Sarmite Bulte

[Estonia, February 24th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, today thousands of Canadians of Estonian heritage and Estonians worldwide are proudly celebrating the 80th anniversary of their country's independence.

Dominated since the 13th century by Danes, Germans, Poles, Swedes and Russians, Estonia was established as a modern nation state on February 24, 1918.

However, the freedom was shortlived as the onset of World War 11 brought about renewed occupation by both Russian and German armies.

With the end of the second world war, Estonia continued to be occupied by the former Soviet Union, an occupation that Canada refused to recognize and an occupation that lasted until August 20, 1991 when Estonia's independence was finally re-established.

It was between the end of the Second World War and 1991 when most Canadians of Estonian heritage arrived in our country as political refugees.

Long a friend of Estonia and the other Baltic states, Canada is proud of the contribution that those of Baltic heritage have made and continue to make to our society.

[Supply, February 23rd, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I believe the minister has made it absolutely clear and I support the minister. If we cannot get an acceptable cultural country specific reservation, we will walk away from this agreement.

We are not protecting our industries right now. If we look to see who controls our publishing, who controls our recording, who controls our film distribution, it is not Canadians. We do not have a protectionist policy. We do not stop those people from coming into Canada and investing under our rules and under the transparency rules. I invite companies to come and to be part of our cultural industries, but not to take them over.

[Supply, February 23rd, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I think consultation is important, absolutely. One of the recommendations the subcommittee made was to support the approach to seek general exception, make it self-judging and aggressively pursue an alliance with respect to exceptions.

Yes, I think it is important that we continue to have discussions with members of the arts and cultural communities which we are doing right now in the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage. This is not something we have put aside to just let the subcommittee work with. The more consultations we have the better. We need to continue this and get into partnerships which this government is willing to do with the arts and cultural industries in Canada.

[Supply, February 23rd, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for his very important and relevant question.

One of the things with respect to the broadening of the definition is if we look at the SOCAN exception it has added communications by telecommunication in its definition of cultural industries. I think this is something we are going to have to debate as to what are cultural industries. We cannot predict in the future what our new cultural industries will be.

I do not believe that the NAFTA definition is simply enough. But I also take the recommendation made by the Canadian Conference of the Arts that one way we can ensure we can protect and promote our cultural industries abroad and have them compete in this competitive world is by making culture self-judging.

[Supply, February 23rd, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, first I would like say how pleased I am to join in this debate today on the multilateral agreement on investment.

I do so in a number of capacities, as a member of the subcommittee on international trade disputes and investment and as a member of the standing committee on heritage.

Also, I rise today as a member of a riding that is home to many artists and individuals who are involved in the arts and cultural industry in Canada, a sector I am absolutely passionate about and care for very deeply.

I would like to start the debate by reiterating the key messages that the minister has been saying about the MAI. First, there is nothing mysterious or secretive about our involvement in the MAI negotiations. I believe that Canada has a duty to be there to protect that which is important to Canadians.

Second, if it can be achieved, a good and fair set of rules for international investment would in principle be a good thing for Canada.

Third, at the end of the negotiations, the minister will not sign on Canada's behalf an MAI that does not fully support key Canadian values and safeguard vital Canadian interests.

I would like to talk about one very important vital Canadian interest and Canadian value. That is the arts and cultural industry in Canada and what we as a government have been doing in consultation with the cultural sector and the individual actors, creators, writers, technicians, publishers who live in my riding.

We have been consulting with the minister. We have been going to the minister, having the minister's ear and the minister has been listening. Let me put that in the context of what I would ask all members to read, a report that was tabled at the Canadian Conference of the Arts by Garry Neil which sets out the problems with the original draft text that came out in May 1997.

In his report, Mr. Neil makes absolutely clear that according to that draft which was released, the cultural sector would be covered fully by the MAI as drafted in January 1997. Unfortunately I have to disagree with hon. members of the Reform Party that Canada can compete anywhere and in any sector, including the cultural sector. With all respect, they can only do so because of this government's cultural policy which advocates the creator and Canadian content and the infrastructure to take that Canadian content through the creator to our audiences in Canada. That has been our policy.

