Debates of Oct. 25th, 1995

Small Business Loans Act

[Alex Shepherd, Liberal, Durham, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the member for St. Albert keeps going over this. Repetition is a great educator, so hopefully he will listen a little bit more this time.

First of all, there is nothing terribly unusual. This program has been set up in the best interests of small and medium sized businesses.

Let us look at the other side of it. What will we do if in fact the government did not try to recover this bad debt loss? What does it mean? Does it mean that we do not have a program, period? We know it has been very successful. We know that using this system has assisted many and has probably created thousands and thousands of jobs in Canada.

Maybe the member wants the government to fork out $100 million a year in loan losses. Is it the responsibility of Reform Party members to tell the Government of Canada to cut spending, get its act together, and if it wants to give away $100 million on loan losses that is fine by them?

There is nothing unusual about cost recovery programs. They happen in the business world every day. Here we have the government acting like a business, creating opportunities for small business but at no cost to the taxpayer.

[Jim Silye, Reform, Calgary Centre, AB]

Mr. Speaker, this latest exchange between the member for Durham and the member for St. Albert reminds me of the similarity between a computer and an accountant: we have to punch the information into both of them.

Given that the banks these days have the reputation of giving you an umbrella on a sunny day and taking it away on a rainy day, and given that banks today have the reputation of tightening up their credit, I would like the member for Durham to tell us how this will force banks to increase their loan portfolio to small businesses.

[Alex Shepherd, Liberal, Durham, ON]

I thank the hon. member very much for the question.

First, the whole concept of a guarantee creates the opportunity for the bank to loan money that clearly it would not loan on its own accord. I note in the legislation that in fact we have actually lowered the loan guarantee from 90 per cent to 85 per cent. If we simply look at the growth and the volume within the small business loans program in the last three years, there is no question that there has been a demand, and a demand that has been satiated, if you will, by financial institutions.

Clearly, the program is on a success course and it continues to be on a success course. In fact it was the government's orientation to say this was very successful and we want it to expand, we want it to grow more, we want to make sure there is more money available for small and medium sized businesses; but at the same time, we also want to make sure we are not going to be on the hook for it.

One of the complaints of this program has been that a lot of the money was getting out to businesses that could have possibly financed loans without the Small Business Loans Act; in other words, possibly banks were misusing the program or possibly larger companies were getting the benefits of the program and they did not really need it. By lowering the guarantee aspect of this loan, we will also be ensuring that we direct it at the very new and emerging small and medium sized businesses.

[Ian McClelland, Reform, Edmonton Southwest, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am particularly pleased to have the opportunity to say a few words in the debate pertaining to small business.

It is not all that often we get a chance to talk about small business in the House, and we really should. With the indulgence of the Chair and with the indulgence of colleagues present I hope to stray a little from the direct confines of the bill. I know it is most unusual in the House to stray away from the subject matter at hand. I hope to talk about small business in general, to talk about how important small business and entrepreneurship are to our country, and to provide a few words of encouragement for small businesses out there that are struggling today.

Can we imagine what it must be like for an entrepreneur in Quebec even as we speak? We have a situation of systemically high unemployment in Quebec. It has been that way for years, ever since the last separation crisis in 1980 when the people of Quebec chose to elect a separatist government. All that did was give U-Haul one-way traffic to Toronto a bonanza. Ever since the election of the first Parti Quebecois, the first separatist government in Quebec, what has happened? Toronto has prospered largely at the expense of the self-inflicted wounds of the people of Quebec.

All the country has profited because the separatist government in Quebec insists on shooting itself in the foot with separation every 15 years or so. I am sure that is what is ongoing in the province of Quebec.

If the people of Quebec want to do something really worthwhile for their futures, they will resoundingly reject the separatist option. They will resoundingly reject any notion of getting out of the country and will work together to make the country stronger. If they do that it will get entrepreneurs investing in in small businesses in Quebec.

It is about the willingness of people. It is not banks or governments that get businesses going. It is individual people who are prepared to put up everything they have in the world, including their homes and borrowing money from their friends and their families, because they have a dream or an idea to see through to fruition. We should be celebrating the fact that we have these people. These are the people we should be asking in Quebec, because there is systemically high unemployment, how we can go about reversing it.

Let us provide stability. Let us make sure that when people start businesses, particularly in Quebec, they do not have to go through never ending navel gazing, gnashing and worrying about tribalism and nationalism in Quebec. Why would anybody put up with that if they could invest their money in a jurisdiction that does not have such problems?

We have these wonderful people who has invested of themselves. They have put their hopes, dreams and aspirations on the line. What happens when they go into a bank? I can speak from personal experience because I have gone through it, as have other members of the House, many people watching on television today and perhaps a few others who might read the debate.

It is not like going into K-Mart or some other store where they shake hands and say: "We are glad to see you. What can we do for you?" The first thing they say is: "Are you going to do that? We already have a few of these. Didn't you know that somebody just went broke doing this a while ago? If you are to do this, if you are to set up this service, if you are do that, you had better make sure that you can guarantee the borrowing of $1,000 with $2,000".

Instead of the entrepreneur being encouraged, the first remark that comes through is: "We have to protect our depositors' money. Therefore we have to make sure that we do not take any risk at all because you want to borrow $75,000 or $100,000". That is what got the Government of Canada into small business loans in the first place. We ended up as a nation guaranteeing loans that rightly should have been the purview of the banks.

