Walt Lastewka

[Canada Small Business Financing Act, November 17th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, first I will speak to Motions Nos. 4 and 5 which reference the Fisheries Improvement Loans Act. After review of the act it was seen that reference to the Fisheries Improvement Loans Act was no longer required.

Several small business support programs were restructured in 1987. Fishers became eligible borrowers under the Small Business Loans Act and no new loans were made under the Fisheries Improvement Loans Act. Loans that were still outstanding continued to be administered by fisheries and oceans and borrowers continued to make payments on those loans. Some 85 loans were still outstanding under the program when the bill was being developed. It was decided that a reference to the Fisheries Improvement Loans Act was necessary.

We have subsequently learned that the loans still on the books under the old Fisheries Improvement Loans Act have declined to a negligible amount. Given that most of these loans will soon be paid off the books, reference to the Fisheries Improvement Loans Act in the proposed Canada Small Business Financing Act is no longer required. An amendment to the same effect was made to clause 3 when the bill was at committee. I urge all members of the House to support these amendments as technical clean-up of the bill in its references to the fisheries loan act.

There have been many comments with respect to Motion No. 3 which recommends the reduction of the amount that can be lent to small business from $250,000 to $100,000. Much of the discussion has been referenced to the CFIB, that its recommendation was to reduce the amount to $100,000. The Canadian Federation of Independent Business surveyed its members and found that over 49% supported leaving the limit at $250,000. It notified the standing committee along that line.

I remind everyone here, especially the official opposition, that other stakeholders like the Canadian Restaurant and Food Services Association, the Canadian Bankers Association and some independent witnesses in committee also spoke to maintaining the $250,000 limit.

There was much discussion on related borrowers which is what Motion No. 2 addresses. I am surprised the member for Saskatoon—Humboldt put forward this motion after all the debate we had in committee including a discussion of the preliminary regulations. It was agreed among the bankers and the stakeholders, the CFIB, the Canadian Restaurant and Food Services Association and the department, that they would look at and come up with the respective regulation that would follow up on the auditor general's comments.

This process has started. It is well under way and the regulations will be issued in due course, after the bill is approved, hopefully by all members of this Chamber, despite some earlier comments.

With respect to Motion No. 2, there are some 1,600 deliverers of what is now known as the SBLA, the future Canada small business finances act.

Because of the timing for regulation approval and training of between 1,500 and 1,600 deliverers, this item will be taking effect, as noted by all the people as discussions were held in the industry committee.

For that reason, I would not now support going back on what we had said in committee and on what we had agreed to with respect to the regulations coming forward to change the items shown in Motion No. 2.

I wanted to speak to those motions. Hopefully members of the official opposition will realize that there has been more fine tuning of this act. The standing committee on industry had great discussions.

I welcome the new NDP member on the committee, specifically the member for Kamloops, Thompson and Highland Valleys. I want to mention his contribution. He took a great interest in this bill and has shown that he wants to be more involved with small business.

I hope all of the opposition parties, when the time comes, will approve this bill for the benefit of small business rather than for political reasons.

[Canada Small Business Financing Act, November 17th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to have the opportunity to speak to this motion.

During debate of this bill in committee a lot of the discussion centred around the same thoughts as put forward by this motion. The motion says very clearly that the burden of proof will now be on small businesses to prove that they have gone elsewhere and were totally rejected. From my understanding, only those who have been totally rejected will then be able to apply under the program.

At the present time we have an incremental amount of about 56%. This was talked about in the report and in the auditor general's report.

The wording of the proposed amendment would create a program of 100% incrementality. I know we continue to move in that direction. There is always a desire that the Canada Small Business Financing Act be applied to small businesses in high risk areas in order to start new types of businesses and expand small businesses. I have a concern about this motion making it 100%.

The auditor general on numerous occasions has expressed the fact that the more the program is opened up and the more we insist on incrementality, the greater the losses are going to be. A balance is required to be struck when we have a program like the Canada Small Business Financing Act and the intention of the government to have a full cost recovery over time. The proposed amendment would limit the goal of achieving cost recovery over the 10 year life of loans under the program established in 1995.

Industry Canada will continue to monitor the incrementality and the cost recovery through independent studies to ensure that these two elements remain in balance.

