House of Commons Hansard #63 of the 36th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was workers.
Peter Adams LiberalParliamentary Secretary to Leader of the Government in the House of Commons
Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36(8), I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the government's response to three petitions.
Mr. Speaker, I wonder if there would be unanimous consent for me to possibly table another document.
Government Response To PetitionsRoutine Proceedings
The Deputy Speaker
Perhaps the parliamentary secretary could indicate what document it is he seeks to table.
Peter Adams Liberal Peterborough, ON
It has to do with the point of privilege that was raised yesterday to do with ACOA.
Government Response To PetitionsRoutine Proceedings
The Deputy Speaker
Does the hon. parliamentary secretary have the unanimous consent of the House to table this additional document? Perhaps the parliamentary secretary could illumine the House, before we seek consent, what document it is he seeks to table.
Peter Adams LiberalParliamentary Secretary to Leader of the Government in the House of Commons
Mr. Speaker, yesterday there was some discussion about whether the minister responsible for ACOA had read from an official document with respect to the views of the hon. member for Medicine Hat and that the document should therefore, in keeping with the traditions of the House, be tabled.
The government House leader has examined the document in question and finds that it is not an official or state paper but is a newsclip from a commercial clipping service that, in keeping with the usual courtesies, was sent to the critics of all the official parties on the day it became available last November.
The government has no objection to tabling this newsclip for the benefit of all members of the House. It is however not an official government paper available in both official languages and the House leader is not therefore, nor am I, permitted to table this document pursuant to Standing Order 34.
I wish therefore to request the unanimous consent of the House to permit me to table this paper as is in order to assist those members opposite who have made this request.
Atlantic Canada Opportunities AgencyRoutine Proceedings
The Deputy Speaker
Does the parliamentary secretary have unanimous consent to table the document?
Roy H. Bailey Reform Souris—Moose Mountain, SK
Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. There is a point related to that particular document being tabled as to whether the actual quote was mentioned in the “blues” and has he examined that for the benefit of this House as to the actual statement made by the minister. Could he tell us that please.
Atlantic Canada Opportunities AgencyRoutine Proceedings
The Deputy Speaker
On this point, I do not think it is for the parliamentary secretary to tell us what or what is not in the “blues”. The “blues” are now published and are available for all hon. members to read and the Speaker has taken this matter under some advisement as I understand it.
I would rather not get into a discussion on that point of order now. I think if members have representations to make, the Speaker would be more than happy to hear those representations. But I also suggest that some of this could be done through the usual channels rather than having a debate here on the floor of the House.
Peter Adams Liberal Peterborough, ON
Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the member's interest but I agree with you. I think that this is a matter for the Speaker, not for the government House leader or myself.
Paul Szabo Liberal Mississauga South, ON
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to present a petition signed by a number of Canadians including Canadians from my own riding of Mississauga South.
The petitioners would like to draw to the attention of the House that police officers and firefighters are required to place their lives at risk on a daily basis and that employment benefits of police officers and firefighters often do not provide sufficient compensation to families of those who are killed in the line of duty.
Also, the petitioners would like to point out that they also mourn the loss of police officers and firefighters killed in the line of duty and wish to support in a tangible way the surviving families in their time of need.
The petitioners therefore ask Parliament to consider establishing a public safety officers compensation fund for the benefit of families of public safety officers who are killed in the line of duty.
Val Meredith Reform South Surrey—White Rock—Langley, BC
Mr. Speaker, I would like to present two petitions this morning.
The first one is a petition by a number of individuals across British Columbia and soon to be across Canada who are terribly concerned about the justice system and the way pedophiles are treated in the justice system. These petitioners feel that more stringent guidelines must be given to the courts.
They are therefore petitioning and calling upon Parliament to enact stringent legislation with mandatory minimum penalties of incarceration for all convicted pedophiles and legislation requiring mandatory publication of the offender's crime, conviction and sentence and upon their release, their location in the community in which they will reside.