The banks have a licence to print money in Canada. When is the last time we have seen a small, humble bank building? In every city in Canada the four pillars on the four corners of shiny office buildings are bank buildings. That is the way it is. Meanwhile the people of Canada through the tax base are subsidizing the banks. That is what this is all about.

When they went into banks to get loans, the loan officers said that they could not have them because they did not have enough money. The banks had their houses, first born, bicycles and cars. The banks had everything they had in the world but they still did not have enough money for them to feel safe and secure about lending money. If they can lend money to another country and write it off that is okay, but they did not have anything for the small business person, the entrepreneur, the dreamer.

What happens then? The government has to step in and through the Small Business Loans Act guarantee the bank about 95 per cent of the loan at a rate of about 1.5 per cent above prime. Generally speaking any other business paid prime plus two, so there was an obvious magnetic pull to write all small business loan transactions that could possibly be written by the banks and have them guaranteed by the people of Canada, which did not make any sense at all.

The previous legislation raised it so at least the interest rate charged was on par or a little more than the interest rate charged to people who did not have a government guarantee. The amount that would be guaranteed by the government was to be reduced somewhat as well.

As earlier speakers have said, the problem with financing small businesses is not how much people have to pay for the money, within reason. The problem is how to go about getting money in the first place. No matter how good the business plan, if the business person does not have a track record, does not have money and cannot guarantee at least 200 per cent, the chances of getting the loan are somewhat remote. This is why the Government of Canada and the people of Canada, through the Small Business Loans Act, are in the business of protecting the banks. The banks will not do it unless we hold them harmless through the Small Business Loans Act.

In a perfect world we should not be in this business at all. That is what banks should be doing. However we are not in a perfect world. We need to ensure we nurture and help small business people or entrepreneurs. That is why the legislation is so worth while and necessary.

However our job as members of Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition is to oppose bills not just because we want to oppose them but because we in opposition in Parliament can cause the government to rethink some aspects of its bills and make them better. If all we did every time the government brought forward a bill was to say it was great, roll over and not pay any attention, we would not be fulfilling our function as opposition in the Parliament of Canada.

While it is basically a very good bill it has a flaw I would like to point out to members opposite. I hope the government sees the error of its ways and changes it. The amount of money involved in a guarantee could be changed by order in council. It would not have to come back to the House to be debated. That sets a fairly bad precedent. We are talking about the financial responsibility of the Government of Canada and a change to the financial responsibility of the Government of Canada. These decisions should not be decided in a backroom somewhere, even if the backroom has a cabinet table. They absolutely must see the light of day. They must have sunshine, that being the best disinfectant of all. These decisions should come back to the House. In a majority situation it is not likely they will be changed anyway. The government will have its day no matter what the opposition might have to say about it. The bill would be improved somewhat if the provision in it, which allows the government by order in council to change the ratios, was amended so that it had to come back to the House.

I should like to spend a few minutes talking about small business people and where we are going a bit off the rails. The people of Canada who are prepared to give of themselves as entrepreneurs to create wealth and employment across the country are very often at great risk to themselves and to the capital they have built up. They should in some way be honoured. It seems passing strange that the people most revered and honoured in society are hockey players, for instance, who might earn a couple of million dollars a year playing hockey but have never created a job or actually put their lives on the line.

Some accounting firms and chambers of commerce are beginning to recognize that as a nation we need to applaud and encourage entrepreneurship and innovation. To be an entrepreneur or an innovator who creates wealth is a necessary and fundamentally important function any citizen can provide.

I recall attending a meeting sponsored by the Edmonton Chamber of Commerce. The person who appeared at the meeting came from a small town in Colorado. He had won a prestigious international award. His company had gone from nothing to worldwide sales of approximately $500 million a year. His company manufactured tapes used on computers to back up the memory.

They cannot make mistakes with these tapes; they have to be highly precise.

The town in Colorado had an IBM manufacturing facility. IBM wanted to move it to Florida or some such place. Many key people in the business did not want to leave their town because of the life they could lead there; they loved living there. Rather than moving they left the company. They thought to themselves that they were smart, innovative people and wondered what they could do. They decided they would make the world's best recording device, magnetic tapes for computers. They did it by innovation.

He drew to our attention that the town had since become the hub of innovation and entrepreneurship. The people in that town have a week in which to celebrate the leadership derived from small business people. The innovators and entrepreneurs are part of the social fabric of the town. They have star status because the people understand the value of entrepreneurship and innovation.

All across the land thousands of men and women, young and old, have put everything they own on the line with the bank to support their small businesses. They are truly the stars of our economic system. They are the people we should be celebrating, not the big business people who have grants, handouts and loans from the government. It just makes one sick. The bigger the business is, the bigger the hand is into the banking system and into the government system. This is what we must put a stop to. It is wrong to have our priorities so misplaced that we do not recognize what small business people and entrepreneurs contribute to our society when all we can look at are the big mega stars.

Mr. Speaker, I thank you and my colleagues for the opportunity to make the case for small business in our country. I applaud anything we can do to build and strengthen that sector of our economy.

[Bob Speller, Liberal, Haldimand—Norfolk, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I took note especially of the part of the hon. member's speech which dealt with the question that has been on the minds of most Canadians over the past few months. It is the question of Quebec separation and its impact on the small business community in Quebec. I thank the hon. member for his comments on that. They made a lot of sense.

The fact remains that in an independent Quebec it would be a lot more difficult for small business people. Certainly the surveys that have been conducted throughout the referendum bring this to light.