I know the members of the standing committee who have debated this bill very thoroughly are very concerned about having proper statistics and data on an ongoing basis. Although the bill insists on a review every five years, the Standing Committee on Industry will be bringing this up on an annual basis in order to make sure we have good reports and understand what needs to be done.

Approving Motion No. 1 which would force 100% incrementality starting with this bill next April would not be fair to the small businesses across Canada that continue to seek small business loans because of their high risk factor. We want to protect the new small businesses coming on stream and those that want to expand.

I would suggest that my colleagues not support Motion No. 1.

[Concentration Of Print Media In Canada, November 3rd, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to address the House on Motion 423 which was introduced by my colleague representing the riding of Waterloo—Wellington. The motion calls for a debate to express the concerns of the member's constituents, colleagues and Canadians on the concentration of print media in Canada. I would also thank my colleague for the research and effort that was put into his motion.

As members of this House are aware, the print media marketplace in Canada has been undergoing significant changes in recent years with several newspapers changing ownership. One recent example is Southam Inc.'s acquisition of the Financial Post from Sun Media Corporation in return for four southern Ontario dailies, including the Kitchener—Waterloo Record circulated in my colleague's riding of Waterloo—Wellington. The most recent concerns the announcement of a possible takeover of Sun Media by Torstar.

As I understand it, some people perceive that newspaper mergers can be detrimental to Canada for two reasons. First, there is a fear that increasing ownership concentration may leave Canadians with reduced access to both ideas and sources of information. Second, there are concerns that newspaper conglomerates might be able to conduct business in an anti-competitive manner with their subscribers, advertisers or journalists. I will address the anti-competitive business behaviour point first as it clearly relates to something that falls within the purview of the industry department.

The Competition Bureau headed by the director of investigation and research is an independent law enforcement agency of Industry Canada with responsibility for enforcing the Competition Act. This act is a law of general application. It applies with few exceptions to all sectors of the Canadian economy, including newspapers, magazines and other print media. The law touches on the everyday life of all Canadians by seeking to maintain and encourage competition in the marketplace with the objective of providing consumers with competitive prices and a variety of choices in the goods and services that they purchase.

The director actively enforces the Competition Act by monitoring developments in the marketplace and reviewing complaints from consumers, competitors and other interested individuals to determine whether there is evidence of any anti-competitive activity in the marketplace.

In the case of mergers, the act mandates that all transactions of substantial size be reviewed by the director, whether the bureau receives complaints about them or not. The test applied by the director in his review of mergers is whether or not the proposed transaction would or is likely to substantially lessen or prevent competition.

Accordingly, the Competition Bureau reviews all major print media mergers. The bureau's review centres on a merger's economic impact, which in the case of a newspaper merger primarily revolves around advertising issues. Every transaction is thoroughly examined on a case by case basis.

I take this opportunity to encourage anyone who has information that anti-competitive activity is ongoing or that might be facilitated by a merger to bring it to the attention of the director.

The director's view is that the provisions of the legislation are adequate to deal with anti-competitive behaviour in the print media industry. For instance, they have allowed the director to successfully challenge Southam Inc.'s acquisition of a chain of real estate advertising papers in Vancouver.

In addition, the provisions of the Competition Act are subject to regular review in order to identify appropriate amendments to the law. In this regard, a set of amendments to update the law is currently before the Senate.

I will return to the first issue that the motion seeks to address, that increased print media concentration may lead to a lack of diversity of sources of ideas and information. I wish to point to the conclusions of a prior commission of inquiry on this very topic, the Kent commission of 1980.

The Kent Commission felt that increasing print media concentration was a cause for concern as it might limit the dissemination of ideas and information.

It has been almost 20 years since the Kent Commission report. The Canadian information landscape has changed tremendously. The growth of broadcast media has been explosive. Canadians can now partake in an ever expanding universe of general interest and specialty channels, several of which are devoted exclusively to news, debates and editorials.

What also bears mention is the incredible communication potential of the Internet and the proliferation of so-called new media or multi-media services. In Canada the Internet is irrevocably on its way to becoming an integral part of every Canadian's life.

As Peter Desbarats, a member of the Kent Commission, recently mentioned, Canadians now benefit from a wide array of choices when they seek ideas and information.

Nevertheless, Canadians are concerned in some areas. Regardless of the vast array of choices that individuals have in accessing information on events throughout Canada and the world, the newspaper has come to symbolize freedom of expression and the exposure of facts.