Mr. Neil goes on by saying that potentially with the January 1997 text as drafted, the MAI would affect in some way virtually every cultural policy. We may be able to compete today in children's programming for one reason alone, because we have a cultural policy that promoted children's programming.

Yes, we are world leaders in television programming for children. The Comfy Couch , Dudley the Dragon , things that our children and our grandchildren know about, have come about through one of those policies which has been the Canada cable and television production fund which is only given to Canadian companies. Those things would not have been created.

Let us see the impact the MAI in its 1997 form would have had on culture. Let us talk about what, if we had accepted that draft as written, it could potentially have done for culture. Particularly to Reformers who feel that culture should not be on the table, that it should just be part of this agreement, let me tell them what would happen.

Canada prohibits, limits or restricts foreign ownership in most of our cultural industries currently. For example, no foreign company can own more than one-third of a Canadian broadcaster or distribution undertaking, cable, satellite or otherwise.

The policy in the book trade generally prohibits a Canadian company from being sold to non-Canadian interests. The policy in film distribution prohibits a foreign company from establishing a new business in Canada, except to distribute its own productions.

Increased foreign ownership in the sound recording business is reviewed by investment Canada under the net benefits test. Ontario's periodical and publication distribution act and several Quebec statutes require Canadian ownership.

The other thing our government's policy does for culture is that funding programs are limited to Canadian individuals and firms. Access to most funding programs is denied to non-Canadian companies and individuals, for example funding support for film and television production activities through Telefilm, the provincial agency. The Canada Council is limited to Canadian firms.

If taxation is carved into the MAI, the support through the refundable investment tax credit and the companion provincial schemes are also at risk. The CRTC has been mandated by this government for the creation of private sector production and talent support programs in both the television and sound recording industries by directing licences to provide certain percentages of revenues for these purposes. These programs are generally not available to foreign firms.

Let us look at the book publishing industry development program, the block grant program of the Canada Council and the publication assistance program. They are limited to Canadian book and magazine publishers. Access is also limited to many funds that support new media productions, again limited to Canadian firms. The cultural industries development fund, administered by the former federal business development bank, provides assistance only to Canadian firms.

However, since the definition of investor in the MAI includes organizations and associations operated on a not for profit basis, direct and indirect funding of these activities may be subject to challenge if access is denied to a foreign association or organization having a Canadian presence or asset. Let us look at the Canadian content requirements. For a television program to qualify under Canadian content, the producers of that material must be Canadian.

Those are examples of this government's cultural policy not just to protect Canadian culture but to promote it, to ensure that we have a viable industry that, as Reform says, can compete anywhere in the world. That is because of this government's policy. If we look at that, we must also look to see what has to be done for our cultural sector. The subcommittee on the MAI and the Canadian heritage committee have been listening to what has to be done.

Mr. Neil has said in his report that first and foremost Canada must take a lead role and try to support the principle of the French government which is asking for a full exception. Currently the only exception in the MAI text as drafted in January 1997 is an exception for national security. The French addendum puts in a principle of cultural exception. Let us use that word clearly, exception.

We also listened to representatives from SOCAN, the society of Canadian composers, who came up with a review of different ways we could exempt culture. They came up with a broad definition of culture, one that differs from the NAFTA definition. When we consider where we were with culture years ago when NAFTA was drafted, we did not have the technology and the art we now have. They added words to it. Television and broadcasting are now part of it. The committee looked at that.

The same day we heard from SOCAN, the standing committee on heritage also heard from representatives from the Ministry of Industry who spoke about the multimedia industry. They told us how our cultural industries account for 25% of the multimedia industry. But that is not a definition in NAFTA. So the committee is listening. Perhaps the SOCAN exception is not sufficient. We have to continue to consult with heritage, with industry as to what the appropriate exceptions should be. Again, we are now talking about exceptions but that is not all we have to look at.

If we cannot get all the other countries to buy into the idea of an exception for culture as we have done for national security, then there is one other recommendation made by Mr. Neil in his report. If the broad exception is not agreed on, the country specific reservations must be unbound and new measures must be permitted.