In a survey that was conducted by the Canadian Chamber of Commerce of people who create the jobs in Quebec, the small business people, almost two-thirds, 64 per cent, of Quebec businesses believe that Quebec's economic prosperity would be diminished under separation. A strong majority, 55 per cent, believe that the business relations and trade with the rest of Canada would worsen under separation. More than a majority, 53 per cent, of Quebec businesses believe that their benefits and profitability would diminish if Quebec voted yes.

In another public opinion survey almost all the respondents, 93 per cent, expect long and difficult negotiations with the rest of Canada in the event of a yes vote. More than four out of five people, 83 per cent, think that Quebec's separation from Canada would have a negative impact on Quebec's economic development.

There is another survey of small business owners. Almost two-thirds of the small business owners in this survey chose Canada. They felt that the best route, the best way for their own economic prosperity would be through staying in Canada.

I think back to my own experience in a rural part of our country. I know the hon. member is from a big city and talked about the banks in the big city. In terms of small business people in rural Canada, obviously farming and farmers are a critical component to the small businesses in rural Canada and rural Quebec also. The whole question of supply management and where that goes in a separate Quebec is a major question.

These people should not be fooled. We brought in supply management a number of years ago with the support of Quebec farmers who were a major part in getting that. The whole concept behind supply management is that we are able to protect the local market, our current market under GATT and international rules. If Quebec becomes a separate country that will not be the case. They will not be able to protect that market.

Today in the industrial milk area Quebec holds about 47 per cent of the Canadian market. It is a very important aspect of it. The hon. member knows that. It would be folly to say to Quebec dairy and supply managed farmers that they would be any better off in a separate Quebec. In fact the whole nature of it would fall down. Granted, it would not only hurt Quebec dairy farmers, it would also hurt Canadians.

I ask the hon. member if he is aware of these statistics and these polls. Is he aware of the fact that the majority of Quebec's small business people feel that they would be much better off in Canada?

[Ian McClelland, Reform, Edmonton Southwest, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the member opposite raises a valid point. As a matter of fact even as we speak the tariff on milk is 350 per cent.

It just absolutely boggles the mind how members of the yes group are able to go through Quebec like Johnny Appleseed spreading these little bits of misinformation all over the place. This

debate is on a level that has no intellectual veracity or honesty in it whatsoever. The debate is purely cosmetic. People who scratch below the surface of the debate will understand very quickly just how devastating the result of a yes vote will be to the people of Quebec. It will hurt everybody in Canada, but it will hurt the people in Quebec far more.

The tragedy is that nothing the Quebec nationalists want to achieve can be achieved outside of Canada that cannot be achieved within Canada. In my view, the very protection of the language and culture they profess to be so concerned about is better protected within Canada. Anyone can bet that on a wide open North American market the French of Quebec will very soon be like the French of Louisiana. They just will not have the bulwark of Canada to protect them.

Lest anyone in Quebec who is watching this thinks that my words are hollow and empty, they should be aware of trade by Quebec with the rest of the country. The hon. member's question has given me the opportunity to put this on record. Lest anyone thinks that a free ride will be achieved by the people of Quebec in terms of their economic future, they should keep in mind that in 1989, the last year for which accurate figures are available, interprovincial trade in Quebec had a balance per year of $1.8 billion dollars in favour of Quebec. If they think that would happen after a yes victory, they can think again. The bulk of that was in protected industries.

That brings us to the free trade agreement, internal trade barriers and how ludicrous it was for us to get involved and the hypocrisy of government members opposite supporting the free trade agreement now when they did not in opposition. I supported it wholeheartedly as a private business person. I certainly did not support the method by which the Conservative government took us down the road to free trade. This is apropos in my view to what is likely going to happen to the people of Quebec if they were to be irrational and vote yes.

We went into the free trade agreement and got clobbered as a country. We did so because we went into the agreement with the highest interest rates we had historically, the highest dollar we had historically and industries across the country which had been protected by tariff barriers for many years. Our industries were not competitive with those in the United States. Is it any wonder we got clobbered. Imagine the Monty Python movie "In Search of the Holy Grail". We were the knight at the bridge and when we finished we had the knife in our teeth and no arms or legs. All we could say was: "Fight fair".

I saw our chief negotiator, Simon Reisman, on the Sparks Street Mall the other day. I wanted to ask him: "Did you not think about this?" I have really wondered about this. Surely the government of the day must have been aware of the situation we were getting ourselves into. Maybe it was not, but it certainly should have been.

If that happened to us as a country, what is going to happen to Quebec as a country in a free trade arrangement with Canada and

the United States? Will Quebec have a high dollar? Probably not. Will it have high interest rates? Very likely. Will Quebec have industries that are capable of competing efficiently in the North American market? Probably not. Are they going to have an easy ride of it? Probably not.

It would seem to me to be very prudent for those people in Quebec who are wondering whether or not they should vote yes or no, if they choose to vote yes, the one thing they can be absolutely assured of is they will be paying a financial premium for many years for voting yes. They will have many years to think about it because it is not something that will cure itself overnight.

[Bernard St-Laurent, Bloc, Manicouagan, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the comments made by the hon. member for Edmonton-South West come very close to being a threat, when he says that Quebec better not think that the day after a Yes vote it will be just as easy to negotiate from province to province, and so forth, but in a way that is distinctly ominous.

However, I agreed with what he said when he commended the business community on its initiative, courage, determination and vision of the future. The Bloc Quebecois and, in fact, all Quebecers could not agree more. These people are driving 85 per cent of our economy, at present.

