Lost his last election, in 2011, with 2% of the vote.
Canada Small Business Financing Act November 23rd, 1998
moved:
Motion No. 15
That Bill C-53, in Clause 19, be amended by replacing lines 15 to 19 on page 11 with the following:
“months after March 31, 2001 and every two years after that, cause to be made a comprehensive audit and review, reporting on the provisions and operation of this Act during the preceding two years.”
Canada Small Business Financing Act November 23rd, 1998
moved:
Motion No. 13
That Bill C-53, in Clause 17, be amended by replacing line 9 on page 11 with the following:
“Consolidated Revenue Fund and the aggregate of these amounts for any fiscal year is to be shown as a separate item in the Main Estimates that are tabled in Parliament for that fiscal year.”
Canada Small Business Financing Act November 23rd, 1998
moved:
Motion No. 12
That Bill C-53, in Clause 16, be amended
(a) by replacing line 38 on page 10 with the following:
“liable to a fine of not less than $500,000 or to”
(b) by replacing lines 42 and 43 on page 10 with the following:
“summary conviction and liable to a fine of not less than $50,000 or to imprisonment for”
Canada Small Business Financing Act November 23rd, 1998
moved:
Motion No. 9
That Bill C-53, in Clause 14, be amended by replacing line 22 on page 7 with the following:
“subject to subsections (2), (3) and (3.1), on the recommenda-”
Motion No. 10
That Bill C-53, in Clause 14, be amended by adding after line 19 on page 9 the following:
“(3.1) No regulation made under subsection (1) shall come into force unless and until it is affirmed by a resolution of both Houses of Parliament introduced and passed in accordance with the rules of those Houses.”
Canada Small Business Financing Act November 23rd, 1998
moved:
Motion No. 7
That Bill C-53 be amended by deleting Clause 13.
Canada Small Business Financing Act November 23rd, 1998
moved:
Motion No. 6
That Bill C-53, in Clause 8, be amended by replacing line 26 on page 5 with the following:
“(a) 50%, or any prescribed lesser percent-”
Motion No. 11
That Bill C-53, in Clause 15, be amended by replacing lines 20 to 22 on page 9 with the following:
“15. (1) The Minister will routinely conduct an audit or examination of the”
Canada Small Business Financing Act November 17th, 1998
moved:
Motion No. 2
That Bill C-53, in Clause 4, be amended by replacing line 26 on page 3 with the following:
“limits; and e ) the loan must not be in addition to other loans made under this Act to reasons related to the borrower for the operation of the same small business.”
Motion No. 3
That Bill C-53, in Clause 4, be amended by replacing line 33 on page 3 with the following:
“to the borrower does not exceed $100,000”
Canada Small Business Financing Act November 17th, 1998
Mr. Speaker, I was just asked what is wrong with that. I would like to explain what is wrong with that.
In September a constituent of mine called me and said “I work a 9 to 5 job. I make $30,000 a year. I have a wife and three kids. The fellow who lives down the street from me is on welfare and makes more money than I do. Explain that to me”. I said that first I would have to verify this and told him to send me his tax returns. I verified his income and his monthly take home pay after taxes. I checked with social services in Saskatchewan as to what an individual in the same circumstances would be making.
My constituent was not quite right. He is $220 a month better off than if he were living on welfare. But he has to drive to work every day. He has to put gas in his car. He has to maintain his car. Not only that, on social services a person has full medical benefits which are not available to ordinary working Canadians.
That is the point. This country's tax system is so repressive that people do not have a reason to go to work. They are better off to sit at home on welfare. It amazes me that the Liberals can sit over there and somehow justify that or think it is okay. Not only does the excessive taxation result in a situation where people do not even have the incentive to go to work any more, but it is affecting businesses.
I used the employment insurance fund as an example. Fully $5 billion a year is taken over and above the break-even point of the EI fund and dumped into government spending programs. That is what is wrong with those spending programs. The gentleman asked what was wrong with financing CBC and VIA Rail. In a utopian perfect world it would be great if we could finance a railway and have a wonderful state-run broadcaster. But in the reality of today's world, in the reality of the extremely high taxes that it takes to fund those types of things, the consequence is that we have tax system so repressive that people are better off to sit at home on welfare than they are to go to work.
