Debates of June 21st, 1995

Business Development Bank Of Canada Act

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu)]

In my opinion, the nays have it.

And more than five members having risen:

[The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu)]

Pursuant to Standing Order 76.(8), a recorded division on the motion stands deferred.

[Peter Milliken, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Madam Speaker, I think you might find unanimous consent to consider that the divisions on the rest of the motions in Group No. 2 have been demanded and deferred.

[The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu)]

Is there unanimous consent?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu)]

We now move to Group No. 3. Motions Nos. 12 and 13 will be grouped together for the purpose of the debate and the division on Motion No. 12 will apply to Motion No. 13.

[Yves Rocheleau, Bloc, Trois-Rivières, QC]

moved:

Motion No. 12

That Bill C-91 be amended by deleting Clause 20.

Motion No. 13

That Bill C-91 be amended by deleting Clause 21.

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to speak for the last time at this stage, following the impassioned speech by the parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Industry, whom I would like to congratulate on his candour. We no longer hear from Liberals who are proud to be Canadian and proud to tell Quebecers what it means to be Canadian at this time and what Canada will become.

We have seen the passion of the member for Broadview-Greenwood in defending the Trudeau vision of post-referendum Canada. I almost feel like congratulating him, because it helps us understand the scope of the present debate, the role foreseen for the Federal Business Development Bank, the Business Development Bank of Canada, in this post-referendum Canada.

In particular, the Bank will be able to meddle, and this is the aim of clause 20, in regional development throughout Canada, and particularly in Quebec. The legislation provides that the new Bank will be able to do business with so-called "provincial" agencies, despite the fact that, in Quebec, however, there is a law that provides that provincial government agencies must deal with the Government of Quebec, which then does business with the federal government and subsequently authorizes its agencies to act as it sees fit.

Ignoring the presence and the existence of the Government of Quebec, the bill provides that the federal government will now deal with provincial agencies. This raises the whole leadership problem. Who is primarily responsible for regional development in Quebec? In our opinion, it is the Government of Quebec. The federal government could perhaps support it, but it does not have to try to duplicate it, as it is currently doing.

Quebec has established so many agencies. With the SDI, the regional development councils, the solidarity funds, the deposit fund for major matters, and so on, Quebec's regional development organization is well structured.

We refuse to permit waste of public funds and competition between officials, as we have too often seen in the past, or between two groups of officials, which compete with each other, instead of helping each other, and will be encouraged to compete more. We all know that the new Bank of Canada will back the Federal Business Development Bank, which has become merely an empty shell since its mandate changed.

And it is about to start adding its energies to those that the departments of Industry and of International Trade devote to exporters, mostly high tech companies. They are going to supply them, like an agent of federal interventionism, through the Federal Business Development Bank in total disregard for the regional development infrastructure already in place in Quebec.

I feel that this describes the mentality prevailing in this government. They use clause 21 to spread it, which I will read to you:

1. The Bank may carry out duties or functions that may be assigned to it by the Designated Minister in relation to the administration of any program supporting Canadian entrepreneurship, to the extent that it is able to recover the costs of carrying out the duties or functions.

Therefore, having changed the mandate, they are not only mobilizing to try to develop entrepreneurship in Canada by any means they feel are good means, but they also want to develop programs. We asked this question in committee. What programs? What does business administration mean?

That is a very vague catch-all term which the federal government could use to give itself any mandate or to assume any responsibility without consulting with either the provincial government in Quebec, for the time that we will remain a provincial government, or the other provincial governments.

This demonstrates the mentality behind this bill and how urgent it truly is for Quebecers to realize how serious the situation is and to realize that, in the Langevin Block, people are drawing up the Canada of tomorrow which will be centralized and unified like Pierre Elliott Trudeau always wanted it to be.