However, I fail to understand why, in the same breath, he attacks the people of Quebec who had the initiative, the courage and the vision to choose a country for themselves. That he does not like.

So I want to ask the hon. member this: When he says Quebec had better not think it will be easier, should we take this as a threat or simply as the way people talk who cannot tolerate the fact that others decide to simply make a decision?

[Ian McClelland, Reform, Edmonton Southwest, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is certainly not a threat. It is a statement of the reality of the situation that faces all of Canada, but will face the people of Quebec to a greater degree for a longer period of time than it will everybody else. It is not a threat. It is a statement of the obvious. It is a statement of fact.

In the democratic process people are elected and there is a fiduciary trust responsibility we are prepared to accept the moment we stand for election. That is in everything we do, we will do it not for the betterment or enrichment of ourselves or for self-aggrandizement but we will work for the people who have entrusted their lives to us as their members of Parliament, their elected representatives.

When a person is elected to high office, which is a member of Parliament, there is a trust responsibility to do the very best one can in the interests of the people being served. It then follows that it should be to protect their economic, cultural and ideological interests. It should not be to take them down a treacherous path when they are standing above a precipice. That is not the fiduciary trust responsibility of a person elected to high public office in Quebec or anywhere else in Canada.

[The Deputy Speaker]

Before we continue the debate, it is my duty to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Regina-Lumsden-pharmaceutical products; the hon. member for Davenport-the environment.

[Tony Valeri, Liberal, Lincoln, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to speak on the subject of Bill C-99, the act to amend the Small Business Loans Act.

I will make some comments a little later on entrepreneurs because they are really the heroes of Canada. I echo the comments made by an earlier speaker that entrepreneurs are really the basis of what makes up the country. We need to create the climate to encourage entrepreneurship.

My colleagues have spoken at length about the specifics of this bill but I will talk about how the amendments to the Small Business Loans Act fit into the federal government's plan to create a climate for business growth in Canada.

It is often said a business plan is only as good as the economic foundations on which it is built. The federal government has targeted the national debt as the number one impediment to business growth. That is why last February the Minister of Finance introduced a budget that will cut $29 billion over the next three years, the largest set of budget cuts since Canada demobilized after the second world war.

We also undertook at the same time a thorough review of federal government administration and spending in the non-social program area. The objectives were to get government right, to ensure taxpayers were getting value for money and to encourage Canadians toward building a more innovative economy.

The result of this has been a major change in our approach to sector development in industry and in the role and function of the industry department. It is obvious old style industrial development strategies are no longer workable. Some might argue they never were, but our goal as a government is not to affix blame for the past but to set a course for the future.

The challenges for government, for Industry Canada in particular, are to help small business compete and to promote a business environment that will lead to job creation, a competitive economy that is a thriving economy, one that will take Canada to its rightful place in the global economy.

Small and medium size businesses are leading the way in terms of innovation and job creation, there is no question. I meet with constituents regularly, small business people and entrepreneurs who come to the constituency office and share their ideas and their enthusiasm to create employment and make Canada a better place to live.

During the 1980s in Canada small and medium size businesses were responsible for 87 per cent of all new jobs created. Since the last recession they have accounted for over 90 per cent of the net new jobs created. On average about 300,000 firms or self-employed entrepreneurs have started a business every year for the past 10 years. SMEs account for almost two-thirds of the private sector employment.

The main thrust of government support in industry must be small business, I think we are all in agreement in the House. Small business has a major role to play in reducing unemployment. Despite the fact that small business is clearly the way of the future in Canada, there are still too many impediments to SMEs truly coming into their own. One of our priorities is to reduce or eliminate those impediments wherever possible.

A fundamental impediment is the access to adequate financing. The banks explained to us on the industry committee the improvements they are making in this area. Entrepreneurs and small business owners stated the difficulties they are having accessing capital. It is crucial for us to deal with this issue. The availability of capital has been a source of frustration, no question.

SBLA loans have played an integral part in helping small businesses gain access to capital needed for start-ups, expansion and growth. The program's success both as an economic development tool and as an example of public sector-private sector co-operation has inspired similar government programs at both the federal and provincial levels.

Since 1961 more than 420,000 SBLA loans, totalling over $15.5 billion, have been made to small business. Virtually every small business in Canada is now eligible to borrow under the SBLA program providing that its annual gross revenues do not exceed $5 million. We are targeting the small business sector.

In recent years the SBLA program has been running at an annual government cost of $20 million to $30 million. However, following a significant program change effective April 1, 1993 the annual

lending activity increased from $500 million to $2.5 billion in 1993-94 and to over $4 billion in 1994-95.

Assuming a continuation of the historical loss rate, this meant the annual program costs would increase by over $100 million. Clearly this was a threat to the sustainability of the program.

The potential cost of the program and the government's overall need for deficit control required that the program be brought to full cost recovery. With respect to full cost recovery, it is interesting to note that the users of this program both on the small business side and the lenders side, the parties that have been consulted, support the move to cost recovery.

Through the consultation period the government has asked for input on the changes to the program and it is reflected in what we are seeing here today.

Recommendations of the industry committee and the small business working committee were also taken into account. All stakeholders supported the move to full cost recovery. Two major changes were made through regulatory amendments with an effective implementation date of April 1, 1995.

First, a new 1.25 per cent annual administration fee is being charged on each lender's average outstanding balance of SBLA loans made after March 31, 1995. Second, the maximum interest rate that a lender can charge under the program has been increased by 1.25 per cent to prime plus 3 per cent for floating rate loans and to the residential mortgage rate plus 3 per cent for fixed rate loans.

