Chris Axworthy

[Small Business Loans Act, February 16th, 1998]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to participate in the debate on Bill C-21, a debate which with one exception has been measured, careful and non-ideological. That exception was the speech of the hon. member for Saskatoon—Humboldt, another ideological rant against anything governments might do which might be of benefit to anyone.

If we look around the world we will see that there is not one successful economy in which government and business do not work together for the benefit of all. The question that arises of course is whether or not intervention by the government in the marketplace is beneficial in the long term.

We know from all analyses, from all work done on small businesses that they have some initial problems in particular with raising capital. We also know that their ability to create jobs in this economy is unsurpassed by any other sector of the economy. Large business is downsizing. Mega mergers are costing Canada thousands and thousands of jobs. However small businesses are working hard and are generating jobs right across the country, from the east coast to the west coast and all parts in between.

It is the small and medium size business sector which is driving the Canadian economy. It would only be proper for us to look at ways in which we can assist that sector to do the job which it is doing. That job is not only to pursue the interests of the owners of those businesses but it is also to create jobs across the country.

We know that small businesses experience significant difficulties in raising capital from financial institutions. The banks have begun a process of trying to persuade Canadians how oriented they are toward public interest and how they do what they can to assist wherever they can. However the fact of the matter is that banks have not been very helpful to small businesses. Across the country concerns have been raised by small businesses about the treatment they have received from banks and other lending institutions.

In order for the small business sector to thrive, to create economic activity and to create the jobs which are so vital to Canada, we need to ensure that impediments in their way are removed. The small business loans program is a small step but an important step in removing one particular impediment to the establishment and certainly to the growth of small businesses. That impediment is the difficulty experienced in raising capital.

Under this program the federal government will provide loan guarantees to assist in the marketability of small companies as they go to financial institutions seeking financial assistance. I am a member of a party which is committed to assisting small businesses in whatever way is possible. This is a legitimate, sensible, rational, logical program to assist small businesses.

Our economy is becoming increasingly globalized. If we listen to the Minister of Finance, foreign banks will be coming to Canada to generate competition in our banking sector because Canadian banks do not do that very well and in any case are more interested in expanding overseas. Our economy is increasingly affected by competition from overseas.

Indeed it is the small and medium size business sector which has an important part to play in Canada's economy. It is the one part which is and will remain Canadian owned and which is and will remain committed to the community within which it operates. That is critically important as our economy becomes increasingly globalized and as our economy becomes increasingly threatened by outside pressures and by corporations on the inside which are focusing more and more on overseas investment. The small and medium size business community plays a critically important role in ensuring some Canadian ownership of our economy and some commitment to the communities within which they operate.

We know the devastation caused when a company ups and leaves a community because it can no longer make the kinds of profits it wants to make in that community.

Often it is not because it cannot make profits but because those profits are not large enough. Those employees who worked for the corporation, perhaps for years and years and maybe even generations, are thrown away as irrelevant to the corporation's needs. The community in which that business operates is ignored in terms of its interest. The corporation goes off, makes money somewhere else and continues that cycle.

The devastation which takes place in many of our communities is a serious and significant problem for those affected and for the country as a whole. It is vital that we do what we can to ensure that small and medium size businesses thrive and counter to some extent those particular trends.

It is important for it to be noted that New Democrats support Bill C-21 and have done from the beginning. It is important to extend the program for one more year while serious review of the program is taking place. I will come to some of the concerns in a moment. It is important to continue the program while we are assessing its strengths and weaknesses and how to make it a better program.

Were it not as successful as it has been, perhaps it would not be necessary to extend it for just one more year. It has been a successful program. Indeed all studies of the program show it to be one which is particularly well regarded when matched up against those of other OECD countries, for example the United States, the United Kingdom, Germany and Japan.

Our program has been shown to be one of the better programs with administrative and default costs much lower than those in other countries. That is not to say there have not been problems, and I will come to those in a minute. It is a program which has proven to be successful and useful to small business.

The government could prevail upon its friends in the banking industry, many of whom contribute significantly to the Liberal Party's funds and I am sure would be only too open to that kind of ministration by the government. It could work with the banks to ensure that the banks put the public interest in the mix when making the decisions it makes.

