Rose-Marie Ur

[National Unity, October 30th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, people from all over Canada, including my riding of Lambton-Middlesex, gathered by the thousands last Friday in Montreal to show their support for Canadian unity.

The future of this country is for our children. In that vein I am happy to report that some children in my riding have sent a message of support to our Prime Minister and to Canada. It consists of a huge 10-foot unity poster which was put together by the grade 5 and 6 class of Caradoc North Public School in Caradoc township near Strathroy, Ontario.

The idea for this poster which consists of 400 pairs of hands and 400 accompanying signatures came from the children. Its theme of course is unity among Canadians, all Canadians and its message is heartfelt and sincere. Over the top of the 400 pairs of clasped hands is a message in French and English: Ne separez pas. Don't let go.

For the sake of our children, let us keep this wonderful country, our Canada, together.

[Controlled Drugs And Substances Act, October 30th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure today to address Bill C-7. The problem of addiction and those who profit from addiction troubles the nation, my constituents in Lambton-Middlesex and people throughout Canada. Speaking as one who was elected to represent the same constituents, it troubles me.

The illicit drug trade and those who live off its avail exact a heavy toll, especially on that segment of our population at the greatest risk: our youngsters, a prime and favourite target of those dealing in illicit drugs. Drugs destroy families. They destroy careers and they destroy futures. They also destroy young lives. Perhaps most of all, whilst doing so they put cash into the hands of criminals.

In the early eighties there were more casual drug users among young people. While we see today a steady decline of casual drug use, there remains a hard core group of heavy drug users. What is worse is that those who make up the majority of the group are the youngsters hardest to reach.

Street youth today are consuming far more drugs than frequent drug users who are still in school. The battle against illicit drug use is being waged in our cities, where the problem is most visible, through programs and high profile media campaigns. It has also been carried out in smaller communities across the country.

Do we need more compelling reasons to advance the case against drug abuse? These people, the young, the abused, school dropouts, street kids, the unemployed and off reserve aboriginal youth are hard to reach.

It therefore follows that the critical path to addressing the issues of substance abuse lies in education, prevention, treatment and rehabilitation. We must also strike at the root of the problem. We must equip law enforcement professionals with the tools needed to deal effectively with those who prey on the addicted. This bill provides the tool. We must promote sound law enforcement if we are ever to advance in the broader social goal of maintaining safe and peaceful communities. The bill provides the means of accomplishing this goal.

We have also heard how the bill looks to the future. First, it provides for flexible framework for controlling the import, export, production, distribution and use of controlled substances.

Second, it provides a mechanism that will allow us to implement our international obligations and to restrict the production or trade of regulated substances to the medical, scientific and industrial purposes.

Third, it enhances enforcement of the law by the police and the courts as it provides the police with the necessary tools to enforce the law and provides for the seizure and forfeiture of property used in offences involving controlled substances.

Additionally, by reaching a broader range of controlled substances, the new legislation will help make it more difficult for drug dealers to reach children and will strengthen sentences handed down by the courts. It will make it easier for the police to arrest people who deal in illegal drugs.

Drug dealing in and around schools and in or near public places usually frequented by minors will constitute an aggravated factor at the time of sentencing. This means that judges will have to justify their decision when not imposing a jail sentence.

The new bill also places safeguards at all levels of production and distribution of controlled substances. This should ensure that they are not diverted from medical, scientific and industrial channels to the illegal street market.

Right now as we debate the bill designer drugs are being produced in some clandestine laboratory and cannot be subjected to prosecution until they are included in the schedules. These designer drugs have the same basic properties as more familiar substances such as stimulants, tranquillizers and painkillers. However their chemical properties have been slightly altered. The result is that these substances are not covered by existing legislation and can be sold with impunity.

Under the bill law enforcement officials will no longer have to wait for the drugs to appear on statutory schedules to stop criminals from selling them. So-called precursors, legal substances used in the manufacture of illicit substances, can also be obtained in large enough quantities through devious means.

