Debates of Nov. 14th, 1994

Standing Committee On Industry

[The Deputy Speaker]

I think the minister will be well aware that was not a point of order.

[Gaston Leroux, Bloc, Richmond—Wolfe, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I explain these things because they are reluctant to see them. They are upset by my comments. Regional development is a responsibility of the Minister of Industry and, by order in council, the minister himself is responsible for a region. The Minister of Human Resources Development is responsible for the West. The Minister of Supply and Services is responsible for the East, while the Minister of Finance is responsible for Quebec.

If this is not about regional development, what is it? This is about helping small and medium-sized businesses; it is about development and access to credit for those businesses. These aspects are all relevant. The government simply does not want to face the issue squarely and with a structured approach.

It is because it does not look at the basic question in a structured fashion that duplication and all these structures are maintained, with the result that the ultimate objective-

[Ian McClelland, Reform, Edmonton Southwest, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. This is question and comment period and there are others who would like to get a question in. Perhaps he could be-

[An hon. member]

And it is irrelevant.

[Ian McClelland, Reform, Edmonton Southwest, AB]

And it is irrelevant.

[The Deputy Speaker]

The member will also know that was not a point of order. There remain two minutes in the period for questions and comments. Perhaps there will be unanimous consent to extend the period. In the meantime, the hon. member has a minute and a half left.

[Gaston Leroux, Bloc, Richmond—Wolfe, QC]

Mr. Speaker, clearly this government has to understand that, given the exceptional and enormous work undertaken by Quebec regions to promote their economic development through framework agreements, through RCM's and through regional development councils, it is absolutely essential that Quebec be the only one responsible for its development. The federal government must negotiate with Quebec and transfer to it the whole responsibility of that sector, as well as the necessary funds which are, in all fairness, owed to that province for regional development purposes.

[The Deputy Speaker]

There remain 20 seconds in the period. I assume there is not unanimous consent to continue the question period.

[Some hon. members]

No.

[Dennis Mills, Liberal, Broadview—Greenwood, ON]

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I would like to ask you for clarification on the process we will follow for the rest of the afternoon.

My understanding is that today's debate is on Motion No. 16. We are debating the report on access to capital for small business that the industry committee members put together over the last several months. The previous speaker chose not to deal with the report not only during his main address but also during the eight minutes of the ten he took up during the question and answer period. Is it your position, Mr. Speaker, that members can speak on whatever they want for the rest of the afternoon or are we going to deal with Motion No. 16?

[The Deputy Speaker]

Colleagues, the member and all members will know that there is a relevance rule in our standing orders that is observed mostly in being ignored in the House. This Chair at least would be delighted if members would respect the rule of relevance but in the time I have been here that rule is ignored more than any other in the standing orders.

[Peter Milliken, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. It has been my experience, limited as it has been in terms of the House and in comparison with other members, that when the Speaker's attention is drawn to the fact that a member is addressing the House in a manner that is irrelevant to the subject under discussion the Speaker then directs the person speaking to make his remarks relevant.

The parliamentary secretary was suggesting that perhaps it would be appropriate that when members rise on a point of order to point out the irrelevance that Your Honour would take note of it and direct the member to make his remarks relevant or face the consequence in Standing Order 11 which says:

The Speaker or the Chairman, after having called the attention of the House, or of the Committee, to the conduct of a Member who persists in irrelevance, or repetition, may direct the Member to discontinue his or her speech, and if then the Member still continues to speak, the Speaker shall name the Member or, if in Committee, the Chairman shall report the Member to the House.

[The Deputy Speaker]

Thank you to the hon. parliamentary secretary. As I say I think all the Chairs would be delighted to see the relevance rule respected. If members in the House are indicating they wish to see it pursued vigorously, I suppose all of us will take careful note of that.

In the meantime it is the Secretary of State for International Financial Institutions who has the floor on debate.

[Gaston Leroux, Bloc, Richmond—Wolfe, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am still referring to the point of order. I think that the members are trying to raise an issue by claiming that my speech was not relevant. Yet, they know perfectly well that my speech was directly related to the development of small businesses and to

access to financing, that it suggested a much wider and structured approach, and that it was right on target.

It may hurt them, but my comments were really relevant and related to the issue being discussed here today.

[The Deputy Speaker]

The hon. minister has the floor. We trust his remarks will be relevant.