The banks can afford to pay their chief executive officers millions of dollars a year but yet cannot afford to commit themselves to helping a small business in any significant way. I think that would be another way in which the government might assist.

We are still wrestling with the GST and so on. Lack of any real commitment to job creation on the part of the federal government and all such things hurt small business as well.

As I said, I am only too pleased to support Bill C-21 which will extend and enhance slightly the Small Business Loans Act. It is worth pointing out that the auditor general has suggested that some loans are made without a proper review by Industry Canada, that the government has paid out default claims to banks for loans not eligible under the program, and that banks are sometimes charging user fees to small businesses in violation of the act.

There is also concern voiced by the auditor general and by others that the jobs claims, the numbers of jobs created as a result of the loan guarantees contained in the small business loans program, have been grossly exaggerated by those who wish to support, sustain and encourage the program to continue.

None of those things are useful as elements of this debate. It is only proper and I am glad to see the government is pursuing a full review of the legislation. I hope at the end of the review we will end up with a better small business loans program to support small businesses which fulfil a critically important role in our economy.

We will be supporting the legislation. We hope the government will treat it as a priority and do more to ensure that the conditions necessary for small business to thrive are in fact implemented in the budget and in economic and industrial policies in years to come.

[Canadian Wheat Board Act, February 12th, 1998]

Madam Speaker, the hon. member says I am absolutely wrong. Do they think that I am wrong when all the studies point out that the wheat board works for farmers?

Let us get to the question of inclusion. They have also made crazy statements about this. What objections could anyone have to farmers being asked to decide whether they want their product to be marketed through the wheat board? How could that be anything other than a genuine democratic vote, a genuine respect for democracy? That is all this is doing, saying to farmers if they want to use the wheat board to market their product, they can do so.

I do not see anything unreasonable about that, yet Reform Party members are going apoplectic about the possibility that people should have the right to decide to use the wheat board. Why do they get in that state? Because they just do not want the wheat board.

They talked about dual marketing. That is just the code, a step along the way, to getting rid of the wheat board, which is of course exactly what they want to do. Why do they want to get rid of the wheat board when it makes sense for farmers, when it returns to farmers a premium year over year, hundreds of millions of dollars more than without the wheat board? Because their ideology does not like it. Ideology, common sense. Ideology prevails.

It is time Reformers responded in a common sense way, gave up their crazy opposition to things that work and supported things that support Canadian farmers. Canadian farmers will continue to support the wheat board. We have to make sure the Liberal government continues to support the Canadian Wheat Board.

[Canadian Wheat Board Act, February 12th, 1998]

Madam Speaker, what we have heard today from the Reform Party is the triumph of ideology over common sense. I know Reformers do not like the fact that an agency within the government purview works and works for those for whom it is designed to work and is one which is supported by the majority of those farmers who use it because we know that it is supported by the majority of farmers who use it, in spite of the continual denial of that by the Reform Party.

It works, as has been made clear many times, indeed by every credible study of the wheat board's activity. Mention has already been made of the study by Kraft and Furtan, two of Canada's most prominent agricultural economists. They point out that each year farmers make $265 million more selling wheat through the wheat board than they would selling it through the private grain trade.

What do Reformers have against farmers being $265 million better off each year selling their wheat than they would be through the private grain trade? What possibly could be a problem with that, except that the Reform Party does not want those farmers to make those extra profits.

There was a study by another one of Canada's most prominent agricultural economists. I know the Reform Party hates the fact that these good economists say the wheat board is doing a good job. Andy Schmitz who is known all over the world as one of the most prominent agricultural economists also pointed out that the wheat board increases the returns to barley producers by $72 million a year.

What would the Reform Party have against barley producers making $72 million more a year than they would if they used the private trade? Why would Reformers be opposed to that? Because their ideology, their crazy right-wing, neo-Conservative ideology does not want that to fit. They do not want that to work, but it does work.