The bill contains enhanced controls for anabolic steroids. Studies in the United States and Canada have shown clearly that the problem of steroids is not confined to the high stake arenas of international competition. This was confirmed by Justice Dubin's findings. High school and college athletes use steroids in hopes of winning athletic scholarships or to shape up more quickly. Recreational athletes, adolescents and adults alike use steroids to improve their physique.

It is no secret that even taken in limited doses for legitimate medical purposes steroids can cause serious side effects. Information from law enforcement agencies suggest that most steroids used by athletes are not prescribed by physicians. The mixture sold on the street may be of inferior quality or could pose unknown health risks.

Under the proposed act not only will it be easier to arrest and convict traffickers but it will enable governments to seize and forfeit the proceeds of crime and property used or intended for the purpose of committing a drug related crime.

It is only through the adoption of the measures of education, prevention and law enforcement that we will have the necessary means to foster healthy communities free of addiction, degradation and criminal oppression.

Children are entitled to grow up and develop in a supportive and caring environment, one which spawns honest, healthy and productive lifestyles. The bill before us is one way we can help to promote such a climate for the children of Canada.

At this point I stress three particular concerns brought to the attention of the subcommittee during its study of Bill C-7 with respect to the definition of practitioner. A number of witnesses appearing before the subcommittee, in particular the Canadian Medical Association, had grave concerns. We have addressed those concerns by setting out the definition of practitioner in clause 2 and by specifying that a practitioner be a registered and licensed individual. We have removed any possibility of the regulated activities of professionals being equated with trafficking.

The next issue is subclause 3(1) as originally drafted in the bill that deals with the effect similarity of substances not covered in any of the bill's schedules. Concerns over the particular subclause were raised by many groups and individuals. Their perception was that certain herbal products might be inadvertently covered by it.

Because of these concerns the subcommittee agreed to delete subclauses 3(1)(a) and (b) entirely. Essentially the effect similarity provisions have disappeared and we believe this would definitely erase all concerns regarding herbal products.

I will respond to some criticisms raised by members of the opposition during debate at second reading. Both the official opposition and Reform members identified the absence of regulations as a fundamental impediment to obtaining a full understanding of the impact of the legislation. The activities of pharmacists, physicians, dentists and veterinarians are currently subject to the regulations under the Narcotic Control Act and parts III and IV of the Food and Drugs Act.

[Small Business Loans Act, October 27th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I want to add my support to everyone in Montreal today for the walk for unity. Canadians have come from all parts of Canada and I truly wish the best for everyone in Montreal especially today. This is truly a reflection of our great Canadian spirit and our great Canadian family.

I am pleased to speak on Bill C-99, an act to amend the Small Business Loans Act. For almost 35 years now, the Small Business Loans Act program has provided a valuable means of assisting Canadian small businesses to obtain the financing they need for capital, improvements and expansion.

The government is firmly committed to maintaining the basic nature of this successful program. This act is truly important for the riding of Lambton-Middlesex. I represent a rural riding with the largest urban centre being Strathroy with a population of about 11,000. My riding depends on the small business for economic growth and success. Businesses vary from the manufacturing of clothing and footwear to food processing and auto parts, to name a few.

The Small Business Loans Act encourages financing for small businesses which typically have difficulty in securing fixed asset loans financing for the establishment, expansion and/or modernization.

Under the SBLA, the federal government guarantees loans up to $250,000 which are made to small businesses by private sector financial institutions. New and existing businesses which are not farms or religious or charitable enterprises are eligible for Small Business Loans Act loans as long as their annual gross revenues do not exceed $5 million annually. It is safe to say that the SBLA has been to some degree responsible for the dramatic success of the small business sector in helping keep the Canadian economy vibrant.

Job creation is one of the most important economic contributions made by the small business sector. Since the late 1970s, smaller firms have been the key contributors to net job creation. Between 1979 and 1989 alone, businesses with fewer than 100 employees created over 2.3 million net new jobs in the Canadian economy, 87 per cent of all growth in private sector employment during that period. The self-employed added a further 400,000 new jobs to this total.

