Madam Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to once again enter the debate on Motion No. 6.
I listened to the hon. member for Trois-Rivières talking about how different Quebec and its people are from the rest of the country. The Small Business Loans Act shows us very realistically how we are all similar. The problems of small and medium size businesses whether in Montreal or Chicoutimi, Oshawa or Vancouver are very much the same. Small and medium size businesses have difficulty obtaining access to capital.
Clearly it is important for us as a country to look at as big a market, as big a capital access as we possibly can and to assist small and medium size businesses. What are we talking about here? Ultimately, we are talking about jobs and the ability to create jobs.
I was very interested recently to read a summary by the Quebec Manufacturers Association that stated that Quebec is the least attractive jurisdiction in Canada in which to do business. This is not something that has been created by the federal system; it is something that has been created within the province of Quebec. I addressed some manufacturers from Ontario this week and asked them how we could assist our fellow business people within that province overcome some of the problems of high wage structures, high interest rates, and so forth that the manufacturers of Quebec are having, which means an inability to create jobs in that province.
This motion deals with the ability of making the administrative changes to acts within the purview of the committee system. What we have to do is ask ourselves what is our role as parliamentarians. Psychologically, it sounds very good to say that we should be involved with every decision of government, possibly every change in the Income Tax Act, possibly every idiosyncracy or change in the Environmental Protection Act, fee structures that are administered by Canada Post. There are all kinds of administrative actions that occur on a daily basis.
When I practised as a chartered accountant I had a list of complaints, and I agree that the system is too complex. I had a stack of information that came in every week of changes within the system, a stack of about four or five inches. If that is to be the purview of the committees, I do not think they will get much work done.
The other aspect of this is that we need to empower somebody with responsibility, somebody who is answerable, somebody who can appear before the committee and answer for decisions that are being made. I question whether on a daily basis we can have members of Parliament involved in all of these individual decisions. On paper it sounds very good, but the reality will be that we are going to delay the decision making.
For instance, on administration fees, the object of that exercise was to basically make the administration of those loans break even for the government, for the government to have no costs involved, covering our loan losses, et cetera. For the committee to make rational decisions on an ongoing basis, they would have to know almost on a weekly basis the administration of those loans, the numbers that have gone into default, the industries that are being pressured, and so forth to know whether to increase or decrease fees in certain areas.
I would like to draw the attention of the House to the fact that committees do not meet that often. The reality is that Parliament is only in session less than half of the year. How could it possibly react on a daily or weekly basis to these kinds of changes? That is not the purpose of Parliament or even the purpose of the committee system.
Once again, I am opposed to this group of motions. If we want to improve the committee system, we should ask whether the reviews the committees enter into are efficient and adequate, whether the powers of investigation are adequate and whether they exercise them adequately. Those are really properly the issues that would face parliamentarians on how to make this place more efficient and more democratic.
There is room for possibly strengthening the committee system, and I thank the member for Trois-Rivières for making that point. A lot of people in this country would like to see the committee system strengthened to use the talents of members of Parliament to their optimum benefit. Quite frankly, approving administration fees I do not think is one of them.
There is another important aspect we overlook about the administration fee. It has been the complaint of the SBLA program that it was essentially the prime borrowers, well heeled companies, that were getting the loans. In other words, these people could possibly get loans on their own without that guarantee but chose to get the guarantee because it was a cheap source of capital for them, with a government guarantee attached to it. By increasing this fee that will no longer be an advantage to them.
As a consequence, what we have done is opened up a significant amount of capital for small and medium size businesses. What this means is that those companies that can afford to pay regular rates of interest will be unattracted because of this fee structure and will go off and borrow through the normal financial channels without the SBLA guarantee. The companies that will be left will in fact be those emerging companies, the ones that find difficulty in getting access to loans.
Time and time again on the industry committee and through our report, Taking Care of Small Business , we have been told by small business that the most important thing is access to capital and not necessarily the cost. Of course there is a point at which the cost of capital becomes prohibitive, but those small emerging companies, the ones we are looking toward as creating new jobs and new industries, are going to have better access to funds under this system. This sounds ironic, because the fees are slightly higher, but it will open up an area for small and medium size business that does not currently exist.
Getting back to the original motion, I think it will be a detriment to those industries if for some reason the administration fee is somehow logged into a committee that is cumbersome and takes a long time to react. It is wise that the government leave that decision making possibly with a bureaucrat. That bureaucrat from time to time and at the discretion of the committee can appear before the committee and explain his actions. If for whatever reasons we find him negligent, we can get rid of him and hire somebody who is better. I believe that is more appropriately the administration of the committee system.
In conclusion, very simply, I am opposed to Motion No. 6 because I do not believe it is in the best interests of small and medium size business.