Last year there was a plebiscite by farmers across western Canada, those who were interested in the barley trade. Sixty-three per cent of those farmers, including the majority of farmers in those areas represented by Reform Party MPs, voted in favour of the Canadian Wheat Board and barley. It was even difficult to get 63% of the population opposed to the GST, but 63% support the wheat board and barley.

Why will Reform Party members not listen to farmers who support the wheat board in large measure? Sixty-three per cent support the board.

It makes no sense to choose an ideology over common sense. Yet that is what the Reform Party is doing.

We hear also some of the most peculiar, indeed almost crazy statements by the Reform Party. The Reform Party member for Cypress Hills—Grasslands, for example, compared life in Canada with the wheat board to life in the former Soviet Union. He recommended that we read the Gulag Archipelago if we want to find a Soviet parallel to Canada with the wheat board. It is at least extremism if not craziness.

They are all like that but only some of them speak out in these terms. The Reform Party member for Skeena said that Canada is a police state because we have the Canadian Wheat Board.

It really does make us wonder when this blind right-wing, neo-Conservative ideology, this extremist rhetoric prevails over common sense.

[Business Of The House, February 12th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the government House leader could indicate whether it is in the government's plans in the next short while for this House to have the opportunity to vote on Canada's participation in the war in Iraq.

[Railways, February 12th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Minister of Transport told Canadians that the government was proud of CN Rail, which is abandoning rail lines, farm families and farm communities across Canada, because it is now the fifth largest rail company in North America.

No doubt this deal is good for CN. It will be able to increase its use of Chicago and the North-South Illinois Central line. So long east-west rail links. Hello the Gulf of Mexico. That is exactly what the NDP and other critics said would happen as a result of the free trade agreement and NAFTA.

This is bad news for farmers and bad news for Canada because our rail system will continue to go downhill and because the government, the Reform Party and the Tories want it that way.

[Railways, February 11th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport.

CN Rail has caught the merger mania with its decision to take over Illinois Central. At the same time CN is offering farmers a nightmare service and is abandoning rail lines left, right and centre across this country. It is using the profits made off these same farmers to invest not in Canada but in the United States.

Canada is the only major economy whose rail policy is to destroy the railways. I ask the minister, why is he willingly presiding over the destruction of Canada's railways?

[Division No. 64, December 9th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to participate in the debate on Bill C-17, an act to amend the Telecommunications Act and the Teleglobe Canada Reorganization and Divestiture Act.

We know that as part of its WTO and GATS basic telecommunications commitments, Canada agreed to substantially liberalize its international services market. These commitments include, among other things, ending Teleglobe Canada's monopoly on overseas traffic next October 1 and removing traffic routing rules for all international services by December 31, 1999. Bill C-17 is the legislation that puts these commitments into legal effect.

I would like to begin today by saying a few words about Teleglobe Canada. Most of us will know that Teleglobe Canada provides international telecommunications services for Canadians by routing calls to and from approximately 240 countries and territories. The fiscal year 1996 was a year of unprecedented growth for Teleglobe as a global provider of overseas telecommunications services.

Teleglobe has announced that it has reached major milestones in its international development and in the expansion of its customer base. This was achieved through—and I think we all agree—intensive sales records, geographic expansion, new product launches and the optimization of Teleglobe's global network.

As a result of all this, in 1996 traffic and earnings for Teleglobe increased substantially and its market capitalization doubled. In addition, Teleglobe International has established its presence as a network operator in three of the largest long distance markets in the world: the U.S., Germany and the U.K. I am sure that in 1998 we will see Teleglobe continue its U.S. expansion and develop new traffic sources in Europe, Asia and Latin America.

Teleglobe, as we know, views this legislation and the liberalization of this market as extremely positive for both consumers and industry participants since it believes it will stimulate further innovation and demand for international services. This is in the context of Teleglobe losing its monopoly and being thrown fully into what is now a very, very competitive international market.

Teleglobe is clearly poised for the new business opportunities that are resulting from this continuing trend. Teleglobe is indeed a company of which Canadians should be proud. It has been made clear this is a company that is not simply content with just surviving in the global economy. It wants to lead the field of telecommunications, and this enthusiastic, positive and optimistic message comes through loud and clear from Teleglobe.