To complete the move to full cost recovery and improve the administration of the program, other changes are now being made by Bill C-99. These proposed changes will allow the release of security, including personal guarantees, improve the government guarantee coverage for small lenders, and provide for the introduction of a government processing fee on lenders' claims.

To add flexibility to the program and permit the easier fine tuning, parliamentary approval is being sought so that future changes to the level of government guarantee can be implemented through the regulatory rather than the legislative process.

It was stated earlier that the one change the third party would recommend is an amendment to this part of the bill. In the consultations I have had with small business, one of the criticisms it has had of government policy is that government is often unable to react quickly when a situation changes.

Business groups have often asked for greater flexibility to deal with these issues and it is exactly that which this part of the bill is reacting to, adding the flexibility to the program and permitting the easier fine tuning.

These changes also mean that the SBLA will be better targeted toward small businesses that really need its help. An estimated 30 per cent to 40 per cent of SBLA loans go to businesses able to access normal commercial financing.

After the changes financially strong businesses will switch to lower cost commercial financing. During the consultations small businesses told us repeatedly that the primary issue is access to capital and not the cost of financing.

When I meet with entrepreneurs in my community, as we all do as members of Parliament, they are looking the opportunity, the chance to make their idea work. They appeared before the industry committee. They have met with their members of Parliament. The message is getting through. By making this change we will be targeting the SBLA program at start-up companies and companies in the expansion mode that need capital.

During the consultations small businesses told us that making the SBLA self-sustaining will ensure continued access. We agree with that.

We have been told repeatedly, I am sure the third party would agree, that the best thing government can do for business, large and small, is to get the deficit under control. The proposed changes to the SBLA are a step in that direction. The proposed changes will ensure it remains an effective and viable instrument of support for small business in Canada. It will certainly remain an integral element of our comprehensive plan to create a business climate which will enable Canadian small business to grow and create jobs in the global economy.

The objective of the bill is to continue the process of the modernization and improvement of small business. The proposed changes relieve Canadian taxpayers of the financial burden of the program. We have been asked to do that.

Small business created 90 per cent of new jobs in 1994. The government has placed support for small business at the top of its agenda for jobs and growth.

It is crucial that we continue to bring forward bills which will help to create a climate that will encourage entrepreneurs to continue to dream and create their own companies. They will help Canada by creating employment. That is the thrust of the bill. We must convince the banks that small business people and entrepreneurs are the cornerstone of our economy; they are our future.

This and the other bills the government has brought forward are the end result of the consultation process. We have gone to the stakeholders and we have asked for their input. They have given us direction. This bill reflects that direction. It is also the result of what we have been doing in the standing committee.

We are moving in the right direction as we continue to improve access to capital for small business and encourage entrepreneurs to go forward and do what they do best, create their own small businesses, improve the economic climate and encourage other individuals to do the same. I ask all members of the House to support the bill.

The House resumed, from October 24, consideration of Bill C-93, an act to amend the Cultural Property Export and Import Act, the Income Tax Act and the Tax Court of Canada Act.

Cultural Property Export And Import Act

[The Deputy Speaker]

It being five o'clock, the House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred division at third reading of Bill C-93, an act to amend the Cultural Property Export and Import Act, the Income Tax Act and the Tax Court of Canada Act.

Call in the members.

(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the following division:)

[The Deputy Speaker]

I declare the motion carried.

(Motion agreed to, bill read the third time and passed.)

[The Deputy Speaker]

It being 5:30 p.m., the House will now proceed to the consideration of Private Members' Business as listed on today's Order Paper.

Grandparents Day

[Sarkis Assadourian, Liberal, Don Valley North, ON]

moved:

That, in the opinion of this House, the government should consider designating the second Sunday in September of each year as grandparents day in order to acknowledge their importance to the structure of the family in the nurturing, upbringing and education of children.

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour for me today to speak on Motion No. 273. This motion flows from Bill C-274, a private member's bill I introduced on September 27, 1994, an act respecting a national grandparents day in Canada.

I am pleased to have the support of my own party and that of the opposition parties with regard to this very important issue. It is important that the House recognize the contribution of grandparents and the critical role they play in strengthening the family.

Grandparents have always been important to society. One step removed from the parenting process, they can share with their children the experience and wisdom they have gained. They provide a link to the treasures of family history and can provide an objective second opinion on a wide variety of important issues facing the family today.

Many of my fellow members have addressed this issue and have gone on record as supporting the creation of a national grandparents day. In so doing, many have expressed personal memories of their grandparents and the role played by these most important relatives. Thoughtful, caring and loving, these role models cannot be underestimated in their importance in the development of young people who themselves will most likely be parents someday.

Grandparents have always been important to the vitality of the extended family but never more so than in today's society. With the increase in family breakdowns the relationship between grandparents and grandchildren has taken on even greater importance.

As we see more and more single parent families, the need for additional support and nurturing becomes more important today than ever. By officially recognizing the role grandparents play we emphasize the importance of this role in society and honour those grandparents who rise to the challenge and continue to provide love, that most important of commodities, to the most vulnerable victims, the children.

If this motion is adopted, as I hope it will be, grandparents day would give national recognition to the growing number of grandparents in Canada. Many provinces and municipalities have already recognized that grandparents contribute greatly to the family and that they are the basic and fundamental element of our society. It is time the federal government and the House recognize this fact as well.

