Susan Whelan

[Petitions, March 3rd, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36 I am pleased to present a petition signed by constituents of Windsor West.

The petition requests that parliament introduce legislation to publicly acknowledge offenders of violent crimes.

[Year 2000, March 3rd, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I was pleased to read an article in the Financial Post today which indicated that a special United States senate committee investigating the year 2000 computer problem found that Canada is among the top ranked countries in the world in terms of its year 2000 preparedness. The U.S. senate committee found that 70% of Canadian businesses and 94% of medium and large companies have launched programs aimed at heading off the year 2000 problem. It estimated that Canadian companies have spent over $18 billion U.S. so far to ensure year 2000 compliance.

The members of the industry committee have worked hard on this issue and continue to monitor the year 2000 progress of business and services for consumers. We commend the Minister of Industry, his department and the private sector task force for ensuring that companies across Canada are aware of this potential problem and are taking steps to ensure that January 1, 2000 will arrive with little disruption.

With less than 10 months to go, let us continue to work toward eradicating the problem with the possible millennium bug.

[The Late Shaughnessy Cohen, February 11th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, on December 9, 1998 this Chamber, this institution and all of us suffered a great tragedy over the loss of our colleague Shaughnessy Cohen. To some she was a colleague and to others a dear and trusted friend, but all who knew her instantly saw her vitality for life.

Shaughn lived each and every day to the fullest. We miss her, her laughter, her partisanship and even her heckling.

Today I rise to toast what would have been her 51st birthday. As sure as I am standing here I am certain she is having one heck of a birthday party in Heaven today.

On behalf of her constituents and on behalf of my colleagues I would just like to say happy birthday, Shaughnessy; we miss you.

[Year 2000, February 9th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, this week is Year 2000 Preparedness Week. Yesterday I had the pleasure of tabling the 13th report of the Standing Committee on Industry outlining Canada's state of readiness in several key industrial sectors.

The committee found that most Canadians and Canadian companies and institutions are well aware of the year 2000 problem. However, many small and medium size enterprises have not yet addressed the issue. Firms should begin testing now if they have not already done so. Businesses must realize they could be fully accountable for failure to act. Firms need to prepare contingency plans and business resumption plans to ensure that their business thrives in the new millennium.

There is help for those organizations that do not know where to begin. The year 2000 first step program is a joint Industry Canada and CIBC initiative to give Canadian SMEs access to an affordable customized first step for preparing for the year 2000 challenge.

If we all plan for the worst and hope for the best, we will be able to ring in the new year and millennium with a small sigh of relief.

[Committees Of The House, February 8th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the 13th report of the Standing Committee on Industry entitled “The Year 2000 Problem—Canada's State of Readiness”.

Pursuant to Standing Order 109 the committee requests that the government table a comprehensive response to this report.

[Petitions, February 3rd, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I rise pursuant to Standing Order 36 to present petitions on behalf of constituents of the riding of Windsor West.

The petitioners ask that parliament define in statue that marriage can only be entered into between a single male and a single female.

[Committees Of The House, February 1st, 1999]

Madam Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the 12th report of the Standing Committee on Industry. In accordance with Standing Order 109, the committee requests the government table a comprehensive response to this report.

[Agriculture, December 7th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, as Canadians we spend less than 10% of our disposable income on food. Our food costs are among the lowest in industrialized countries. Only the Americans at 8% spend less while others pay up to 24%. The efficiencies of our producers directly benefit consumers.

Today, because of complex international conditions of lost markets, oversupply and foreign subsidies, Canadian farm families are on the brink of financial disaster. This threat to the viability of Canadian farmers is a threat to our supply of healthy, affordable food. Imagine what we would pay for food without our domestic supply.

Farmers meet the normal challenges of weather and cyclical price fluctuations. However the current crisis is not normal, not of their making and could not be foreseen.

The Minister of Agriculture and Agri-food is working toward a solution. I urge him to continue his efforts to develop a national disaster program to meet these extraordinary needs. All Canadians will benefit in the long term. All Canadians want and need a healthy food supply.

[Charitable Donations, December 3rd, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, there is news and there is good news in the 1997 statistics released by Statistics Canada today.

First the news. Fewer Canadians gave money to charities in 1997. It was down 3.1% from the year before. Just under 5.3 million tax filers reported charitable deductions on their 1997 personal income tax returns. However the good news is that those who did contribute gave more, 6% more than in 1996, to the tune of $4.3 billion.

Now is the time to be generous. As all Canadians donate they should be aware that the maximum deduction limit allowed on personal income was increased to 75% of net income by the government in 1997 and compare it to the previous limit of 50%. It pays to donate more.

As we finish our holiday shopping over the next few weeks let us all remember the less fortunate and give the ultimate gift, a donation to a worthwhile charity.

[Division No. 265, November 23rd, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, after listening to the comments today I am a little surprised at what appears to be a lack of knowledge of Bill C-53. I say that with all due respect to my colleagues who have just spoken.

Members seem to think that there are no fees involved in this loan and that people who qualify for small business loans do not necessarily pay for them. The fact is that they pay administration fees and higher rates of interest. The loans are there to help those businesses which otherwise would not be able to get loans.

That being said, I want to speak specifically to the motions that were presented in Group No. 2. The first motion, presented by the hon. member for Saskatoon—Humboldt, proposes that persons not be related. Obviously he has not read clause 3 where it is already defined.