[Doug Peters, Liberal, Secretary of State (International Financial Institutions)]

Mr. Speaker, I am extremely pleased to have this opportunity and to congratulate the industry committee for the work it has done on the issue of financing small business. I intend to keep my topic to that item.

Our government clearly recognizes that small business is a vital sector of Canada's economy. The report of the industry committee makes a valuable contribution to public debate and understanding of the needs of that sector.

It is worth emphasizing and it is worth emphasizing again and again just how important small business is by beginning with a few facts.

Small business accounts for nearly 40 per cent of our national economy, a third of corporate profits. More than half of all Canadians working in the private sector are either self-employed or work in businesses with fewer than 100 employees. Even more important, in just a decade this same sector of companies with fewer than 100 employees created more than eight out of ten of the new jobs in Canada.

This is not a passing trend. Small business is clearly the engine of growth in the new economy and the policies of this government recognize that fact. As you know, Mr. Speaker, we campaigned on this issue. For example, the Prime Minister and I held a small business forum in my riding in Scarborough East during the election campaign. As the Prime Minister pointed out, if only a third of small businesses in Canada each hired one additional employee fully 300,000 new jobs would be created.

To realize their full potential as creators of new jobs small businesses need the right environment, one that allows them to prosper and expand. Canadians are tired of governments that pursue quick fixes or jump on the latest fad but have no fundamental vision of what government should and should not do in the economic arena. That is why our government set out a new comprehensive vision in its recent paper "A new framework for economic policy".

That paper sets out five key areas on which we must focus. The first is helping Canadians acquire skills; the skills to get jobs, the skills to keep jobs, and the skills to find better jobs.

The second part of our economic framework is encouraging Canadians to adjust to change. That will require changes in the government's approach to subsidies as well as to unemployment insurance and high payroll taxes, which are a detriment to small business.

The third element in our framework is getting government right. That means targeting scarce resources on the highest priority programs and reducing or eliminating lower priority activities. It also means draining the swamp of federal regulations.

Providing leadership in the economy is our fourth objective. The private sector creates jobs, especially the small business sector. The government has a role in fostering economic growth. It can do this for example by gathering and sharing information about technology and information about new markets.

It can help bring businesses together with other businesses and together with the new technology. It can facilitate trade by ensuring access to markets and to adequate export financing.

The fifth and final objective is absolutely essential to fulfilling the other objectives. We must create a healthy fiscal and monetary climate in Canada. Canadians are paying a painful price for decades of deficit and debt. It is measured in high taxes, high interest rates, too few jobs and too little growth. Higher interest rates have imposed a heavy burden on all Canadians and few understand that burden better than the men and women who operate small businesses.

The matter of interest rates brings me back to the central issue here today, access to financing. While know-how and entrepreneurship are the engines of small business success they are not always enough. Access to financing can be a critical issue for small businesses, particularly during their early years. The importance of bank financing to this sector would be difficult to overstate. Indeed, bank financing accounts for about 90 per cent of the external financing of small businesses.

Recognizing this our government met with the CEOs of Canada's major banks shortly after taking office. We urged them to re-examine their approaches to small business lending and challenged them to be more innovative and responsive. The Minister of Finance and I have been very clear in our discussions. The government expects improvement in banking practices. In no small measure Canada's economic prospects hinge upon the banking community, recognizing that small business has specific needs. To meet these needs banking practices must change.

I believe that the banking community is listening and that we are seeing some results. The banks have been taking initiatives to help their small business clients. These include such things as increases in funds set aside for conventional loans to small businesses. One bank introduced a program to provide financial

assistance to viable small businesses that are experiencing temporary cash flow problems. Another created a $125 million venture capital fund to invest in small and medium size companies.

Several banks have introduced programs to enhance the accessibility of knowledge based firms to financing and other banking services. Others have introduced new procedures to handle complaints. One bank has appointed an internal ombudsman reporting directly to the chairman to ensure that a proper level of service has been provided to small business clients. Another bank has established a panel to review complaints, a panel that includes a representative from small business.

The list goes on. Two banks have established regional business centres to provide specialized services to small business clients. Another has introduced a program to provide overdraft protection to SBLA customers that do not have operating credit.

I recently issued a letter to all hon. members outlining these and other bank actions to help meet the needs of small businesses. I sought members' assistance in monitoring the results of these initiatives. Specifically, I asked members to let me know if the banks were fulfilling those commitments and if their initiatives were helping to reduce the credit difficulties of small businesses in their constituencies.