The role that the SBLA plays in nurturing small businesses, particularly start-up businesses, is significant. The objective of the act is to assist in the establishment of small businesses and the stats indicate that this objective is being met. From 1990 to 1994, 40 per cent of SBLA loans were made to start-up companies, which together with other very young businesses, those three years old or less, have been obtaining about 50 per cent of all SBLA loans.

The SBLA is meeting its goals and objectives in other ways as well. As is intended, the average size of loans made is modest. From 1989 to 1993, the average size SBLA loan was $38,000 and 38 per cent of the loans were $20,000 or less, 63 per cent were $40,000 or less. In 1994 the average loan size increased to $58,000, mainly because of an increase in the permissible maximum loan limit.

While these stats confirm that the program is serving start-ups in young business and providing loans of smaller amounts, there is other evidence to show that the SBLA is promoting the establishment and expansion of businesses in other ways. In a review carried out by independent consultants in 1992, some 60 per cent of the borrowers surveyed indicated that they would not have been able to obtain a bank loan without the assistance of the program. The review cross-checked and confirmed this finding when lenders surveyed reported that 50 per cent of the loans would not have been granted in the absence of this program.

Another study of the SBLA was undertaken in 1994 by a team of analysts under Dr. Allan Riding of Carleton University. Dr. Riding surveyed SBLA loan files and also worked with the Canadian Federation of Independent Business survey data. Dr. Riding found that the SBLA borrowers tend to be those targeted by the act and, as intended, their businesses tend to be smaller, more risky and with fewer resources than the non-SBLA borrowers.

Dr. Riding concluded that some 50 per cent to 70 per cent of the SBLA loans are truly incremental; that is, the lender and the federal government as guarantor are demonstrating confidence in the borrowers because of the risky nature of his or her business.

The SBLA program is an important one for small businesses and a popular one. A fivefold increase in the use of the program has resulted in a potential annual program deficit of $100 million or more. Clearly this would have been an intolerable burden on the taxpayer, one which would have made the SBLA program unsustainable.

The importance of the program to small businesses required that it be updated and modernized so that it can continue to provide its benefits. In particular, the program needed to be truly sustainable through a move to a full cost recovery. Full cost recovery was supported by all those who made their opinions known, both borrowers and lenders, during the extensive consultations that preceded both the changes before you today, as well as the changes of April 1, 1995.

Significant action has already been taken by the government to achieve cost recovery. Effective April 1, 1995, a new annual fee of 1.25 per cent was introduced on lenders' outstanding balance of SBLA loans made after March 31, 1995. The maximum interest rate charged by lenders was increased by 1.25 per cent to the prime rate plus 3 per cent for floating rate loans and to the residential mortgage rate, plus 3 per cent for fixed rate loans.

Bill C-99 will institute a second set of changes, some of which relate to program improvement and others to the recovery of the program cost. These changes include accelerating already scheduled decreases in the government loan guarantee from 90 per cent to 85 per cent. They will grant authority to make regulations for the establishment of claims processing fees and regarding the release of security, including personal guarantees taken by lenders in repayment of SBLA loans. They will improve the government guarantee coverage for low volume lenders.

Furthermore, they will enable future changes to the level of government guarantees to be made through the regulatory rather than the legislative process. This will add flexibility to the program and permit easier fine tuning in the future.

The move to cost recovery for the SBLA and the introduction of a new fee structure were announced in December 1994 when the Minister of Industry presented the paper "Building a more innovative economy" to the House of Commons. After consultations with all stakeholders the annual 1.25 per cent fee was deemed necessary

to achieve immediate cost recovery on all new loans made after March 31, 1995.

The losses being incurred annually under the SBLA program were threatening to spiral out of control. They were in excess of $100 million a year. The SBLA shortfall was also adding considerably to the overall deficit the government is determined to reduce. The program is a good one. The SBLA performs a valuable service, one that should be continued.