Often when a family breakdown occurs one parent assumes custody and the children no longer have the opportunity to visit with both sets of grandparents. While this motion does not address this issue directly, it is my hope that the official recognition of grandparents day will provide a focal point to the very important issue of grandparents' rights. If a society acknowledges the importance of grandparents, a certain amount of moral force will come with that recognition. Hopefully, parents in a broken family will realize the importance of the contribution that both sets of grandparents make to the nurturing and well-being of their grandchildren.

We need to express recognition of those elements within our society that are fundamental building blocks of healthy, productive individuals. Other than that of parenting itself, I can think of no more important role than that of a grandparent in fulfilling that responsibility.

As members make their decision whether or not to support Motion No. 273, I ask them to consider the comments of fellow members who are speaking in support of the motion. I am sure their comments will lend force to the argument to officially recognize the contributions grandparents make in the lives of their grandchildren and to society in general.

In closing, I ask members for their support of this very worthwhile effort to create the much needed recognition of the role that grandparents have made in all of our lives. I urge my fellow members to support Motion No. 273 and allow grandparents of the country to celebrate the second Sunday in September every year as national grandparents day.

[Maurice Dumas, Bloc, Argenteuil—Papineau, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise in this House to speak in support of Motion M-273 put forward by my colleague, the hon. member for Don Valley

North, to designate the second Sunday in September of each year as "Grandparent's Day" in order to acknowledge their importance to the structure of the family in the nurturing, upbringing and education of children.

As the official opposition's critic for seniors organizations, I have always supported similar initiatives to designate a national grandparents' day, because seniors' organizations across the country, and in my riding of Argenteuil-Papineau in particular, are in favour of this kind of acknowledgement.

Grandparents play a crucial role for their grandchildren, providing a degree of stability and continuity that is so essential to them. Unfortunately, the situation is sometimes complicated by mariage breakdown and remarriage, with values often being disrupted in the process. But grandparents can help insofar as they are able and available during the transition period.

Seniors and grandparents can be instrumental in improving cohesion within the family. Grandparents act as the thread connecting the past, the present and the future. Many teenagers feel they stand alone against the problems of daily living. In 1993, in Quebec, seniors from Le Pélican seniors club, in co-operation with the Villeray local community service center, in Montreal, and the Regroupement inter-organismes pour une politique familiale au Québec, founded La Maison des grands-parents, or grandparents' house.

Grandparents welcome their children and grandchildren in this house, which is a co-ordination centre for family action. The house's goals are to foster social involvement, help prevent problems inherent to disadvantaged and isolated families, and promote reconciliation and co-operation within and between families.

Then, other seniors from various golden age clubs in Quebec founded centres with similar goals. In my riding of Argenteuil-Papineau, teenagers from the Vert-Pré drop in centre in Huberdeau and seniors from the gold age association in Saint-Adolphe-d' Howard worked together on a self-help project.

In June 1993, the general meeting of the Quebec Federation of Senior Citizens came out in support of bringing grandparents and their grandchildren closer together. It was the federation's contribution to the International Year of the Family. There are also groups of caring grandparents in various regions of Quebec. The purpose of these organizations is to put grandparents or seniors, both singles and couples, in touch with families with young children.

Their goal is to promote intergenerational contact, to help and support young families, to recognize the experience of grandparents and allow them to play an active role in society. This description of some projects is not restrictive, and I urge all seniors to take the steps required to create similar projects.

As a representative of seniors' organizations, I have always sought to ensure that the government does not penalize seniors. I took part in the debate on Bill C-54, which has a special impact on seniors' pensions through the Canada pension plan and old age security. We in the Bloc Quebecois proposed a series of amendments to protect seniors, who would otherwise be penalized by Bill C-54. Unfortunately, these amendments were rejected by the government.

I also spoke to Bill C-232, an act to amend the Divorce Act. The purpose of this bill is to exempt grandparents from having to obtain special leave of the court to apply for an interim, standing or variation order with respect to custody of or access to their grandchildren.

I am personally very concerned about the old age pension reform announced by the government, which will take effect in 1997 and possibly earlier.

In 1994, the government announced the production of a document to be tabled. It delayed the release of that document, preferring to wait until after the Quebec referendum. Thanks to the hearings held by the Commission des aînés sur l'avenir du Québec, our seniors had an opportunity to express their views regarding their future. That consultation process showed that the concerns of seniors are similar everywhere in the country, and have to do with their social and economic situation.

We are all convinced of the major influence that grandparents and seniors have on the development of children and on the well-being of families. We must give grandparents the place that should be theirs in the family context, and we must make all Canadians aware of the importance of their role.

Grandparents are an essential source of affection, understanding and experience which strengthens the family. They must be integrated to the family life.

In conclusion, the official opposition supports the motion of the member for Don Valley North asking the government to designate the second Sunday in September of each year as Grandparents Day, in order to acknowledge their importance to the structure of the family in the nurturing, upbringing and education of children.

I thank the hon. member on behalf of all the organizations representing the elderly, and also on behalf of all grandparents, young and not so young, for emphasizing their contribution to our society.

Finally, I want to point out that, should Quebecers vote in favour of sovereignty on October 30, Quebec might also recognize the

contribution of its elderly and designate the second Sunday in September of each year as Grandparents Day.

[Daphne Jennings, Reform, Mission—Coquitlam, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate the member for Don Valley North for having his Motion No. 273 selected and deemed votable.

