Mr. Speaker, it is with great pleasure that I rise today to speak on this bill and on the amendment moved by the hon. member for Mercier. In so doing, she speaks for all would be entrepreneurs who cannot make sense of the financing assistance process for projects that may not meet traditional business criteria in our capitalist system. She speaks for the people who need a hand, a little extra assistance and special attention.
It is our duty to some extent, at the government level, to ensure attention is paid to this kind of project.
In all our ridings, we have people coming to see us with some interesting and dynamic projects, projects requiring the second generation assistance to small business that was and can still be provided through the SBLA program, but which we would like to see improved in the future.
There is a great deal of competition to start up businesses at present. Many people have been told for years to get into a different line of work. Young people are being told they ought to start up their own businesses.
The purpose of the amendment moved by the hon. member for Mercier is to go beyond technical and housekeeping changes and give those who want to start up a business a real chance to do so.
This is particularly true in regions like mine, in KRTB and the whole Lower St. Lawrence region. There are business assistance programs like the self-employment assistance program to help establish what is known as very small businesses. What is also needed is programs that help businesses grow, through tailored support and follow up, to give those who are interested in starting up a business an opportunity to do so.
This spirit, this willingness are not to be found clearly in this bill. We think it should be supported because it contains interesting provisions, but there is still room for improvement. It is possible to give it more of a social flavour to allow businesses to blossom in this country and to allow young entrepreneurs to go into business. These entrepreneurs are not necessarily young in terms of age, but there may be young entrepreneurs of 40 or 50 years of age who, after a career in a field where jobs have disappeared, see the opportunity to go into another field.
They do not necessarily have all it traditionally takes right from the start. They may occasionally be rejected by banking institutions whose approach is based on accounting. One can understand this vision that financial institutions have, but we must ensure that, at the government level, we allow more and more businesses to open. Small and medium size businesses are the ones that create the most jobs.
In my region, for example, there is a multinational, Bombardier, that has a dynamic and interesting plant that is doing well. However, when the economy slows down or when business is a little slow, we must have people ready to fill the void quickly and to submit their projects. And we must listen to them so they can launch and carry out these projects.
It is often a question of attitude in receiving the applications. To have an open attitude, financial institutions must feel the government is behind them to support this type of project.
Our first amendment, adding clause 2.1, is aimed at clarifying the purpose of the bill. In a certain way, insufficient funding is worse than no funding at all. Without sufficient funding, a business cannot develop as it could and as it should.
It is a comment we frequently hear from people who started a business and who come to see us. They often did it with a maximum of energy and a minimum of resources. They manage to survive, but they would need an extra hand, particular assistance, a specific kind of assistance. Help to really give people a hand up is not available at present.
The first amendment proposed by the hon. member for Mercier is aimed at clearly defining the program so that it will also provide financing to small and medium size businesses that would not otherwise have access to financing. The door must be open, a chance given, the idea given a chance to expand and to be realized.
Perhaps one of the ways to assess how relevant and effective the legislation has been, a few years down the road, would be to see whether fewer of the people who have set up businesses end up coming to see their MP feel frustrated because the program was not sufficiently flexible to give them a chance to get started, whether they have been getting a better reception when they go knocking at the door of the financial institutions and the development agencies because there is legislation covering financing, and whether this bill gives them more latitude.
This situation is particularly true for women. A number of women in my riding come to me saying “It is a reality that we, as women, are more used to being straightforward in our personal activities, used to telling it like it is”. They do not necessarily have the traditionally male salesman's gift of the gab, but when they come in to see their bankers they paint a very clear picture of the reality of the business they want to set up. They are not there just to “sell” it.
This may have negative impacts for them at present, but it would be important for financial institutions to be more open to their needs. Women with plans to open a business set out all of the advantages and disadvantages and to put everything on the table. They must not be penalized for doing so. Knowing the advantages and disadvantages, what counts is finding a way to deal with them and how help can be given. The bill before us is one of the tools that can be used in this context.
It must be flexible, providing opportunities to women with this sort of business proposal, who do not fit the traditional mould. We are not talking about equality in presentation, in organizations deciding on these matters, on loans in financial institutions. People's attitudes need to change and we can help bring about this change by amending the law.
I think we can apply the same reasoning to young people. Special efforts have been made in Quebec, among other places, to develop job training. We have started up the machine again. Five years ago, the last Liberal government almost stopped giving people job training; today we have started the machine up again. These people we are training, who will be plumbers, carpenters, electricians and workers in new areas of technology, will need a boost to be able to start up businesses.
Twenty-five years ago, when people were working in these fields, they often worked for others. Now, these people often have to take over the business and they need the right conditions. Our bill on financing for small and medium size businesses needs flexibility.
We can make sure, for example, in the case of people who are reaching the age of 55 or 60 and getting ready to sell their business, that there is a way young people can take over and thus provide for their family and help our regional communities to achieve their full potential.
Without questioning the entire bill, I think the Liberal majority should look very carefully at the constructive amendment proposed by the member for Mercier. This amendment simply recognizes the fact that the government is responsible for more than rubber-stamping the decisions made by financial institutions. It is responsible for giving small businesses a boost.
I think the bill before us can achieve this objective in the end, and this is why it needs improvement.