With the changes being brought about by Bill C-99 the move to bring the SBLA to full cost recovery will be completed. Efficiency in making future changes to the SBLA will be improved. Unnecessary subsidies to businesses will be ended and a significant advance will be made in the government's fight to control the deficit.

I urge all members of the House of Commons to work for swift passage of the bill.

[Petitions, October 19th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, I wish to present a petition. The petitioners call upon Parliament to pursue initiatives to eliminate tax discrimination against families who decide to provide care in the home for preschool children, as well as for the disabled, the chronically ill and the aged.

[Underground Economy, October 5th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have this opportunity to make a few comments on Motion No. 382 sponsored by the member for Mississauga South.

Let me say from the outset that I have spoken with a number of people who run businesses in my riding of Lambton-Middlesex about the underground economy. Those who respect the law and pay their taxes do not appreciate having to pay higher taxes simply because others are trying to cheat the system.

Entrepreneurs and small business people who are trying very hard to make a living do not like being at a competitive disadvantage of businesses and tradespeople who ask for cash payment to avoid paying taxes. My constituents also worry over how lost revenue is affecting the government's ability to maintain Canada's social and economic programs which are so important to our well-being.

The issue that is the focus of this motion is of major importance to all Canadians right across the country. The greater the activity in the underground economy, the less revenue there is available to government. Underground economic activity creates unfair competition for honest businesses. Jobs are lost and honest taxpayers are forced to pay more than their fair share of taxes.

There has been a great deal written about the size, extent, nature and causes of the underground economy. As members are probably aware, estimates on the size of the underground economy vary widely depending upon the methodology used, anywhere from 2.5 per cent to 3 per cent of GDP to over 20 per cent, or from $20 billion to $140 billion a year. Regardless of its size, there is no disputing the fact that the underground economy exists and its corrosive efforts are exacting a huge toll on Canadian society.

Why then do people make the decision to go underground? There are many reasons. However, I would submit that none of these reasons is legitimate. There is the myth that everyone is doing it, so I may as well. There is the perception of the GST as an unfair tax which enables someone to rationalize their behaviour as acceptable. Others perceive the tax system as too complex and cumbersome to even bother with it. Then there are those who feel that it is easy to get away with it, so why not take the chance?

We have to also acknowledge a widespread disrespect for government and politicians and the accompanying perception that government is wasting the money it takes in from Canadians and that they are getting poor value for their tax dollars.

While none of these reasons can justify not paying one's fair share of taxes, the fact remains that an unfortunate snowballing effect is created once the decision is made to go underground. There is the fear that once one has gone underground, it is too difficult to come out.

There is the perception that if people have gone underground long enough, they might not be able to come out even if they wanted to because there would be no possibility to pay the taxes, let alone the interest and penalties, simply because there would be no paper trail made up of bills, invoices and so on. Faced with this set of circumstances, those who would like to reform their bad habits perceive it cannot be done. They are somehow stuck.

One of the most attractive aspects of Motion No. 382 is the provision for a limited amnesty on interest and penalties otherwise payable when a taxpayer voluntarily declares income previously undeclared. The inducement to go straight would allow the previously delinquent taxpayers to voluntarily come forward without penalty for a limited time and start paying his or her fair share of taxes once again.

Another component of the motion is a proposed tax credit to taxpayers on home improvements and renovations. This would provide an inducement to create an essential paper trail and to serve as one of the primary vehicles for a country wide information campaign.

The motion before the House demonstrates a desire on the part of the member for Mississauga South to get Canadians talking about the negative consequences of the underground economy and to hopefully find ways to encourage as many people as possible to return to the legitimate economy.

There must be a public campaign which emphasizes that tax evasion is a crime and that it is certainly not a victimless crime as is often argued. All Canadians are victims, because tax evasion leads to job loss, increase in the deficit, honest taxpayers carrying more of the burden, and legitimate businesses operating in an environment of unfair competition, sometimes leading to their bankruptcy.