In this motion the government is being asked to consider designating the second Sunday in September of each year as grandparents day. I am very familiar with this issue as I also presented before this House on June 22, 1995, Bill C-259 asking for a national grandparents day on the second Sunday in September. I am aware that the member for Don Valley North also presented a bill asking for a grandparents day. Unfortunately, neither of our bills were votable.

It is fitting and proper that this 35th Parliament finally corrects a wrong against our senior citizens. It does not cost taxpayers any money for the government to recognize our seniors, the oldest group in our society which is becoming more plentiful as Canadians live healthier and longer lives. I would like to draw members' attention right now to the gallery where grandparents are waiting to hear the verdict of today's motion.

1994 was the Year of the Family. As I have stated many times, the family is our basic unit in society. We need to keep our families strong. There is a natural progression here: from strong families come strong communities; from strong communities come strong provinces and states; and from strong provinces and states come strong countries.

Again, if a country is to remain strong, its people must be strong, for a country reflects the value of its people. Who teaches the values to children? The parents. Who taught them? Their parents, the elders in each of our families, the grandparents and the great grandparents, those who have experience and are wise in the ways of the world. We all realize that the best way to be wise is through personal experience and hardships.

Many of today's seniors and grandparents are very active. Many are still in the workforce. Many are in volunteer organizations. My point is that these grandparents and great grandparents have given their fair share to society and many are still giving. If we are wise, all Canadians will show our seniors how much we appreciate them.

In times of restraint there is no money for new programs, especially programs for children. Patience, caring, knowledge, experience, time and love are what are needed to work with children. Our seniors have all of these requirements. Many are already giving countless volunteer hours to children.

Recognition of grandparents day is really recognition of grandchildren and their relationship to the future of our country. When we talk about respecting our grandparents, we are reinforcing the rights of our grandchildren.

Lifting the role of grandparents gives recognition to the interests of our grandchildren. It provides a bridge between the age gaps of young and old. When we see seniors working with young children, we realize there really are no age gaps. They converse very well together and understand each other very well. What better way for children and parents to say thank you than by having a nationally recognized day to visit grandparents and pay respect to these seniors?

At present I am honoured to be representing Canadian grandparents in their fight to see their grandchildren after a divorce. Too often, many are cut out of their grandchildren's lives just because the custodial parent does not think the children should continue to see their grandparents. Often it is the grandparents who in difficult times can reinforce the stability and love in a grandchild's life through a difficult divorce. In the United States where the rights of grandparents to see their grandchildren are recognized, over five million grandparents are raising their grandchildren.

So many seniors want to be grandparents that there is even an organization called Volunteer Grandparents. A very good friend of mine who has never married became a volunteer grandparent about 15 years ago. It is a very special part of her life.

We have an opportunity here to recognize all grandparents. Let us be positive and agree to this motion.

Many in the House may wonder if the rest of Canada feels that the recognition of grandparents is wanted within our country. Nancy Wooldridge, president of the Canadian Grandparents Association in British Columbia and her membership wrote to all the municipalities in British Columbia asking for their assistance in proclaiming the second Sunday in September 1995 past, which was September 10, to be declared grandparents day. The response was incredible. I have only some replies with me today but in recognition of what those communities have done, I think I should share them.

Quesnel city council proclaimed September 10 as grandparents day. Mayor Robert Bowes declared the week of September 10 to 16 as volunteer grandparents week in Surrey. September 10, 1995 was proclaimed as grandparents day in the district of Metchosin. Ralph Drew, mayor of the village of Belcarra proclaimed September 10, 1995 as grandparents day.

Ted Nebbeling, mayor of the resort municipality of Whistler, proclaimed September 10, 1995 as grandparents day in the resort of Whistler. Mayor Robert G. McMinn proclaimed September 10, 1995 as grandparents day in the district of Highlands. On behalf of

the village council and the citizens of Keremeos, Mayor Robert White declared September 10 as grandparents day.

Mayor Ernie Palfrey was pleased to proclaim September 10, 1995 as grandparents day in the district of Coldstream. On behalf of the city council and the citizens of Fort St. John, Stephen Thorlakson, mayor of Fort St. John, proclaimed September 10, 1995 as grandparents day. Mayor Mike Patterson proclaimed September 10, 1995 as grandparents day in the city of Cranbrook.

Kevin Mitchell, acting mayor of the city of Fernie, proclaimed September 10, 1995 grandparents day. The Trail council has considered my letter dated August 17 requesting council proclaim September 10 grandparents day. It has agreed to issue the proclamation.

Bob Cross, mayor of Victoria, British Columbia, proclaims September 10, 1995 grandparents day. Mayor Don Lockstead of Powell River at the regular council meeting proclaimed September 10 grandparents day. Marlene Grinnell, mayor of city of Langley, proclaims September 10 grandparents day.

John Bergbusch, mayor of city of Callwood, declares September 10 grandparents day. Oak Bay proclaims September 10 grandparents day. James Lomie, mayor of the district of Campbell River, proclaims September 10 grandparents day.

The Kitimat municipal council proclaimes September 10 grandparents day. Ross Imrie, mayor of the district of North Saanich, proclaims September 10 grandparents day. Louis Sekora, mayor of the city of Coquitlam, proclaims September 10 grandparents day.

Parksville declares September 10 grandparents day. At Sechelt's regular council meeting mayor Duncan Fraser was pleased to proclaim September 10 grandparents day.

Osoyoos's meeting of council on September 5 resolved that September 10 be proclaimed grandparents day. Gary Korpan, mayor of the city of Nanaimo, proclaims September 10 grandparents day.