Val Meredith Reform South Surrey—White Rock—Langley, BC
The second petition, Mr. Speaker, is brought about by the concern of a number of Canadians about nuclear warfare.
The petitioners pray and request that Parliament support the immediate initiation and conclusion by the year 2000 of an international convention which will set out a binding timetable for the abolition of all nuclear weapons.
Peter Goldring Reform Edmonton East, AB
Mr. Speaker, I rise in this Chamber as the humble servant of the constituents of Edmonton East. I am pleased to discharge my duties today by presenting two petitions to this House. Both petitions ask for the very prudent review of the mandate of the CRTC to discourage the propagation of pornography, and to encourage the broadcasting of ecclesiastical programming that supports morality and wholesome family lifestyles.
The petitioners ask this House to heed their words and I concur.
Peter Adams LiberalParliamentary Secretary to Leader of the Government in the House of Commons
Mr. Speaker, I suggest that all questions be allowed to stand.
The House resumed from February 16 consideration of the motion that Bill C-21, an act to amend the Small Business Loans Act, be read the second time and referred to a committee.
Gurmant Grewal Reform Surrey Central, BC
Mr. Speaker, this morning I am very proud, honoured and privileged to rise in the House to represent my constituents and the people of our great country, just as my hon. colleagues who rise in this House from time to time are honoured and privileged to participate in the debates and to represent Canadians.
However, sometimes it is important to note that the members who debate in the House are looking through the lens of their political stripes rather through the lens of issues. In this Chamber it is our moral responsibility to debate the issues conscientiously. I look forward to hearing all members debate the facts in this House, looking through the lens of issues.
Bill C-21 affects the lending practices for small business. With the little experience I have, and after having done some research on this issue, it is very hard for me to support this bill.
I am pro small business as are my other Reform colleagues who have previously addressed this issue. However in its present form the Small Business Loans Act does not meet its objectives. It is an inefficient and ineffective program. After thoroughly examining the program and reading the auditor general's report, I would like to make the following observations.
The small business loans program was established in 1961 to increase the availability of loans on reasonable terms and conditions for the establishment, expansion, modernization and improvement of small businesses in this country. In the last four years 177,000 new loans have been granted totalling approximately $11.2 billion.
The objective is to increase the availability of loans. It is a very broad objective. The act should supplement the services provided by the private sector incrementally and not merely replace them. The loans under this program should be made in addition to the loans made by other financial institutions.
In a study it was found that half of the borrowers involved in the SBLA, 46% to be precise, would have received the loans anyway. They had met the criteria and were qualified to get the loans. Therefore in real terms the system has been working at 50% capacity.
Through this program the government is not successfully helping entrepreneurs or small businesses. The government guarantees the financial institutions for the bad decisions which they might make, up to 85% of the amount, in the event the borrower defaults.
Under this program loans are made up to a maximum of $250,000 for fixed assets like land, buildings and equipment. The program does not provide loans for capital leasing or working capital.
Many times it does not meet the requirements of the small business person and this condition has not changed since 1961 but we know the business environment has been changing ever since.
Although there is more growth in the economy and employment in the service and knowledge-based industry, the purpose of business is not fully served to cater to the needs of small business in this country.
There have been instances where related parties have obtained many loans totalling much more than the maximum limit of each loan by creating artificially more than one corporation for the purpose of loans. Therefore those businesses have abused the system by millions of dollars.
Financial institutions have been charging interest up to prime plus 3%. There cannot be any other charges according to the act but the application fees or opening fees, or opening file fees, et cetera are being charged by some financial institutions and that goes undetected.
There have been many instances when some financial institutions have been charging an extra amount illegally. The department has not been checking it. There is no system in place to check it, unless the case files have been opened.
There are many other observations. Income tax implications are very complicated under this act. They have not been addressed. They are not simplified to help the small businessman.
The job creation record is not good either. There is potential for an active displacement effect. The job creation figures under SBLA have been inflated by as much as five times.
The quality and quantity of information provided to parliamentarians on the result of this program is very inadequate. Surprisingly, the department is not reviewing risk analysis and there is no provision for the losses that may be incurred.
