Madam Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to speak to the amendments to Bill C-91 we are addressing this evening. I am pleased to do this because of my small business background.
As a small businessman for many years I had many sleepless nights looking for capital. Therefore I am very hopeful that the changes we are attempting to make to this bill will improve the access to capital for those new small businesses starting up.
The amount of time spent on the correct name bothers me to some degree. I do not think the name is all that important. What is in the bill is important to small businesses which we are trying to help.
I was interested in some of the comments coming from my colleagues in the Bloc, particularly the member for Longueuil when said he had been in business in Quebec and found that Quebec businessmen had to work twice as hard as the businessmen in Ontario. I had a little trouble with that because I challenge anybody to have worked twice as hard as I did in my business. If one is to be successful in small business today one must work hard.
In my business, the tire and automotive service business, I had occasion to come in contact with people in the same business in Quebec. At no time did I get from them that they were working or attempting to work twice as hard as I was. Those in business in Quebec I came in contact with were doing very well because they were working hard. That was the secret.
I listened to the comments about the FBDB and what is happening in Quebec. I look at the 1994 annual report from the FBDB and see that some 23 per cent of its portfolio is in Quebec. Its head office is there as well. At some point during the debate earlier I was wondering if the scenario was that people were being forced at gun point to borrow from the FBDB. It is not compulsory. If businesses want to go there they go on their own volition, as it should be.
I will briefly run through the amendments in group 2 and outline Reform's position on them. The first is Motion No. 7. Reform is opposing this motion because the term financial assistance is too broad, too sweeping and too general in terms.
When I read that I thought I would have really appreciated, when I went to my bank for funding, that I could say I wanted financial assistance and the bank manager would have been prepared to take it on that basis. Whenever I asked for financial assistance, the next question was how much financial assistance. The decision was then made on that. Therefore we feel it is too sweeping and we will be opposing Motion No. 7.
Motion No. 8 deals with limiting the bank's ability to go to $18 billion rather than $23 billion as is in the bill now. We think there should be a limit there. In our estimation the limit should be $18 billion. We will be supporting Motion No. 8
We are opposing Motion No. 9. The mandate of the bank in our opinion is still not satisfactorily defined.
On Motion No. 10, a Reform motion by the member for Edmonton South, we will be supporting it because it eliminates loans to crown corporations. I do not know whether that was anticipated or thought of at the time but it might appear to the public as a form of double dipping. We will be supporting the amendment to eliminate loans to crown corporations.
Motion No. 11 restricts the role of the bank to complementary activities not already provided by the private sector. We will be supporting Motion No. 11.
Moving into the grouping of Motions Nos. 14 and 15, Motion No. 14 we feel removes some restrictions we feel are necessary in the bill. We will be opposing the removal of those sections.
Motion No. 15 is also a Reform motion and we will be supporting it. It ensures the bank is not active in trust, insurance or security companies.
Motion No. 19 is proposed by the Bloc. We will be opposing it. Yield of hybrid instruments will reflect the profit and cost of borrowing.
Motion No. 20, a Bloc motion, does not change the potential for conflict. It refers only to disclosure. We do not feel it covers that and we will be opposing it.
Motion No. 21, a Reform motion which we will be supporting, refers to the conflict of interest that changes the requirement from disclosing conflict to not doing any business with an interested person.
Motion No. 22, a Reform motion, will be supported and I see it was adopted at committee stage. Motion No. 21, a Bloc motion, we will be opposing because the motion appears to be unnecessary in our estimation. Motion No. 24 we will be opposing for the same reasons as were outlined on Motion No. 1; because it refers to the name change.
Motion No. 25 requires a definition of a hybrid capital instrument be included in the bill. Reform put forward this motion and we will be supporting it.