Moreover, our newspapers have presented Canadians with a virtual buffet of analytical perspectives reflecting many different points of view. When one person or one company acquires many different newspapers across the country people might rightly ask: Are views being suppressed? Are the views of one perspective over-represented in the newspaper media?

An example can be seen in British Columbia where the owner of the News Group , Mr. David Black, recently told his editors of the 60 weekly newspapers to oppose the Nisga'a treaty and to run a series of eight columns against it. Black's action set a dangerous precedent of management interference. This strikes at the very heart of editorial interference.

We might also ask if local flavour gets sacrificed in favour of a cookie cutter approach from a large corporate super structure.

Should Canadians decide that they are not being well served by the change in ownership structure that we are currently witnessing, what can be done?

I believe that the key to this is to ensure that our information marketplace must be as free of barriers to entry as possible. In other words, we must continue to create a business climate that makes it possible and attractive for existing and potential competitors to provide Canadians with alternatives that they seek.

Maintaining a competitive marketplace is an important role for government and I look forward to working with my colleague from Waterloo—Wellington to make sure that we pursue the right policies to make it attractive for new and fresh perspectives to enter the business of providing information to Canadians.

I thank the member for Waterloo—Wellington for giving us the opportunity to have this debate today.

[Small Businesses, October 29th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, October 25 to 31 is Small Business Week in Canada. Small business represents one of our most important areas of economic activity. In fact small business is responsible for 43% of private sector output.

Small business is also a major job creator. More than 50% of private sector employment comes from small business. In the past year 430,000 new jobs have been created. Over 70% of these jobs were created by small business.

The federal government has an important role to play in supporting small business in Canada. Across the country we have set up Canada community investment plans, held local small business info fairs, opened one stop shop business service centres and supported projects under the industrial research assistance program.

These programs support the small business people and entrepreneurs who create economic growth and jobs in Canada. I salute them for their efforts.

[Industry, October 23rd, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, within its national vision and role, the National Research Council has become recognized as one of the leading advocates of new research facilities. Special programs and collaborations across this country have resulted in additional prime examples of NRC's work in the regions, such as the Biotechnology Research Institute's impact on the bio-pharmaceutical industry in Montreal, the Plant Biotechnology Institute in Saskatoon and the role of the Institute for Marine Dynamics in St. John's, Newfoundland, which have all had a positive effect on Canadians across Canada.

[Personal Information Protection And Electronic Documents Act, October 22nd, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I do not want the issue that the member for Kings—Hants brought forward on interprovincial trade to pass. I am not sure that he is aware that the co-chair of that committee is a member of his party, the premier of this province, and that Mr. Al Palladini is the co-chair. I agree with him 100%. The sooner those two gentlemen start working on interprovincial trade the better it is going to be for this country. But maybe he should have talked about it last weekend at his conference. I encourage him and I plead with him to discuss that with members of his party and to move on interprovincial trade.

On the other item, I want to say that the government has been working more and more in the maritime provinces and the member knows that. I visited many businesses and organizations in the Atlantic provinces this past summer in order to make sure that we get more examples like the one we have in Digby, Nova Scotia with the Maritrain group.

Electronic commerce can be anywhere in this country. Travel is very quick. Movement through the Internet is very fast. That is the advantage we are going to have in this country.

I just wanted to make sure that the member understood that issue with respect to interprovincial trade and I would hope that he would continue to encourage the members of his party to work on interprovincial trade.

[Personal Information Protection And Electronic Documents Act, October 22nd, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the member for Kings—Hants for his speech. I know he spends more time on the finance committee than the industry committee, but his fellow member for Markham is a valuable member on that committee, having had a lot of experience in the computer field.

I want to bring something to the member's attention. I am not sure whether he mentioned it or not, but the Minister of Industry has been very involved in leading in this area. In fact he took the leadership role at the recent OECD conference where they tried to set goal posts. It is important that we not set narrow goal posts. We must leave them in a wider arena and make continuous improvements.

I am sure the member realizes that the Maritrain group in Digby, Nova Scotia received a special contract with HRD in the area of e-commerce and the human resources field. I know the member is aware of the great facility in Aldershot, a $30 million investment in computer training and valuable tools for the Internet and future technology.