That is what is wrong with those programs. That is what is wrong with a government that spends far too much money and involves itself in far too many programs in areas where it has no business being.
I get back to the small business financing act. If the Liberals would just downsize government, get their little fingers out of every program they want to devise and spend our tax dollars on, and cut taxes, we would not need a government program to cover up or try to be a solution for the problem created by their high tax regime. That is so simple yet they do not understand it.
The Reform Party would drastically downsize government. At the same time we would focus spending on areas that matter like health care and education. We would increase funding to those areas. We would substantially cut government spending so Canadians would pay less tax and would have reason to go to work because they would have a lot more take home pay. They would be able to finance their business enterprises much more effectively.
The problem is not access to more debt. This program purports to assist businesses in putting themselves further in debt. The problem is access to their own equity. The government is taking all the profit in the form of taxes. That is the problem.
The answer is not a government program that provides a taxpayer backed guarantee to businesses that cannot gain financing. The answer is to cut EI premiums to the break even point. The answer is to cut the size of government and to lower income taxes and capital gains taxes so there will be venture capital and businesses will have more equity. In turn they would have no problem financing their business ventures.
There is a fundamental principle that Liberals do not understand. A dollar left in the hands of an entrepreneur, a consumer, an investor or an ordinary Canadian citizen is far more productive than that same dollar being taxed out of their pockets and sent off to Ottawa to be administered by a bureaucrat, a lobbyist or a politician. That is a very simple fact but the Liberal government does not get it.
Maybe I do not give the Liberals enough credit; maybe they do get it. They are so wrapped up in their world in Ottawa, in their bureaucracy, in the big leviathan they have created that they have lost touch with reality. They do not address the true problems.
If that were not true, how could they possibly be contemplating raiding the employment insurance fund? That fund was paid into by workers and employers for the insurance of employment, but the Liberals cannot resist getting their greedy little hands on that money and diverting it to places where it does not belong and violates the law of the employment insurance fund. In order to do that they will have to change the law, and they will.
Canadians need to oppose that. Every working Canadian and every employer in Canada must understand they are being ripped off, that it is unfair and that it is harming them. It is harming the economy and it is harming business.
The motion is noble in the sense that it states the purpose of the act is to increase the availability of financing to small businesses. I agree with and support that statement, but the way to do it is not through yet another government program. The way is to get government out of people's lives, to downsize government and to cut taxes so businesses can truly have access to more of their equity and therefore to more financing. The answer is simple. I implore the Liberal government for once to open its eyes to that fact and to do what is right.
Canada Small Business Financing Act November 17th, 1998
Mr. Speaker, the official opposition is opposed to this motion but for reasons somewhat different than those of my hon. colleague from the Liberal Party.
Essentially the motion states that the purpose of the act is to increase the availability of financing to small business. That is a noble thing and something certainly we in the Reform Party would all like to see because we favour any measures that would assist small businesses.
The point is that this entire approach, an act, a government band-aid solution to a problem, is not the answer. Businesses have a problem in financing their enterprises right now, but the reason is not because of a lack of a government program or an inadequate government program. The reason is much deeper and more far reaching than that. It is because of government mismanagement of the entire economy in general, but specifically because of the high taxes individuals and businesses are subjected to.
For example, the employment insurance premiums are fully one-third over and above the break-even point of the EI fund. That places a great burden on businesses. The average Canadian worker pays $350 a year over and above the break-even point of the EI fund. The average employer pays $500. Per employee, per working Canadian, that is $850 over and above the break-even point of the EI fund. What does the government do with that money? It spends it on programs, useless, meaningless programs, I might add, grants and giveaways to special interest groups, subsidizing things like VIA Rail, CBC and on and on.
Petitions October 28th, 1998
Mr. Speaker, I have one petition to present today which calls upon parliament to review the mandate of the CRTC and direct the CRTC to administer a new policy which will encourage the licensing of single faith broadcasters.