James Stuart, mayor of the city of Kelowna, proclaims September 10 grandparents day. John Les, mayor of the district of Chilliwack, proclaims September 10 grandparents day. Greg Halsey-Brant, mayor of Richmond, proclaims September 10 grandparents day.

John Backhouse, mayor of city of Prince George, proclaims September 10 grandparents day. Philip Owen, mayor of the city of Vancouver, proclaims September 10 grandparents day.

I do not know how this got in here. It is from Calgary: "On behalf of the city council and the citizens of Calgary, I hereby proclaim September 10 grandparents day".

These are only some of the responses received by the B.C. chapter of the Canadian Grandparents Association to honour our grandparents in 1995.

I cannot speak for all of Canada but I can surely speak for the cities and communities in British Columbia. British Columbians already recognize the contributions made by our grandparents, our seniors in Canadian society.

I respectfully request that we as members of Parliament recognize the tremendous ongoing contributions by our grandparents on behalf of all Canadians by recognizing from now on the second Sunday in September as official grandparents day.

[Hedy Fry, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Health]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to support the motion of my colleague, the hon. member for Don Valley North, to designate the second Sunday in September grandparents day.

I have spoken out on the significance of grandparents in the House on a number of occasions. Grandparents play an irreplaceable role in the life of Canadian families. They form a stable link in a rapidly changing world. Where there is fragmentation because of divorce or separation they bring continuity. Today many families are headed by single parents and where there are two parents they are often found both working outside the home.

The significance and value of grandparents have increased beyond belief. I do not hold grandparents to be glorified babysitters but rather as parents' surrogates who bring love, a continuance of generational values and a sense of the child's worth to the integrity of the family.

I speak from personal knowledge and with emotion about the importance of grandparents because I was brought up by a grandparent. My parents both worked outside the home for most of my life with them. They needed to for economic reasons. It was my grandmother who nurtured me, gave me a sense of worth and moulded in many ways the course my life was to take.

My grandmother was my role model, my mentor and my confidant. As a strong feminist woman long before the term was invented, she taught me to be bold and confident, to stand up for my beliefs, to change things when I did not like them, to be an active participant in changing my society and my world.

Mr. Speaker, I would be so bold as to say I stand before you today because of my grandmother. Yet I have never been able to

celebrate her contribution to my life. We all celebrate Mother's Day, Father's Day, Remembrance Day. We have dedicated weeks to promote breast cancer awareness, AIDS, violence against women, but we have never celebrated the worth of our grandparents to the family, to society and to future generations.

Grandparents have enriched our lives by their presence. They represent the past, our history to us in their stories, in their lifestyles and in their values. Through them we gain a sense of the continuity of humankind and through us they live forever.

I once remarked that if grandparents did not exist in nature we would have invented them because they are the embodiment of the concept of family. Because of the reverence and love I feel for my grandmother I cannot wait to be a grandparent so I can completely emulate her as my role model. Unfortunately my sons do not seem willing to comply at this time.

You do not need children of your own to be a grandparent. In British Columbia there is a volunteer grandparent's association whose members adopt, figuratively speaking, children who are not fortunate enough to know or who do not have a biological grandparent close at hand. As we all know, in this vast land of ours families can live far away from each other and many families do not have an extended family or a grandparent close by. My children did not. These volunteer grandparents bridge that gap and bring to hundreds of B.C. children the warmth and experience of having a grandparent.

Grandparents bring a sense of trust. They help us to feel safe because no matter what happens they are our refuge against often cranky parents.

In many cultures grandparents are historians. In others they are the heads of households. They bring wisdom and warmth, joy and stability, and the list of their worth goes on and on.

I will finish today by quoting the words of one young constituent who has expressed so simply the importance of her grandmother:

The first day I was brought into this world I met my grandmother. I have come to know her very well. These past 17 years she has been there for me almost as much as my parents. My grandmother is a very special part of my life. She was the one who took care of me when I was sick or cheered me up when I was down. I get to see her almost once a week.

My grandmother is the most interesting lady I know. She is an artist, a chef and a seamstress. This lady has a good eye for fashion and style and she always knows just what to buy me. I heard all grandmothers are good cooks but my grandmother is one of the finest. She supplies the birthday dinners and cakes for the whole family. No matter how much her grandchildren whine and complain she always keeps her cool and has great patience with us all. I am extremely lucky to have such a wonderful grandmother. Not everyone is so fortunate.

She is the type of lady who is always doing special things for you and is always trying to please. My grandmother means the world to me. I hope she remains with me for many years to come.

By passing this bill we will make that wish come true.

[Rey D. Pagtakhan, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to have seconded this motion put forward by my colleague, the member for Don Valley North, on the selection of grandparents day in Canada, Motion No. 273.

I believe the motion will be a model for the world by showing that Canada pays respect to grandparents, to seniors, whose love, wisdom and caring for their daughters and sons, for their grandchildren, are truly recognized.

It is my honour to support this motion.

[Dennis Mills, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Industry]

Mr. Speaker, I support for this motion which would designate the second Sunday in September as grandparents day.

It is appropriate to recognize the members for Don Valley North and Mission-Coquitlam. It must bring a tremendous amount of satisfaction for these members to come to the House in their first term to present a bill that receives the support of all parties and eventually goes through the whole House. I congratulate my colleague.

[The Deputy Speaker]

Is the House ready for the question?

[Some hon. members]

Question.

[The Deputy Speaker]

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

(Motion agreed to.)

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I think you would find unanimous consent to call it 6.30 p.m. and proceed with the adjournment debate.