative dispute resolution and have appointed an ombudsman to handle complaints. Second, an industry ombudsman has been appointed to allow for an independent review of small business complaints when internal dispute resolution procedures have been exhausted. Third, the banks have developed special benchmarks with which to assess access to business credit which they report quarterly to the House industry committee.
The government is also moving ahead rapidly to put in place the elements necessary for sustainable growth and job creation in the knowledge economy, particularly with regard to small business. Industry Canada's priority has been to focus on helping Canadian business fulfil its potential to innovate, to grow and to create jobs, and this we have done.
It is important to note that Industry Canada invests in targeted R and D in high tech sectors where its support can obtain the maximum effect and leverage benefits. The National Research Council has many technology transfer programs for industry. The regional economic development agencies offer special help in export support for small businesses.
The government is moving ahead to update many pieces of framework legislation that have a profound effect not only on small business but also on the way in which Canada fosters innovation and the growth of its knowledge based industries. The government is modernizing and renewing the Competition Act, the Co-operatives Act, the Telecommunications Act, the Canada Business Corporations Act and the privacy protection act, especially as it relates to electronic commerce.
These initiatives are helping to create a positive environment for Canada's private sector and the small business community. Many of the government's new policies and programs are already paying off in terms of surging economic growth. The need to access capital remains a critical issue for small business growth in addition to the importance of a positive business environment. The Small Business Loans Act can help provide that access in a way that no other instrument can or does at the time.
Therefore I ask my fellow members of the House of Commons to pass this legislation on which they are about to vote for the benefit of Canada's small business community. It is what Canada needs. It is what the small business community needs.
Atomic Energy Control Board February 13th, 1998
Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Natural Resources.
The Atomic Energy Control Board recently said that Ontario Hydro's failure to show detailed plans on how it will improve deteriorating nuclear safety is entirely unacceptable.
What exactly is the minister doing to ensure that the Atomic Energy Control Board is doing everything in its power to restore faith and confidence in Ontario Hydro?
Access To Information Act February 12th, 1998
Mr. Speaker, I rise to comment on Bill C-208 which would amend the Access to Information Act to add an infraction to that act.
More specifically, the bill states that a person who with intent to deny a right of access under this act destroys or alters a record, or falsifies a record or makes a false entry in a record or does not keep required records is guilty of an indictable offence and may be imprisoned for up to five years or fined up to $10,000 or both.
Let me begin my comments by stating clearly that I support the general goal of this bill and I commend the hon. member for Brampton West—Mississauga for having introduced it.
I have some experience with respect to access to information. I dealt with the act in my former capacity as mayor of the municipality, chairman of the hydro-electric commission for Kitchener—Wilmot and especially as chairman of the Waterloo regional police.
The act as it now stands makes an offence of obstructing the work of the information officer and commissioner and provides a penalty for that offence. The act also authorizes the commissioner to disclose to the Attorney General of Canada information relating to the commission of an offence against any law of Canada by any officer or employee of a federal government institution.
Certain events that occurred during the Somalia and the blood inquiries have drawn public attention to the fact that the Access to Information Act contains no penalty for this sort of action. One can argue then that these events clearly illustrate and underscore the need for an infraction in the Access to Information Act.
There is a provision of general application in the Criminal Code. Section 126 of the Criminal Code states:
Every one who, without lawful excuse, contravenes an act of Parliament by willfully doing anything that it forbids or by willfully omitting to do anything that is required to be done is, unless a punishment is expressly provided by law, guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years.
It could be argued that section 126 of the Criminal Code might apply to the situation of somebody deliberately destroying a document in order to thwart the access act, in so far as a destruction would result in the person willfully omitting to do anything that the act in this case requires to be done.
This brings me to an interesting point which is also my main concern with respect to Bill C-208.
Section 126 creates an indictable offence, which is the most serious type of offence in the Criminal Code. The section 126 offence carries a maximum penalty of two years. I believe that the seriousness of an indictable offence in section 26 is one of the reasons it might be necessary to add a specific offence to the Access to Information Act.
In this cases, the specific offence of deliberately destroying documents subject to the Access to Information Act should not be quite as serious as an indictable offence with a maximum of two years imprisonment.
This is not what Bill C-208 proposes. Rather, it proposes to create a specific offence in the access act. But this specific offence not only would not carry a lesser maximum penalty than the one attached to the offence in section 126, it would in fact carry a heavier penalty, a maximum penalty of five years.
It is important to outline that the Criminal Code provides offences in three types, summary convictions, indictable offences and hybrid offences that the crown can elect to prosecute either as an indictable offence or as a summary conviction offence. The summary conviction offence carries the lightest penalties and the indictable offences, of course, carry the heaviest. With hybrid offences the attached penalty depends on the procedure selected by the crown.
An important point is that when an accused is prosecuted by indictment he can choose to be tried before a judge and jury, which can be a very slow process. In addition, the accused is entitled to a preliminary inquiry when the offence is an indictable one.