In addition, the government has been working with the banks on a number of important areas related to bank financing. These include several major areas in which the committee reports make some substantial recommendations.

For example, senior representatives of the Department of Finance and Industry have been encouraging the banks to move ahead on a number of issues, including a code of conduct for small business lending.

This code should help place the relationship between banks and small business on a sounder footing by making the borrowing process more transparent and providing a simple, timely and effective mechanism to resolve disputes.

The government has also been reviewing a number of other areas with the banks; export financing, the improvement of banking statistics and the question of personal guarantees for loans under the Small Businesses Loans Act. All these are areas that are being examined.

Against that backdrop I would welcome the industry committee's report with enthusiasm. Many of the committee's recommendations touch on areas where, as I indicated earlier, work is already under way.

I understand that the code of conduct for small business lending will be released shortly. It will establish minimum industry wide guidelines. Individual banks will also be able to develop their own codes which will be released soon after.

The best method of dispute resolution remains to be determined. There are a number of options that will need to be reviewed and the committee's proposals are a useful addition to this discussion.

The committee has also recommended that government departments and agencies work with the banks to improve statistics on lending to small business. Work to improve data in this area is already under way. It involves officials from the Bank of Canada as well as those from the Department of Finance.

In addition to proposals related directly to the bank, the committee has made a number of recommendations pertaining to government programs and agencies. It has, for example, recommended that the Small Businesses Loans Act be revised. We must ensure that this program is run on a cost efficient basis with minimal risk shifting to the government and without preference to bank financing.

The committee is correct to point out that there are concerns about future program costs as well as the extent to which the program adds to the total supply of financing. A successful SBLA program will remain a critical element of the government's small business agenda.

We are reviewing the program with an eye to improving its incremental nature. We are also reviewing it with addressing the fiscal concerns through increased cost for coverage. We will also continue to ensure that qualified private sector lenders other than the banks remain eligible to participate in that program.

Among the committee's other major recommendations was the establishment of a limited working capital guarantee program for small and medium sized exporters. This too is an area in which work is already under way. The Export Development Corporation is currently working with financial institutions on a new insurance product. This product will facilitate the use of foreign accounts receivable by small and medium sized exporters to secure working capital lines of credit. As recommended by the committee, this program will be self-financing and the premiums will be commensurate with the risk.

I focused on the committee's proposals in areas where work has already started. The committee has, of course, made other

recommendations that touch on areas where further study is needed.

For example, the committee has made several proposals, particularly in the area of venture capital which have a significant tax dimension. Clearly these proposals must be examined further to ensure that their full fiscal ramifications and possible side effects are taken into account. Alternative approaches must also be duly considered.

One recommendation in this area is a reduction in the capital gains tax rate on so-called patient capital, that is capital investments with a five-year term or longer. As many hon. members are aware, a task force has been consulting with business and farm groups on the $500,000 lifetime capital gains exemption.

In the course of this review, a number of proposals for reforming capital gains treatment of small businesses have been received including proposals for reducing the capital gains rate on longer term investment. These proposals will of course be examined closely.

I should also point out that a few of the committee's recommendations appear to suggest an easing of prudential standards for financial institutions. These, like all the recommendations, will be carefully considered. Let me emphasize that the government will not pursue any measure that could weaken the financial system in any way. A strong and reliable financial system is central to Canada's economic health. We will certainly not jeopardize it.

In closing, I once again would like to express my appreciation for the opportunity to participate in today's discussion and to congratulate the committee on its report. It is also my intention to state my conviction that Canada's small business sector will become even stronger and more competitive.

[Dick Harris, Reform, Prince George—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with great interest to the hon. member's presentation.

I purchased my first business when I was 18 years old. Throughout all of my life save for about five years I have been in and out of small business and consider myself somewhat of an entrepreneur. The definition of that as an entrepreneur through your life you have some winners and some losers but at the end of the day you hope you have more winners than losers. Fortunately I lucked out from hard work, but through all those years my biggest competitors were the bankers.

I listened to the hon. member talk about proposals and that the banks are going to do studies and they are going to talk about this and talk about that. They have been doing that for years.

