Mr. Speaker, I want to talk today to Bill C-91, an Act to continue the Federal Business Development Bank under the name Business Development Bank of Canada, that was tabled on May 15 by the Minister of Industry. According to its drafters, over and above changing its name, the bill aims at streamlining the bank and modernizing its operations.
As we all know, the role of the Federal Business Development Bank is to promote and support companies which are starting up or at any other stage of development. It was created in 1944 under the name Industrial Development Bank. In 1974, it was incorporated under its current name as a crown corporation in accordance with a law passed by Parliament.
The Federal Business Development Bank offers three types of services to companies: financial services, venture capital financing and management consulting services, including consulting, planning and information.
This bill broadens the bank's mandate so that it will not only be a financial institution responsible for last resort financing. It will also, from now on, be authorized to offer complementary financing to other financial institutions and to set up subsidiaries.
Moreover, clause 21 of the bill allows the Minister of Industry to use the bank to promote entrepreneurship in Canada. Clause 20 gives more leeway to the bank to negotiate agreements with other federal departments and provincial and local agencies in carrying out its specific mandate and any other mandate that the minister could assign to it under clause 21.
My first criticism is that I do not see the need to change the bank's name. We are only wasting taxpayers' money.
However, the most important flaw of this bill is without a doubt the fact that the federal government is going to interfere even more in regional development throughout Canada. In Quebec alone, it intervenes through the Federal Office of Regional Development which implements all of the federal programs. The mandate of this office is to create a dialogue between federal stakeholders in Quebec. This office has already established contacts with these consultation structures in Quebec and even wants to sit at the consultation table for Montreal.
Bill C-91 constitutes another centralizing offensive from the federal government resulting in costly and needless overlaps.
This bill completely negates the role of provincial governments regarding support to small business. This goes against the declarations of the Liberal government which said it wants to eliminate overlapping and duplication with provinces.
Clause 20 of the bill allows the Federal Business Development Bank to enter directly into agreements with a person or agency, which means it will be able to sign agreements with regional development councils among others.
However the Quebec act respecting the Ministère du Conseil exécutif du Québec prohibits provincial agencies from entering into agreements with the federal government without the minister's authorization. Once more the federal government dismisses the responsibilities of the Government of Quebec and its very existence by giving itself the power to act without consulting provinces.
In the area of regional development the centralizing offensive of the Chrétien government goes directly against Quebec's regionalization policy. The federal government has always refused to recognize regional development as an exclusive provincial jurisdiction. The government dismissed this claim in all constitutional negotiations. Yet, the federal government had promised Quebec it would limit its action in regions under general agreements between Canada and Quebec. However, the regional economic development agreement expired in december 1994 and the federal government has refused to renew it.
Federal intervention in regional development is becoming scattered, without consultation with the Quebec government. It is competing with Quebec programs while trying to increase the federal government's visibility in the outlying regions and is using the Federal Office of Regional Development to establish Canadian standards in various departments.
What I find really shocking is that the federal government is financially getting out of social programs and using taxpayers' money to unnecessarily overlap Quebec structures that are dealing with small and medium size businesses. On the other hand, it refuses to get out of manpower training, as was asked by the Quebec government, labour and employer organizations, as well as by economic and social sectors in general.
In my riding of Bourassa, where there are numerous very small businesses, the Federal Business Development Bank has been involved with several projects that have created or maintained jobs. However, some business people tell me that this institution is taking too long to examine and respond to their requests or is asking for too many guarantees.
This institution should also be providing more consulting services and in particular, more consulting and training services to students who wish to operate small businesses during the summer. The government is already giving it grants large enough to allow it to carry out that part of its mandate. I hope that the FBDB will always be different from other financial institutions in that it will not try to maximize its profits, but only to recover its costs.
The Bloc Quebecois does not want the FBDB to compete with other development tools available to Quebecers, such as the Fonds de solidarité de la FTQ and the caisses populaires. Also, we would like it to have the means to support Quebec businesses.
I would like to take this opportunity to highlight the accomplishments of the FTQ's Fonds de solidarité over its ten year existence. I took part in the last annual meeting, during which the fund's 10th anniversary was celebrated. This fund has invested in, and helped, hundreds of businesses and has created or saved over 25,000 jobs in Quebec. I would like to pay tribute to its leaders, Louis Laberge, Fernand Daoust and Claude Blanchet. I would not like to see the Federal Business Development Bank duplicate the exceptional work already being done by the Fonds de solidarité.
The potential impact of Bill C-91 on the bank's role as an instrument of economic development is very worrisome.
Firstly, the bank is no longer restricted to its role of a last resort lender and will be able to offer complementary financing. The danger lies in the fact that the bank is moving away from its mandate of last resort financing and more towards complementary financing.
The bill must clearly stipulate that the bank's primary role is to offer last resort financing. Clause 21 gives the minister the discretion to involve the bank in initiatives which have nothing to do with its primary activity. Such a measure is unacceptable, because it could prevent the bank from concentrating on what it does best, which is providing last resort financing.
Clause 36 of the bill restricts access to information regarding the bank's clients. This practice is normal for a financial institution. It would be useful, however, to add a provision stipulating that Parliament could access this information for a parliamentary inquiry.
Like the other Bloc Quebecois members who preceded me, I would like to state that I do not support this bill.