I would like the member to expand a bit more on the fact that when we talk about e-commerce, the Internet and computers there are no provincial or state borders. We must look at it in the global context and we must be leaders.

When we discuss this bill at the industry committee we should set aside partisan politics. We must have concern for our constituents, the people who are affected by privacy, and all of the stakeholder groups. I know that about 36 sectors have been mentioned already. Is it not more important to set those goal posts and then make continuous improvements in a non-partisan way for the good of the people of our country?

[Personal Information Protection And Electronic Documents Act, October 22nd, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I listened intently to the speech of the member from Lévis and the accolades between the two members of the Bloc. I am a little disappointed the member would say that the legislation was drafted in hurry and that there was not enough consultation.

The bill took into account the privacy bill that is now used in Quebec, which does not apply outside Quebec. Many stakeholders provided information in the development of the bill. It was patterned not only on the model of the bill in Quebec but on the Canadian Standards Association model code for the protection of personal information.

Many things were taken into account as the bill was being drafted, for example, accountability; identifying purpose; consent; limiting collection; limiting use, disclosure and retention; accuracy; safeguards; openness; individual access; and challenging compliance.

I do not know how we got on to MAI and all those other things that have nothing to do with the bill. One of the problems in the House is that we want to debate other things while we have a bill of substance before the House. Hopefully in the future we could find a better way to debate the intent of a bill in the House and not those other things.

The member from Lévis talked about not being able to have reviews and parliament not being part of them. I want to go over what the privacy commissioner's role will be. In addition to handling complaints, remedies and public information, an annual report will be brought to the House by the privacy commissioner. It already states, five years after the implementation of the bill, that the House will have an opportunity to review in full progress of the bill.

I know computers in this electronic age will change. Is the member from Lévis saying that the review of the annual report and the thorough review after five years are insufficient? I would ask him to speak to those two items rather than going all the way around the world.

[Personal Information Protection And Electronic Documents Act, October 19th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for Markham for his words on this bill. I know that in his previous life he was very much involved in computers and in the computer industry.

As we move forward on this bill some people have said that it is not enough. Some people have said it should do more as far as making rules and restrictions. Caution also has to come forward on Internet, rules and privacy. We do not want to stop innovation but we want to move in a certain direction.

The member mentioned there will be a lot of debate in the industry committee and by all colleagues in this House to make sure the bill has a balanced program and moves forward.

I would appreciate if the member for Markham could say a few words on moving forward and looking at future innovation. This is a global and we have to proceed with caution.

[Programs For Young People, October 8th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, on September 9 Volvo announced it was shutting down its vehicle assembly plant in Halifax on December 18, 1998.

The federal government is acutely aware of the importance of this plant to Halifax. On October 5 the Minister of Industry wrote to Volvo to express the disappointment and regret of the Government of Canada with its decision and the loss of the 223 jobs.

The closure is part of Volvo's worldwide restructuring strategy and the plant is not being moved to Mexico as the NDP questioner implies. Volvo has acquired a Mexican bus and coach manufacture which will be the primary business. I understand it will also produce a limited number of vehicles, around 1,000 for the local market.

Volvo's Halifax plant built vehicles for the Canadian market and never sold those vehicles in Mexico. Volvo's plans for Mexico are completely unrelated to the closing of the Halifax plant. Closing of the Volvo plant has absolutely nothing to do with Bill C-11 and obviously the member does not understand what is in C-11.

I wish to point out that the federal government has done its part by ensuring that the business climate in Canada is favourable and conducive to the continued prosperity of the automotive assembly industry. The fact is that Canada remains a very competitive location for vehicle manufacturing.

Volvo itself remains a major transportation company in Canada with $1.8 billion in annual sales and more than 4,600 employees across the country.

The Government of Canada will continue to work with the local organizations in the Halifax region, with Volvo and with the Canadian Auto Workers, CAW, to find a solution.

Mr. Walter Fitzgerald, the mayor of the Halifax Regional Municipality, has formed a task force which includes the province of Nova Scotia, the Greater Halifax Partnership group, the CAW, and the federal government through ACOA to explore alternative uses for the facility and to ensure that the port of Halifax is in Volvo's future transshipment plans in North America.

We will continue to support all stakeholders seeking a positive solution to this announced closure.