I particularly remember the period of the great recession in early 1982 when the Bank of Commerce had a multimillion dollar television campaign with Anne Murray telling all small businesses in Canada that the Bank of Commerce was their friend. I was operating a business then and fortunately I was not really caught in the recession. One day I got a call from my banker who said: "Dick, we are going to cut your credit line in half". When I asked why, he said: "We have just been advised we have to raise some capital".

The banks can talk all they want about programs and plans. The government can talk all it wants about how much it is talking to the banks, but nothing is going to happen to help small business until the monopoly of the big five bankers in this country is threatened or broken up.

The hon. member said that the government has met with the CEOs of the major banks and they have promised to look at improving banking practices in relation to small business. That is fine, but my question is, improving banking practices or what? What kind of hammer is the government going to hold over these bankers to make sure they do?

If the government would dare to suggest to the big five who have this country in a monopolistic grip when it comes to finance, if it would threaten to open up the banking industry to private enterprise, to competition, to regional banks that would specialize in small business financing, that would be the biggest incentive for the banks to start looking seriously at small business. As long as the banks hold all the cards, as long as they are contributing millions of dollars to the two old line parties to help them with their election costs, they are never going to give up their monopoly and small business is never ever going to get any benefit or relief from the banking industry in this country.

[Doug Peters, Liberal, Scarborough East, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member raises several very interesting points. First, there are more than five banks in this country. There are over sixty banks. All of the world's largest banks are here. They are quite free to lend to small business if they wish. One or two of them do lend to small business. The rest of them do not.

Opening up the banking business to what? The charters of trust companies, loan companies and the banks are all the same. Any one can get a charter if they want to. If they want to open a regional business, some have been successful, others have been less than successful. The member should look at the number of financial institutions that OSFI and CDIC insure and inspect. There are several hundred financial institutions. The options are there.

I would also point out that the member is correct in that small business indeed deals with the six large chartered banks. I do not know why. Would it be because for the most part small busi-

nesses get the financing they want from them? It is probably because they provide service to most small businesses.

I do not think all small businesses have problems with the banks. There are far too many. I hope the hon. member will review the list of initiatives I sent to each member of this House. I ask members to go over the list and tell me where these things have not been done. If there are failures in them, if the initiatives are not being pursued, then I would like to know because I will bring those up with the banks that have proposed them.

I presume the banks are serious about those initiatives. They would not have announced them if they were not. They were announced after we had pursued them. If they are not serious, then I hope hon. members will let me know. Some have. Several members have written to me. I hope the hon. member will take the opportunity and tell me of specific instances where these initiatives have not happened in his riding or elsewhere.

[Don Boudria, Liberal, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Pursuant to Standing Order 43(2) I wish to indicate to the House that Liberal members of Parliament for the rest of this sitting day will be sharing their time.

[Dick Harris, Reform, Prince George—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I assure the hon. member that I will be monitoring the promises-if we can call them that-of the banking industry to see whether they are actually following through on them. I am not going to cross my fingers because I have heard this rhetoric from the banking industry for a number of years. It is always the small businessmen. When the sun is shining the banks will hand them an umbrella but when it starts to rain they are the first ones to take it away.

The hon. member knows very well that the big six do in fact control virtually all the business in the country. The hon. member also knows that the big six have the resources to get involved in a little bit of risk financing. I am sure they consider small businesses as high risk, otherwise they would not treat them as they do.

The hon. member also knows that the smaller banks do not have the kind of capital to get involved in the more risky loan portfolios like small business. That is why all the small businesses are pretty much obliged to deal with the big banking institutions, the big six. They really do not have too many choices.

The government should tell the banking industry: "Now listen. You folks are talking about rearranging your priorities when it comes to small business, rearranging the conditions under which you lend. You are doing these studies and you are going to come up with some good programs. You have admitted it has to be done, now what are you going to do about it? Are you really going to do something? Because if you do not we as a government are going to impose a few restrictions on you. You will not have such a monopoly in dealing with business in this country".

Clearly the government is going to have to hold some sort of a hammer over these guys in the banking industry. If not, they are simply not going to do anything no matter how much the government talks to them, no matter how many times their CEOs meet and say that yes, they have to be a little more gentle toward the small business interests. They are simply not going to change their practices they have followed since day one until the government holds a hammer over their heads to change their lending practices.

[Doug Peters, Liberal, Scarborough East, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is nice to know the hon. member is an expert on how the CEOs of the banks react to the admonitions of government. Unfortunately he is not an expert. Let me tell him that the CEOs of the banks have taken the admonitions of the Minister of Finance and myself seriously. That is exactly what we told them. We told them that they have to change. We told them that shortly after we were elected and we told them at meetings again and again.