Except that the process does not allow for debate or consultation and all of the other provinces are being tricked, along with Quebec, in an anti-Quebec referendum strategy. They are pulling a fast one

on the other provinces. I personally find it dishonest to make lofty speeches on the Canada of the future instead of really debating this bill. Alas, this is a small-time short-sighted Canada, run as if it were a chip truck.

That is what we are in for. I can feel it, the measures are already in place. And if Quebec makes the catastrophic decision to vote no, this is what Canada and Quebec will have to endure. They will have to live in this Canada or Quebec, which, as it is, is not recognized as a province that is different from the others; they will have to yield to the bulldozer that they are setting in motion in order to build the Canada of the future, and I hope that this kind of measure will make Quebecers think twice.

[Ed Harper, Reform, Simcoe Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to speak to the last grouping of amendments on Bill C-91, Motions Nos. 12 and 13.

I am very much impressed by the comments of the member for Broadview-Greenwood about his dedication to small business and the government's dedication to helping small business. I hope the sincerity and dedication extend beyond access to funding.

There are many other important areas that are really big factors to small businesses. Certainly they are looking for relief from the tax burden they are under and their customers are under. It is number one on their list, as well as the government bureaucracy that is on their backs. These are two areas we have to address to encourage not only new businesses but small businesses to expand and grow as we know we need them to do.

The Reform Party will be opposing both Motions Nos. 12 and 13 because they remove some restrictions from the bill that we feel are important and should remain in there.

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

Madam Speaker, this is the last grouping. The government will not be supporting these Bloc amendments.

I listened carefully to the member for Trois-Rivières. I was surprised he would suggest that the business development bank would be perceived as an anti-Quebec initiative.

The member referred to the Langevin Block. He indicated that the bill was some scheme for the pre-referendum exercise. Being a former assistant to Prime Minister Pierre Elliott Trudeau and having worked in the Langevin Block, I say that he is giving them too much credit. The bill was really the work of all members of the industry committee.

The member for Trois-Rivières does not believe in Government of Canada presence in the province of Quebec. That is fair ball; he is entitled to that opinion. That is the hon. member's ideology. However, the member knows that all the other members on the committee are not anti-Quebec. The member cannot stand in the House and say I am anti-Quebec.

I cannot imagine that a Quebecer listening tonight to the critic for the Reform Party or to the hon. member for Simcoe Centre would say this debate was anti-Quebec.

This debate is about assisting and supporting small business men and women who represent the greatest hope for putting Canadians back to work. That is what this bill is about.

[Jack Ramsay, Reform, Crowfoot, AB]

Will the bill work?

[Dennis Mills, Liberal, Broadview—Greenwood, ON]

An hon. member opposite asked if the bill will work. I do not know the answer to that question. Are we to stay with the status quo?

This work was the result of members of the Reform Party, members of the Bloc and our members listening to dozens of small business men and women. We listened to bankers. This was not the government's idea. This was not an idea conjured up in the Langevin Block. This was a bill designed by all parties for the small business men and women of Canada.

With the deepest respect to my friend whom I have enjoyed working with from the Bloc Quebecois, please reflect between now and the vote tonight. I ask him to reconsider his position and get behind the government bill in the interests of putting the unemployed people of Quebec back to work. That kind of spirit will have a ripple effect throughout Canada.

[The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu)]

Is the House ready for the question?

[Some hon. members]

Question.

[The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu)]

The question is on Group No. 3, Motions No. 12.

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

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Some hon. members]

No.

[The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu)]

All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.

[An hon. member]

Yea.

[The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu)]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu)]

In my opinion the nays have it.

[An hon. member]

On division.

[The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu)]

I declare Motion No. 12 negatived. Therefore I declare Motion No. 13 negatived.

(Motion No. 12 negatived.)

The House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred divisions at report stage of the bill now before the House.

[The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu)]

Pursuant to Standing Order 45(5)(a), the division on the question now before the House stands deferred until 11.30 p.m., at which time the bells to call in the members will be sounded for not more than 15 minutes.