I believe the co-existence of the amnesty program and the tax credit for home renovations with more traditional public awareness campaigns would serve to educate Canadians on the facts of the seriousness of the existence of the underground economy and how they can help to eliminate it. I also believe there will be a change in the attitude of Canadians toward paying their fair share of taxes if they can be convinced that government is upholding its responsibility in enforcing the law in a tough but fair fashion.

To his credit, the Minister of National Revenue, through a series of thoughtful initiatives over the past year and a half, has been successful in recovering over $800 million in unpaid taxes. But the department has done more than just collect unpaid taxes. Through

consultation with over 240 groups and associations, the department has learned how to refine its strategies, identify areas of non-compliance, and explore measures for improving compliance. For example, the government's recent budget announcement of a measure to address the problem of the underground economy in the construction industry is a direct result of its consultation efforts.

The department has increased its publicity of convictions for tax evasion. As a result, there has been a doubling of the number of voluntary disclosures. The department now receives about 19,000 referrals a year from Canadians who are tired of some of their neighbours and friends not paying their fair share of taxes.

The motion before the House demonstrates a desire on the part of members to get Canadians talking about the negative consequences of the underground economy and hopefully find ways of encouraging as many people as possible to return to the legitimate workplace within the mainstream economy.

I would like to take this opportunity to fully endorse the motion brought forward by the member for Mississauga South and I would encourage all members of the House to do likewise.

[National Family Week, October 3rd, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, for 12 years now in the week leading up to Thanksgiving, Canadians have made a special effort to celebrate National Family Week.

This year, from October 2 to October 8, all Canadians will be encouraged to look inward and to contemplate the fundamental importance of our families and the relationships we have with the loved ones around us. This year's theme "Families are Forever: Enjoy Family Times" builds on the concept that families, like precious jewels, are forever and need to be enjoyed, treasured and celebrated.

The family unit is an essential building block of all societies. The ties that bind us to each other are reflections of the ties that keep the greater family, the global community, together. During this National Family Week and indeed all year long we should enjoy the time we spend with our family members and enjoy the memories of good family ties.

[Petitions, September 29th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I wish to table a petition signed by the constituents of Lambton-Middlesex and duly certified by the clerk of petitions, pursuant to Standing Order 36.

The petitioners call on Parliament to ensure that the present provisions of the Criminal Code of Canada prohibiting assisted suicide be enforced vigorously and that Parliament make no changes to the law that would sanction or allow the aiding or abetting of suicide or active or passive euthanasia.

[Camp Ipperwash, September 25th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, there may finally be a breakthrough in the current impasse at Camp Ipperwash, which is located in my riding of Lambton-Middlesex.

Last Thursday, September 21, the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development and the Minister of National Defence announced that the Hon. Robert Reid, Q.C., a former Justice of the Supreme Court of Canada, has agreed to serve as a federal representative to resolve the issues surrounding the return of the Camp Ipperwash lands to the Kettle and Stony Point First Nation.

I have every confidence that Justice Reid will put his considerable experience and talents to use in implementing the seven-point memorandum of understanding that was worked out between the government and the Kettle and Stony Point First Nation on September 13.

I am especially pleased and grateful that the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development has given me his personal assurance of his request that Justice Reid will also meet with the representatives of the town of Bosanquet to hear their concerns and ideas on resolving the issues surrounding the return of Camp Ipperwash.

[Petitions, June 22nd, 1995]

Madam Speaker, I wish to table a petition signed by the constituents of Lambton-Middlesex, duly certified by the clerk of petitions pursuant to Standing Order 36.

The petitioners call upon Parliament not to amend the Canadian Human Rights Act or the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms in any way that would tend to indicate societal approval of same sex relationships or of homosexuality.

[Firearms Act, June 12th, 1995]

In favour, Mr. Speaker.