Madam Speaker, I welcome this opportunity to speak at the report stage of Bill C-91.
When the bill was tabled on first reading, I had the impression it would simply change the name of the bank and increase the amount of capital available. In other words, it would make a certain number of adjustments, considering the fact that the legislation establishing the bank was at least 20 years old. At first glance it seemed quite logical and understandable that the minister responsible for the bank should want to update the legislation.
However, after considering the bill and reflecting on the scope of certain clauses, I feel I must condemn this legislation and, as my Bloc Quebecois colleagues have done, point out to the House that a number of clauses are potentially dangerous.
In fact, the bill would change the mission of the Federal Business Development Bank and allow the bank to be used for purposes which may be questionable and even unacceptable to the provinces and to certain regions in the provinces.
First, a few words about the bank's mission. As you know, the Federal Business Development Bank continues the tradition of institutions that were established after the war to help small
businesses raise the capital they needed. In the case of defence conversion, they were to help Canada build a thriving civilian industry that would contribute to the country's prosperity.
The institution was well received by Canadians and Quebecers. It has excellent credentials and has proved its worth.
The bank's mission was, more or less, to provide last resort financing, in other words, to help developers who found it difficult to get financing from traditional financial institutions. The Federal Business Development Bank was set up to ensure that the necessary capital would be available to entrepreneurs so they could start small businesses.
It is clear that this bill will change the mission of the bank. It is now described as providing complementary financing not customarily provided by traditional financial institutions. Complementary financing is not the same as last resort financing. Last resort financing is needed when the institution or the developer goes to the institutions and although the banks agree the project is worthwhile, they cannot provide the capital, while complementary financing does not have quite the same connotation.
It is clear that if the bank is described as providing complementary financing, it is directly competing with institutions across Canada that were set up to help entrepreneurs find capital. An example is the venture capital fund which has become an institution in Quebec. It seems that in Canada, Quebec is known for its institutions that specialize in providing venture capital for entrepreneurs.
I am thinking as well of the solidarity fund of the FTQ, the industrial development corporation and the Innovatech companies. In short, the Federal Business Development Bank, by abandoning its purpose of providing last resort capital, will now be competing with institutions that make attractive capital available to promoters.
This change in the bank's purpose is regrettable. In my opinion, the aim of the bank was to provide last resort funds. It was good at that. By changing its purpose and allowing it to subtly change its objectives and the type of capital it will provide, we may be putting Canadian business seriously at risk.
Perhaps we of the Bloc could have viewed somewhat positively the purpose of providing complementary funding, but I think the bill should have provided that the purpose of the bank was to continue to provide last resort funds.
Two clauses are also cause for concern. Perhaps there are others, but I think my colleagues will look after pointing them out to the House. Clauses 20 and 21 raise problems, in my opinion. Clause 20 provides that "the Bank may enter into agreements with -any department or agency of the government of Canada or a province or any other body-". The reference here is perhaps to cities, educational institutions, regional development councils-any other body in order to carry out its purpose.
If clause 20 were adopted as it stands, the bank could intervene directly with bodies that come under provincial jurisdiction.
I think this is potentially dangerous, given Canada's economic history and even its political history. One realizes that over the years one of the major problems with Canadian federalism has been that, given its spending power, the federal government has been able to interfere in areas of exclusive provincial jurisdiction. The most obvious and striking example is education, an area which, under the constitution, clearly comes under the exclusive jurisdiction of the provinces but an area where, over the years, the federal government, with its spending power, has been able, first directly with the universities, and also directly with some school boards for certain programs, to step in and often, to a certain extent, divert these bodies from their goal because they had to meet the federal government's funding requirements.
I am myself an educator by profession. Over the years, I have often seen federal programs proposed. It was a little difficult for the local administrators to refuse. They were afraid that if they did, they were going to be turning down large amounts of money, maybe $10,000 or $100,000. Administrators therefore did what the province of Quebec did in the fifties with respect to university funding.
Local or provincial governments must, in such a situation and as a last resort, accept the interference of the federal government because large sums of money are at stake.
In clause 20, the federal government provides itself with the necessary means to interfere, again, in areas that come under the exclusive jurisdiction of the provinces. It is probably also ensuring that there is yet more duplication so that federal, provincial and municipal agencies compete, which is very harmful. The history of the Canadian federation since day one shows that this was a serious flaw in the Canadian federal system, where different levels of government can compete in major areas.
I would have liked to say a few words more on clause 21, which mandates the bank to support entrepreneurship. This is an extremely vague term that could be made to mean just about anything. Again, this could be another excuse for the FBDB to interfere in areas of provincial jurisdiction.
Perhaps we would see less cause for concern or suspicion if the whole regional development policy had not changed so drastically these past few months. But since it did change, we suspect that the Federal Business Development Bank could be the federal government's way of making up for what it is no longer investing in the area of development and ensuring that there is more and more duplication in areas of provincial jurisdiction.