I am happy to report that is exactly what the Minister for International Trade has stated. If we are not able to obtain a full out exception along the principles of the French exception, then Canada will accept nothing less than an unbound country specific reservation, the recommendation made by Mr. Neil at the Canadian Conference of the Arts.

The minister is listening and the committee is recommending the principles of SOCAN. Mr. Keith Kelly, the executive director of the Canadian Conference of the Arts, told us to make it self-judging and important, protect what is important to Canadians. That is what this government is going to do. If we do sign we will do so only when we have fully protected the cultural industries. We will not sign until we have a definition that covers not only the arts and cultural industries of today but the arts and cultural industries of tomorrow. Only in that way, by continuing with our present cultural policy of ensuring Canadian content and creation and the infrastructure to support it, only then will we be able to compete abroad.

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

Mr. Speaker, women entrepreneurs are simply an economic phenomena in this country. They form part of small business in this country. Their concerns are also shared by many of the male business owners in my riding. They too have the same problems. As I walk down Bloor Street in Bloor West Village I am told time and time again, be they men or women, that they need access to capital. Through the Small Business Loans Act, the government is encouraging the banks to lend to all small businesses.

I happen to have the expertise and knowledge in the area of women entrepreneurs so I bring that to the House. I know that this issue is absolutely as relevant to men as it is to women.

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

I am sorry, Mr. Speaker, I did not understand the question. Could I ask the hon. member to repeat it, please.

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

Mr. Speaker, I support the position of the Minister of Finance who has made it absolutely clear that the merger is not a sure thing. It will be dealt with after the task force reports. As the Minister of Finance has challenged, I too will also add my challenge to those banks to ensure that jobs are created and jobs are retained.

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

Mr. Speaker, one of the things the banks have done as this government has done is they have realized the economic importance of women entrepreneurs. Many of the chartered banks are now putting in place special programs to assist women entrepreneurs. They have departments geared to dealing with the special concerns of women entrepreneurs. A number of chartered banks have talked with the women entrepreneurs of Canada. They are working together to find out which programs are best suited to their needs.

I believe that all parties of the partnership, the government, the private sector and the not for profit sector have to work together to find the solutions for all women entrepreneurs.

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

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for Waterloo—Wellington.

I am rising in the House today to address Bill C-21, an act to amend the Small Business Loans Act. I rise today not only as the member for Parkdale—High Park, but I wish to address this bill as a woman entrepreneur, a founding member of the Women Entrepreneurs of Canada and the former Canadian representative to the World Association of Women Entrepreneurs, les Femmes chefs d'entreprises mondiales.

I commend the government on its proposed amendments, first to extend the lending period from April 1, 1998 to March 31, 1999, and second to increase the aggregate lending ceiling by $1 billion. I do so for one reason and one reason alone, because it is good for small business, and what is good for small business is good for Canada, Canadians and this economy.

Small business is the growth engine of our economy. In the last three years, 80% of new jobs were created by small and medium size businesses in Canada. But small businesses need access to capital.

During the summer I held focus groups on job creation as what the government needed to do to assist small business. One of the things I heard time and time again was “we need help, we need access to capital, what can you do about that?”

One of the focus groups was with the Women Entrepreneurs of Canada, and this concern came up time and time again from women entrepreneurs, all sorts of women entrepreneurs, women entrepreneurs who work out of their homes to women entrepreneurs who have $20 million companies. Yet women entrepreneurs, of all the people in Canada, have had the hardest time accessing capital.

Hon. members across the floor have said that this is just giving money away to the same people who would have qualified for loans anyway. The truth and the reality of it is women have a difficult time getting access to capital. It was not so long ago, 30 or so years ago, when a woman could not get a loan from the bank without her father's or her spouse's signature. Unfortunately a lot of things have not changed. Women still have a difficult time getting access to capital. We as a government must do something to help them.