Let me assure the hon. member that there have been far more initiatives put out by the banking industry since this Liberal government was elected than have been put out by that same industry-

[The Deputy Speaker]

Order, the time has expired. The hon. member for Edmonton Southwest on debate.

[Ian McClelland, Reform, Edmonton Southwest, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I take great pleasure in participating in this debate today. It is interesting. You can certainly identify those of us in this House who have signed a cheque in our lives because we certainly have a lot more interest and a lot more fire in our bellies when we get to talking about the banks and the banking institutions in Canada.

The relationship with the big sisters, the big banks in Canada, was very well summarized in the title of a book that was published about 10 years ago: Towers of Gold, Feet of Clay . When you think about that for a second it really brings into focus the reason for this debate in the first place and why the industry committee worked so hard on its report on small business financing.

It was interesting to me coming from western Canada that this country did not really have a recession until the late 1980s and closer to 1990 when it really hit southern Ontario. That is when we had a recession. But for business people in the west the recession started much earlier than that and it started overnight. It was exacerbated by the national energy plan but made much worse by the fact that during that time the big banks had loaned vast amounts of money all over the world and then were drawing in the loans all over Canada from the small business sector.

That was one interesting time to be in business. Banks were lending money and had loaned money and taken huge losses all over the world but they were putting the screws to small business people because they were the only ones they could put the screws to.

There is a saying in the banking business that when you are not a lender, you are a receiver, and if you owe the bank a thousand dollars you have a problem, but if you owe it a million dollars it has a problem. That is absolutely true.

Both sides of this story have learned a little over the intervening years and as in everything in life when there is competition in any industry it is good for the business. It is good for the industry. I think we are getting more competition in the banking business and that competition is good.

This report put together by the industry committee has 24 recommendations. They run the gamut of just about everything you can imagine: monitoring and approving statistics, regulating bank behaviour, leasing, federal programs to assist small and medium business, stimulating competition, using RRSPs, provincial security regulations, taxation and capital gains, labour sponsored venture capital corporations and mutual guarantee co-operatives.

I would like to restrict my comments to four separate issues: the role of the Small Businesses Loans Act; the role of the Federal Business Development Bank; whether or not to speak more generally to the role of business and government and the relationship and how much government money should be involved in business; and just a few minutes to speak about the legitimate role of an entrepreneur and just who should have the risk.

Let us start with the Small Businesses Loans Act. For the benefit of those who may not be aware of it, when an entrepreneur gets an idea they go into the bank and say they have an idea, they want to start a business. The Small Businesses Loans Act will lend government guaranteed money up to 90 per cent of the value of the loan and it is guaranteed by the government. It is set and established at a rate of 1.75 per cent over prime.

A few years ago the amount was increased dramatically. I think it went to $200,000 from $50,000. At the same time the economy was going down the tubes in Ontario.

As Don Cherry says, you don't have to be a rocket surgeon to figure it out. If the economy is going down the tube-

[Murray Calder, Liberal, Wellington—Grey—Dufferin—Simcoe, ON]

A rocket scientist.

[Ian McClelland, Reform, Edmonton Southwest, AB]

A rocket surgeon, a brain scientist. This is Don Cherry.

You do not have to be a rocket surgeon to know that if we have an economy that has gone down the tube like the economy in Ontario we increase the amount of money that is available under the Small Businesses Loans Act that is guaranteed 90 per cent by the Government of Canada; that is taxpayers at 10 bucks a pop. What is going to happen? The banks are going to roll all of their questionable loans into the small business loans. They are all going to be guaranteed by the taxpayer-guess what, at 1.75 per cent above prime.

What entrepreneur would go into a bank and say: "I would like to borrow some money but I'm prepared to pay 2 or 2.75 or 2.5 above prime and use my own money and by the way I don't want the government to backstop it so you use your money because that is why you're in a risk business". They go in there and say: "I want a Small Businesses Loans Act loan" and the bank is quite happy to have its risk guaranteed by the government.

Is it any wonder that the use of small businesses loans skyrockets? This is not rocket science here. This is fairly basic.