I understand the hon. member wants to mark the seriousness of the offence by making it an indictable offence. However, it may also be counterproductive if it results in the crown not proceeding and prosecuting with that offence because in light of the particular circumstances of the case it is felt that it would not be worth the costs and efforts of the justice system, or when they view the penalty as disproportionate to the crime, taking into account the circumstances of the offence and the motives of the offender.
I would also wonder how much benefit and how much additional protection society would get from sending the offender in this case to jail.
Let us look for a moment at the list of some of the Criminal Code offences that are hybrid, and for which the penalty would be lighter than a straight indictable offence when the crown proceeds by summary conviction: for example, criminal harassment, more commonly known as stalking, uttering threats, assault, assault causing bodily harm, unlawfully causing bodily harm, assaulting a police officer, and sexual assault.
These offences are serious offences, but making them hybrid allows some discretion for adjusting the procedure and the penalty to the circumstances of the offence.
I would argue that destroying documents, while undoubtedly serious, is not more serious than assaulting a police officer.
I think a comparative study of Criminal Code offences should be carried out in order to classify a specific offence of destroying documents in the access act and determine an appropriate maximum penalty in this case.
In conclusion, I view the creation of a penalty for deliberately destroying documents to thwart the Access to Information Act is an important issue to be looked at in the context of an overall review of the access legislation.
I reiterate that I support the goal of Bill C-208, which is to add to the access act the penalty for deliberately destroying documents that are subject to that act.
The hon. member has worked hard on this, but I am unable to support the proposal of Bill C-208, which is to create a penalty that would be a straight indictable offence with a maximum penalty of five years in jail. This, in my view, is simply too heavy a penalty, and providing for such a serious offence might be counterproductive in relation to the objectives.
Final Offer Arbitration In Respect Of West Coast Ports Operations Act February 10th, 1998
Mr. Speaker, the Asian crisis underscores the extent to which the economies of the world are interconnected. It dramatically points our the extent to which globalization of the World Trade Organization and world trade in general is now in place.
Canada has felt the effects of the Asian crisis. Even the Governor of the Bank of Canada recently stated that the fallout from Asia would no doubt have a dampening effect on Canadian output.
I am pleased, however, to see other more positive developments that will hopefully will work to mitigate this effect. Growth in Canada's major trading partners outside Asia have been stronger than expected. With low inflation, falling government deficits and declining unemployment, Canada is now in much better shape to withstand such shocks as the Asian crisis. This is certainly the case more so today than it was during the Mexican peso crisis of two years ago.
My concern, however, is the impact the Asian crisis could have on Canadian firms doing business in that part of the world. Some international economists have warned that the recent crisis in the Asian markets could have a negative impact on foreign companies doing business there.
What can Canada do to mitigate any negative impact? Are we continuing to get countries in the Asia-Pacific to open their countries to Canadian companies? I ask the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of International Trade to respond.
Construction Industry February 9th, 1998
Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Human Resources Development.
A report prepared for Human Resources Development Canada on an 18 month study into underground economic activity in the construction industry was recently leaked to the media. When will the minister officially release the report and what does he plan to do to crack the abuse and the undermining of our social programs as a result of the underground economy?
The Late Jack Pearson February 6th, 1998
Mr. Speaker, I rise in the House of Commons today to pay tribute to Jack Pearson of New Hamburg who recently passed away.
Jack was a World War II veteran who loved his country, loved his community and loved his flag.
Sports and recreation, minor ball, the arena and minor hockey were his passions. The Waterloo—Wellington senior games were his pride and joy.
Wilmot transit for the elderly and disabled and home support for seniors were his causes and his legacy.
Representing New Hamburg on Wilmot municipal council was his calling and Legion Branch 532 was his life.
Jack Pearson touched so many people in so many ways over the years. He worked hard in a quiet, unassuming way. He never sought the limelight. He worked hard not because he sought recognition but because he knew it was the right thing to do.
I salute Jack Pearson for being a great Canadian. He will be missed.
Child Benefit February 5th, 1998
Madam Speaker, prior to my election to the House of Commons, I was involved with adult education and adult literacy. It is an area of great interest to me and an ongoing concern. I know firsthand about the problems associated with the lack of literacy skills.
A recently released international adult literacy survey ranks Canada near the top of those who participated in that survey, yet more than 40% of adults or 7 million people in Canada do not have the literacy skills needed to function effectively at work or at home.
Canada still ranks near the top of the 12 countries which participated in the survey. Indeed, it ranks first among the English speaking countries, including the United States, Britain, Australia and New Zealand. However, this is not good enough.
People with lower literacy skills are more than twice as likely as those with mid range to high literacy skills to be unemployed. Clearly this needs to be changed. This is unacceptable and it has to be changed.
Literacy skills are necessary if Canada is going to keep pace with a rapidly changing workforce that expects more expertise from workers. This is more so as we go into the globalized markets.
Literacy skills are necessary to enable people to get meaningful employment. This is very important and it is part and parcel of Canada's inevitable march to globalization and the interconnectedness of the economies of the world.
Therefore, I call on the federal government to work closely with the provinces and other groups who want to improve the literacy skills of Canadians. The Canadian government must continue to develop and support more effective strategies in order to improve literacy levels.
Will the parliamentary secretary commit to this very worthwhile undertaking?