A young woman in my riding called me in August asking for my assistance and help. She had a great idea. She had contracts that she could bring to the bank but the bank was not willing or able to lend her money. Why? Because she was young, she did not have a spouse, she did not have a father and she did not have heavy duty capital to offset or help with her loan. With my intervention we were able to bring the banks together. I am happy to report that my constituent was able to get a loan.

There is not always a member of Parliament to assist the woman who needs a loan. And it is not just young women. It is also newly separated women and women who have decided to go back into the workforce after having raised a family. One of the best ways they see of doing that is by turning a great idea they have into a million dollar business. But that idea cannot be turned into a business without having access to the capital that is first needed.

Let us not underestimate the value of women entrepreneurs in Canada. As a founding member of the Women Entrepreneurs of Canada association, I personally know the strength of women owned businesses.

Women owned businesses employ more than 1.7 million people in Canada which is more than Canada's top 100 companies. Women own 700,000 businesses in Canada. They create businesses at four times the rate of their male counterparts and create jobs at three times the rate of their male counterparts. Women entrepreneurs are an economic phenomena to be dealt with and recognized.

We must also remember that those 700,000 women who do own those businesses, they are the lucky women, the women who had access to capital. There are many, many other women who have not had that opportunity and have not been able to get that financing.

In my job creation focus groups, many of the women entrepreneurs I spoke to said “The small business loans program works. I have benefited from it”. The numbers I heard varied. It was not always a $250,000 limit. It was $60,000, $50,000 even $15,000. Most people would say “That is nothing. What is $15,000? Anybody can get a loan for $15,000”. That is not the case. For a lot of those women $15,000 was the first loan they ever had to secure by themselves. Perhaps the marriage they were in had ended and they had not had the ability to establish their own credit. This program helped those women take an idea that they had germinated in their own home and turn it into a small and very successful business.

One of the things I have always heard about women entrepreneurs is that women entrepreneurs do not make a lot of money, that they only generally earn between $250,000 or $500,000. That may very well be the case, but these businesses are also stable businesses. While some women entrepreneurs may have businesses around the $500,000 gross revenue mark they still provide employment. They are stable and they do not take risks that easily. They grow slowly but they are there for the long term not for the short term. They will be there for years. They may not be worth $20 million today, but they will be one day.

When we look at the small business loans program we cannot ignore what it brings. It brings investment to this country.

We as a government are investing in jobs. Statistics alone show that in 1996-97 more than 73,000 jobs were created because of this program. In the

Globe and Mail

this morning one of the headlines was “Small firms providing big job gains”. Statistics Canada has released its results that in fact jobs are being created in small businesses, with the self-employed.

Interestingly enough the other thing Statistics Canada pointed out is that the small business sector is where wages are increasing. Employees working in small business are getting the benefit of the growth in small businesses. Little by little the parity between the large corporate employee and the small business employee is coming together. It is a complete success story.

The priority of this government is job creation. One of the things this government is trying to do is target youth employment.

One of Canada's chartered banks not too long ago undertook a comprehensive study of the attitudes of Canada's nexus generation, young people between the ages of 18 and 35. It revealed that this group is much more entrepreneurial and positive than usually depicted. One-third of the nexus respondents stated that their most desirable profession was entrepreneur. This suggests that young Canadians are determined to turn their innovative ideas into business realities.

But how do they do that unless we give the nexus generation access to capital? They are not unlike the women entrepreneurs who have had trouble getting access to capital, who have not established their credit. Yet when we look at some of the loans that have been given out, it is clear that a lot of the loans under the small business program were given out to start up businesses or businesses in their first three years.

The small business loans program is part of this government's all round strategy. Let us look at this also in the context of what else this government has been doing.

The government has also given the Business Development Bank of Canada a new mandate to support the growth of knowledge based, export oriented and small businesses. The bank has responded by building new partnerships with lending institutions and by developing new programs such as technology seed investment funds.

This government has also supported women entrepreneurs by increasing their participation in Team Canada. I am proud of the initiative this government took last November by taking the first all woman business owners trade mission to Washington. What a success that was.

I encourage all of my colleagues to think what this legislation will do for women entrepreneurs and the nexus generation.