If he would recall correctly from our discussions at committee, we had a very long and lengthy discussion on this very topic when we discussed the proposed regulations that will be coming down later. As a committee we wanted to ensure that everyone is entitled to apply.

We also wanted to ensure that one business is not beyond the aggregate amount, which I believe is already covered in the bill and regulations will further define it. As well, we wanted to ensure that if a husband and wife are in separate businesses neither one is prohibited from being able to apply for funding.

I also want to speak briefly to Motion No. 3. This is a proposal that would reduce the loan amount under the program to $100,000 from $250,000. Again I think it would be important for members opposite to go back and read the testimony that we heard at committee, the discussions that took place and to look at the groups that appeared, the witnesses and those who had benefited from the Small Business Loans Act in the past.

The fact is that even representatives of the Canadian Federation of Independent Business said we should not go back. They suggested that it stay at $250,000. They suggested that it not be raised. They said that in the past they would have liked to have seen it lowered, but now that it is there we should not go back. They also suggested that we look at the types of businesses, and that is being done. They suggested that we look at who needs assistance and where the difficulties are in lending practices.

I remind my colleagues on the other side that the average loan amount is around $60,000 to $70,000 under the SBLA presently. Even though the limit is $250,000, the majority are falling much below that. There is no research at the present time which proves that larger loans pose any greater risk than smaller loans.

Several groups appeared before the committee. We asked the opposition for witnesses. The only groups that came before us to discuss the SBLA were those which had used the SBLA and were successful businesses. Some had borrowed to the tune of the $250,000 limit. Some of them told us that if the limit of $250,000 had not been there they would not be in business today. They have gone on to develop businesses that are worth $2 million or $3 million. Those businesses started with a small government assistance loan.

Let us remember that the assistance is paid for by higher than normal rates. If these businesses could go to a bank and get a regular small business loan without the assistance of the government or a guarantee then they would pay a lesser rate of interest. They are paying more money for this loan, but they are still doing well in their businesses. They were able to make it and survive once they got their foot in the door. If it was not for the government's guarantee they would not have been able to get that loan and they would not be in business today.

Motion No. 4 is pretty straightforward. Motion No. 5 is very much a housekeeping amendment because when the bill was originally introduced there were 85 loans under the Fisheries Improvement Loans Act that were still in existence. Those will soon be taken off the books, so we are just trying to ensure that the act and the legislation as it is written is as clean and understandable as possible.

I want to take this opportunity to talk about the successes of the Small Business Loans Act, the importance of continuing it, the new name for it—the Canada small business financing act—and the fact that so many businesses today will be able to get their foot in the door because it exists. The guarantee gives a little reassurance, when necessary; an extra push to get them in the door.

Many witnesses appeared before the committee, in particular from the restaurant sector, who said it is very difficult. We have spoken to the banks and we continue to speak to the banks at committee about the restaurant sector in particular, which has difficulty getting small business loans from banks. New people in business do not necessarily have long credit histories or long records of doing business and they need that extra assistance. We want to be there for them as a government.

The government knows that it is small business that is creating jobs. We know the potential that exists in Canada. We want to ensure that all small businesses have access to financing. That is what the Canadian small business financing act, Bill C-53, is all about.

I am a little disappointed by some of the amendments that are before us today because we had many of these discussions at committee. We discussed very thoroughly the size of a loan and the importance of it and the fact that individuals, to be able to have their businesses, need to be able to renovate, need to be able to open their doors and to run a good operation. We also discussed the differences between different types of businesses, about leaseholds, about existing businesses, about how people can move on and what people want to do.

It is a little disappointing that we are discussing loan limits. I really find it surprising, considering the fact that we have moved beyond $100,000 to $250,000. Evidence before us indicated that some people do need that much. Even the Canadian Federation of Independent Business, as I said earlier, said not to go back.

There are many, many success stories. We had people before us who talked about a building they had bought. They renovated it and leased out space. They were able to attract tenants and to become a centre for that community. If it was not for the Canada Small Business Loans Act, soon to be called the Canadian small business financing act, they would not be in business today. They would not have had that opportunity.

They put up a lot of their own dollars. The government guaranteed up to $250,000. That was it. In this case, in particular, each of the individuals matched that with their own personal money and put up their own personal guarantees as well. There is a lot of investment in making small businesses grow, in making small businesses happen and I think as Canadians we want to see this happening from coast to coast.

We know that different areas go through different times. We know there is difficulty in financing from time to time. We are trying to ensure that everyone has access and everyone has opportuntiy.

Some ideas are too new for the banks to feel comfortable with in the normal scheme of lending. Again, some people do not have a credit history or a credit risk history. It is important that we be there as a government and that we continue to deal with small business.

I speak from earlier days, before I was elected, when I was practising law and the administration of loans. I think it is important that people realize that the borrowers are paying a higher rate of interest. They are paying a fee. It is not a freebie. It is not that the government gives money and gets nothing back. The majority of these loans will be paid over time. Sure, there will be losses, but the majority will provide jobs, the majority will be successful. Many of these businesses will go on to hire people and will continue to develop.

One group in particular that appeared before us started very small and now has several tenants. They are collecting thousands of dollars in rent and they are able to continue.

I think it is important that we all participate in the debate today. I am sure that many of my colleagues will join me in reminding the opposition that the SBLA in the past has done a lot of good for small business and will continue to do a lot of good in the future. We need to ensure that the economy moves forward, we need to ensure that small business has access to this money and we need to ensure that small business can create jobs.