Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Mississauga West said that under this program the banks would get a guarantee. In other words, taxpayers would guarantee the loan.
Then the member made the point that the money can only be lent for assets. The first example he gave was leasehold improvements.
That is a perfect example of the problem with this government. We have career politicians making decisions for business who are completely out of touch and without any understanding of the realities of running a business.
With respect to leasehold improvements, the member clearly does not have a clue what they entail. A leasehold improvement is an asset to a business. However, if the business fails it may be a liability to the next person. In many instances leasehold improvements are not consistent. They are not what is required of the next business coming in.
Therefore, there may be a liability on the business if the venture is not successful. There may be a requirement for them to remove those leasehold improvements, in which case they would be destroyed and the asset would become a liability.
I have made leasehold improvements to businesses. In fact I borrowed money under the Small Business Loans Act for leasehold improvements. I am an example of a business person who was unnecessarily burdened by government excess regulations.
I would have qualified for a bank loan, but the bank said that the government had a plan which the taxpayer would guarantee, and I was forced to pay a premium on it. That is one of the ways in which the mentality of this Liberal government ends up burdening small business people such as myself.
The reason government members do not understand that is because they are career politicians. The hon. member for Mississauga West said that in 1988-89 he was appointed small business advocate by Premier Davis. That member's connections to politics and getting appointments to different things goes back years and years. I would not be surprised if he was a lawyer.
The member said that we found what the top three problems were. Notice that the member said “we found”. He did not say “I know what they are”. How would he know? He is not a small business person and he is out of touch with the needs of small business people.
He said that taxation was a problem. If that is the problem, then why is he in a government that has increased taxes 37 times in the last four years? That seems to be an inconsistency to me.
The member also said that access to capital or financing was a problem. My only comment to that is, why has the government of which he is a member not lowered EI premiums, reduced taxation or ended the excessive burden placed on business by government regulations? Why is the member part of a government that acts against small business?