I will comment on how important this positive approach is as we in Canada go about building a first class economy capable of taking on and beating the world and yet at the same time maintaining a desirable level of social cohesion and community. This of course is not an easy task. I come at this question fresh from our experiences in my home province and in the belief that what has happened in Saskatchewan under the NDP government of Premier Romanow presents useful lessons to Canada as a whole.

I will relate a few words about how we might more effectively co-ordinate our economy as we move into this new global environment, or not so new global environment now. The economy of one small prairie province is not the Canadian economy. But a province that went from the brink of bankruptcy to the first balanced budget in Canada, which has had consistently the lowest unemployment rate in the country and leads Canada's economic indicators across the board must have done something right.

It started from the premise that at heart society represents a commitment by those in it to share in the future together, shared opportunity and shared responsibility. This has always been the Canadian way and must—without being Pollyannaish—be our guide as we strive to build a modern world class economy in Canada, as we strive to prepare to meet the economic challenges of the new millennium and to tackle the social and economic challenges of injustice and inefficiency, of mass unemployment and poverty.

This must be done in an increasingly integrated global market, not by turning the clock back, not by evading the changes that have taken place in the global economy or even by just tolerating them, but by understanding, mastering and exploiting them to our advantage, by taking charge of change and making it work for all of us and by ensuring Canadians are equipped to prosper with change.

This question could be merely rhetorical but what should we be doing differently? What will work? It is of critical importance for our national mindset for us all to be outward looking, optimistic and confident. An important part of becoming world leaders is the confidence that we can do it, but we have to keep raising the bar and clearing it. Teleglobe is a good example of that approach.

Here is what Saskatchewan did which is entirely in keeping with what the new labour government in Britain has done and indeed with what social democrats all over the world have done. It is a partnership process driven by the belief that we are all in this together, this being the task of building a world class economy and we being governments, business, labour, communities, educational institutions, aboriginal peoples, all of us. No more sterile debates about public purses, private market versus state, employer versus employee, regulation or deregulation, them and us.

What has happened in Saskatchewan? As I say, I recommend this approach to the federal government. Stakeholders in partnership discussed and mapped out a vision, a future for that economy, not a plan but rather a direction and a set of goals based on identified strengths and weaknesses. These goals included job creation targets and what the economy should look like in 10 years.

Through the same partnership process came the identification of what was needed in order to get there, how to strengthen our strengths and address our weaknesses. Once again on partnership, assigning who could best do what was needed: government, private sector, educational institutions, et cetera. It has been a process of vision and tasks to attain that vision crafted in partnership, and it has worked.

Yogi Berra, the famous baseball wit said “if you don't know where you're going, you might end up somewhere else”. I would recommend this partnership approach, which is in place in all successful economies around the world, to the industry minister and to the federal government. We need not just consultation but real partnership so we know where we are going and how we are going to get there.

There is a fair bit to do as we know. Canada's wealth creating base is not large enough. Our levels of investment in skills are insufficient and we have a significant innovation gap. We all know only too well the crushing consequences of poverty and unemployment and underemployment as examples. If governments cannot solve these problems alone, then neither can the private sector, nor can any of the stakeholders alone.

A modern and effective economic approach needs to provide the framework in which these challenges can be met and conquered and to build the partnerships necessary for success. It is time to break out of the past and address today's and tomorrow's questions with contemporary answers.

The federal government has a critically important activist role in this regard, activist but different from in the past. We must continue to ensure that we have the very best of opportunities for Canadians in terms of job opportunities and the very best opportunities for those who create those jobs in our economy, the private sector.

While I believe that the market economy is the best mechanism generally for allocating the vast majority of resources and markets and, therefore, can and do work in the public interest, I do not think that in all circumstances they guarantee it. Here is a good example. The market economy is in the public interest, but the public interest is not satisfied just by having a market economy.

There are public policy goals that the market cannot achieve. We all know that: education, health care, regional policy. The trick of course is to ensure that government intervention works to better achieve its purpose than with the market actions alone.

This legislation is an example. While Canada has liberalized its telecommunications market, there is still clearly a need for rules to ensure an orderly marketplace and to ensure that the objectives of the Telecommunications Act continue.

