Madam Speaker, again I am pleased to have an opportunity to make some remarks regarding this grouping of amendments to the bill regarding the new federal bank's name and some changes in the mandate.
I listened with interest to my colleague from Broadview-Greenwood when he said that the government will not miss that opportunity-and I suspect he is obviously implying the bank will not miss this opportunity-to provide an increased level of service to the small business sector. I am pleased when he reminded us that the new chair of the bank is listening in and is obviously getting a sense of the feeling among members of the House.
The member goes on to say that we can be assured that the new marketing thrust of this newly revised bank will be taking into consideration the needs of the small business sector. I will not even qualify it by saying probably, because I know he speaks the truth. I know this is what he wants to do. But why could we not have a little clearer direction actually in the legislation to guarantee that? We have seen tonight, in my judgment, that what the hon. member wants and what the executive wants can be two different things.
So let us acknowledge that, yes, it is good to say these great things and it is nice to comment on all the things the government plans to do, but we also remember the government's plan to abolish the GST. I suspect that probably somebody in there actually meant that at one time. They also said that they would abrogate the free trade agreement, and so on. It goes on and on.
There is some hesitation for us in opposition to become enthusiastic when we hear these commitments, verbal as they are. Mind you, the government even had the abolishment of the GST and abrogating free trade in their red book. These were actually written down, and they obviously have set those aside.
However, let us be positive this evening and assume that the member is accurate and that the new chair listening in will hear us and will take this bank in the right direction.
I listened with interest to my hon. colleague talk about the sensitivity the bank will have to ensure that adequate provision is given to small business enterprises in all the regions of Canada. We applaud that.
I just want to point out that my hon. friend refers to the west. I know he is from Broadview-Greenwood and I know that he recognizes the realities of western Canada. I want to remind my friend that the west includes two regions: the cordillera regions of British Columbia and the Yukon, and of course the prairie region. So let us be sensitive that we want to balance that B.C. and Yukon is actually a region that ought to get their fair share separate from the prairies and so on and so forth. That is just a little sensitivity from us across the mountain range.
I got a little shaky when my hon. friend was up talking about the letter from the new chair that said we must provide special consideration for the newly emerging technologies, biotechnology and telecommunications and so on. No one would dispute
that. I question whether or not this is the small business sector we are talking about here tonight in large part. It may be.
When I think of biotechnology and telecommunications, I often do not think of the person making the loan for $20,000 or $30,000. I would call for a little extra sensitivity. Yes, we would applaud that the bank ought to be leading a lot of the capital and funding initiatives into these sectors, but also we are talking about small business that is quite often apart from these two sectors.
We want to see expanded powers. Again, I will be looking carefully at the new initiatives. My hon. friend can simply nod at this, but I think he said that the chair of the bank wanted to come before the committee with his directors and meet with the committee to develop some of these ideas further. I think that is what he said. I applaud that initiative and look forward to that opportunity.
On behalf of my party we will be supporting with some enthusiasm Motion No. 7 by my colleague from Trois-Rivières. We will also be supporting Motion No. 10, by my friend from Edmonton Southwest. We will also be supporting Motion No. 20, Motion No. 21, Motion No. 22, Motion No. 23, and Motion No. 25.
I want to make a comment about Motion No. 23, and that is the addition in the legislation of the line "for the purposes of a committee or either House of Parliament" as the possibility of reviewing what the bank is doing. I do think that is an appropriate initiative if in fact that inclination is there.
Again, these are very thoughtful amendments. Some do not receive our enthusiastic endorsement. I appreciate the reasons people are bringing them forward, but I do not see the necessity and some of them I find actually rather regressive. We are being positive here tonight, so I will keep my statements on the upbeat and positive note.