Industry Canada has emphasized that the program should recover full costs but it looks quite unlikely that this objective can ever be achieved.
The small business loan program management and delivery mechanisms are very weak. Industry Canada has no yardstick. There are no indicators in place. There are no procedures in place to measure the performance results of this program.
We know the performance evaluation framework is very important for the success of a program like this one. The department operates the accounting system on a cash basis and not on an accrual basis. It creates further implications in the program.
The department lacks adequate forecasting techniques. Basically the department needs better tools to operate effectively and efficiently which will cost billions of dollars.
Having said all that, the purpose of Bill C-21 is to extend the SBLA to March 31, 1999 and raise the government's total liability to $15 billion, an increase of $1 billion.
In 1994 the industry committee of the House of Commons called for a review to be done on SBLA. Up to now, a complete cost based analysis has never been done.
This program is not only inefficient and ineffective but it also discourages the development of alternative and innovative financial solutions for small businesses.
If Industry Canada of this government has been asleep at the switch with respect to the operations of SBLA, how can I and my colleagues from the Reform Party betray the trust of Canadians and support this bill?
In fact, any member from any political party who is looking through the lens of issues and facts and not through the lens of political stripes will never support this bill until a full review is done.
Walt Lastewka LiberalParliamentary Secretary to Minister of Industry
Mr. Speaker, I listened very carefully to the member speaking on Bill C-21.
The bill is to extend for one year and to increase the amount from $14 billion to $15 billion. The member also knows that a total comprehensive study is in the works. Some changes were made in the 1995-96 timeframe after reviewing the bill and previous government experience.
Without getting into a whole pile of other things, does the member support the fact that we want to continue the SBLA and extend it for one year with an increase of $1 billion? Does he also support the second phase, which is to have the study completed in total by members on all sides of the House in committee? Does he agree that should be continued or not, without getting into a whole pile of other rhetoric?
Gurmant Grewal Reform Surrey Central, BC
Mr. Speaker, this is not political rhetoric that I put in front of the House. These are solid facts and figures. According to the auditor general's report, this is the crux of the matter which was discussed and recommended by the auditor general.
In 1994 the industry committee of the House asked for cost benefit analysis and a complete review of the system because the system was not achieving its objectives. It was not doing what it was supposed to do. Going through the details of this act, as well as going through the auditor general's report, I am convinced that this act does more harm than good under present circumstances.
This act was introduced in 1961 to help small businesses, not big financial institutions or banks. This act was introduced so that small businesses, which are creating the jobs and are the backbone of this country, could be promoted. Unfortunately this act has failed small businesses because it was not properly designed. There are many things that need to be improved in this act.
Based on the facts, there is room for improvement and modifications to the act. The act should be changed so that it meets the requirements of small businesses and not create hindrances and obstacles to small businesses.
Rob Anders Reform Calgary West, AB
Mr. Speaker, I listened to both speakers today and cannot help but feel I have been somewhat deceived.
It seems as though Bill C-21 is all part of a public relations ploy on behalf of the government. The government has raised payroll taxes with the Canada pension plan. It has taken $7 billion a year out of the economy with its over contributions and the taxes it has in terms of the EI premiums, therefore hurting the economy and job prospects in this country. Yet it gives $1 billion back through this C-21 with all the strings and problems attached. Most of those businesses actually have access to capital outside of this loans program.
I want somebody to comment on the public relations scam that I feel this really is, where the government takes a dollar and gives back a dime.
Gurmant Grewal Reform Surrey Central, BC
Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the concern from my colleague and other members who look at issues not through political stripes.
I strongly believe that when the government sits on the operation switch, the system operates with inefficiencies and ineffectiveness. We need to make the system efficient and effective so that it can work. It is up to the government to operate this switch.
Walt Lastewka Liberal St. Catharines, ON
Mr. Speaker, I did not get my answer earlier. I thought I had asked a very clear question.
Small Business Loans ActGovernment Orders
An hon. member
Unlike question period when we ask questions.