I think it is fair to say that WTO and the GATS agreement and the accompanying liberalization of Canada's international telecommunications services market will actually result in the entry of many more companies, both domestic and foreign, into the already competitive Canada-U.S. market and Canada-overseas market.

Our concern here is that these developments, along with the long-term downward trend and long-distance carriage council, make it increasingly possible for companies to circumvent Canadian telecommunications policy and therefore we need to ensure that we guard against that.

I think it is fair to say that some of the clauses in the bill, clauses 1, 3 and 7, would give the CRTC authority to introduce the licensing regime to ensure that our telecommunications policies are respected and for acting competitive safeguards to be put in place to prevent operators from exploiting differences and the different degrees that market openness exists between countries to gain an unfair advantage.

Let me conclude in the minute that I have left to indicate that Bill C-17 flowed from a number of free trade agreements and free trade type agreements that it puts into place to the commitments that Canada made in those deals.

These are agreements that ignore critically important issues such as the environment and labour standards and the protection of social programs, all very serious concerns to all Canadians. As a result, we seem not to have learned very much from these activities as these circumstances that are in the MAI show. That being said—

[Telecommunications Act, December 9th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to make a few contributions to the amendment to the government amendment made by the member for Mercier.

Basically, the purpose of that amendment is to ensure that when the CRTC carries out its operations that it does so in a way which will facilitate the interoperation of Canadian telecommunications networks and also acts in the public interest. We plainly have an ideological dispute in place as to the function of regulation and of operating markets and how we make sure that markets operate in the public interest.

Generally, markets will operate in the public interest. However, in other instances they will not and as a government and as a people we have to be prepared to ensure that markets which allocate resources and products in our community and in the country do so in a way which is in harmony with the public interest.

There is no sense in having an economy that works contrary to the public interest. One of the problems of the position taken by the speaker on behalf of the Reform Party, the member for St. Albert, of course, is that he would permit ideology to dictate common sense. We surely cannot in any sensible debate allow theory that does not work to apply to a situation in a way that would be contrary to the public interest.

I think what we have is a situation in which Teleglobe and indeed the telecommunications industry as a whole have exciting opportunities both here at home and abroad. It will be faced with important challenges as the world market is opened up and the Canadian market is further opened.

It is everybody's hope that Teleglobe survives, thrives, does well and creates more jobs in Canada and more profits that will of course be taxable in Canada and indeed provides a good service to not only Canadian users of telephones, indeed almost every Canadian, but also is competitive in the world economy.

In the context of that and in the context of moving into what is unchartered territory, we have to ensure that the Canadian public interest is also protected.

I take the point of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Industry that we should ensure that all regulation be in the public interest. Of course, that is true. However, I do not think it hurts to remind us that when we do regulate, when we do have an overseeing of agency which is designed to ensure that the industry in question being regulated is in fact operating in the public interest, it does not hurt us to be reminded that that agency should function in that way.

Indeed, flowing again from the comments of the member for St. Albert, his views seem to be that regulation is never in the public interest. If only for him we might have an amendment which reminds Canadians that we have the public interest at heart when we look at making sure that markets work.

In the instance that markets work effectively for Canadians, then we can leave them alone. We perhaps do not need to regulate very much the market for the buying and selling of bicycles. When we are dealing with something of this sort, we do have to ensure that Canadians are protected. That is the purpose behind this amendment, and I support it.

[Research And Development, December 3rd, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, we know why we are thirteenth out of fourteen and why so many Canadians have lost job opportunities and seen their wages decline. The OECD says that we will spend 10% less next year on R and D over this year and the president of Memorial University says that we are acting like a third world country when it comes to R and D.

Maybe the minister can tell us when he decided that Canada should not play in the big leagues.

[Research And Development, December 3rd, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Industry. All the experts agree that Canada suffers from a serious innovation gap. We simply do not spend enough money on R and D. Of the top 14 countries, only Italy's record is worse than ours.

The minister has been a minister for five years so he must be pretty embarrassed by this. Would he tell us on a scale of one to fourteen just how embarrassed he is by this?