Then what do we do? We say we are going to try to increase the amount of money that is made available under the Small Businesses Loans Act to small business. What is that going to do? That is going to give the banks that much more freedom to get all of their small business loan accounts guaranteed by the taxpayer.

That distorts the banking business and it distorts the responsibility of the entrepreneur going into business. When someone goes into business, it is not the responsibility of the taxpayers to hold them harmless from risk because with risk comes reward.

In the report there is one particularly good recommendation that I would hope the government would take to heart and incorporate: "The program should increase the availability of credit rather than allowing lenders to reduce the risk on loans that would be made without the guarantee".

That means the banks should be making loans to small business and the loan rate should be commensurate with risk. If the Government of Canada, that means the taxpayers of Canada, is going to be guaranteeing loans to businesses, small or medium, those loans should carry a rate of interest commensurate with the risk so that in the long term small business loans would be self-financing or self-liquidating. The losses of some would be offset by the profits of others.

Surely if a loan is going to be guaranteed by the Government of Canada, the taxpayers of Canada, that should carry a cost to the user that it would ensure that the citizens of Canada are held harmless from any risk. That rate should also be high enough that the loans may be determined and may be provided by the bank without having to go to the well of the taxpayer.

If for instance the small business loans were at a rate of 2.5 per cent and the average small business could get a loan at prime plus two or prime plus one and a half, there would be some impetus on the part of the banks and the borrower to borrow money without having to go to the public trough. That is the way it should be.

That is a particularly good recommendation in the report and I would certainly suggest that the government should take it to heart. It is not so much a question of how much within reason a small business or an entrepreneur pays for the use of someone else's money, it is whether that money is available at all.

Another consideration in the small business loans came up in discussion of just what part of the loan should be guaranteed. Should it be the first 90 per cent or the last 90 per cent? Should any loan be guaranteed the first half of it or the last? In my view it should always be, if the Government of Canada is guaranteeing anything, the last portion of the loan, not the first portion.

If I am lending money to someone, I want that person to be lying awake at night trying to figure out how they are going to pay it back. I want to make darn sure that if I lend someone money their number one objective in life is repaying that money, not repaying the last half of it. It is pretty basic but it is real.

A change in the Small Businesses Loans Act which is perhaps the most important is it should be available for working capital, not just for bricks and mortar, not just for equipment, not just for inventory.

If a venture has the strength, and now we are talking about businesses that as a nation we are going to need more of as we get into the knowledge based economy, we are going to be making decisions on working capital which will allow entrepreneurs to develop knowledge based material such as computer programs, CD-ROMs, things that require virtually no inventory, very little bricks and mortar but without working capital would never get off the ground.

The consideration of making working capital requirements of business available under the Small Businesses Loans Act is another very worthwhile objective. I would caution that we are going to have to be very vigilant to ensure that there is oversight on these loans.

We are not doing anyone a favour if we ask them to put their house up, put all of their possessions up and then do not vigorously give an objective analysis to the new venture, to say: "Wait a minute. Make sure you have all your bases covered before you risk everything you have in life".

The next subject I would like to speak about is role of the Federal Business Development Bank. I must admit that I have mixed emotions about the FBDB because it is a lender of last resort. Its purpose is to lend money when chartered banks will not lend money and my feeling is that if a chartered bank will not lend the money or the treasury branch in Alberta, we really have to wonder why on earth the taxpayers of Canada should be taking the risk.

I know that the banks in Canada have not over the last 50 years or so been particularly venturesome. There is a need for longer term patient capital. is possible that the Federal Business Development Bank may be able to fill a legitimate role in this. Frankly, I just do not know.

I would caution that if a bank using taxpayers' money is going to get into the business of lending money on a long term basis to high risk businesses, we had better make sure that it does so in an extremely prudent manner. This cannot be a shotgun approach where we are going to throw enough money at it and hope we will have enough spectacular winners that they will offset the losers.

That brings me to the next part of what I would like to speak about. It is the whole notion of governments at all levels, including the governments in the great province of Quebec that somehow consider their function, their legitimate purpose is to tax money from individuals, take it into the government and then lend it out to other people to go into business against businesses or individuals who paid the taxes in the first place.

What is it about us as politicians that when we get elected we somehow think we have the knowledge or the ability to tell the private sector what it should do? How is it that we think we somehow have the right or even the responsibility to manage an economy? Our country did not get into the hole by $535 billion federally because we in this House have proven to be such great stewards of the taxpayers' wealth.