Gurmant Grewal

[Criminal Code, October 7th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I give credit to the hon. member for the important question he has put forward. But it does not mean I necessarily agree with him in what he is saying.

Prevention is always good and prevention is better than a cure. We in this country are in a damage control mode as far as crime is concerned. We are not in a preventive mode.

The worst part is that I am surprised at how government members represent their constituents when they are not listening to them. All Canadians are demanding that our laws be tougher so that we can prevent crime.

Bills we see in this House do not have any teeth. The Canadian Police Association has demanded from this government DNA legislation so that it can solve more crimes and prevent more crimes from happening. But this government has not done that.

Our system is such that it is a motivation for the criminals to commit crime. It is not a deterrent to prevent crime.

In a newspaper article I read that there is rationing of gasoline in RCMP cars in my constituency. How can we control crime, how can we spend money and not get anywhere? This government is at fault.

[Criminal Code, October 7th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to rise on behalf of the official opposition and on behalf of the people of Surrey Central to address the contents of Bill C-51. The legislation proposes changes to the criminal law in the areas of gambling, homicide, child prostitution, conditional sentencing, organized crime, mineral claims, provisions regarding the use of computers in copying currency, and other matters too numerous to mention here.

I listened very carefully to Liberal members. I will dissect the bill to show them its anatomy. The Liberals are doing six things with the bill. Let us remember that number. I will go over those six things very soon.

Like so much legislation we have dealt with in this session since our return to the House in September, the government has chosen to do as little as possible in the bill. In Bill C-3 the Liberals tied the hands of law enforcement agencies by denying them full use of DNA identification technology. The Liberals ignored victims of crime and the safety and security of Canadians to ensure the rights of the accused would be protected. The Liberals care more about criminals than about victims.

Last week we saw Bill C-53 on fast track in the House. The bill was rammed through the House at first and second reading in four working days. The Liberals fail to address problems with the government's small business financing program. It is another failure.

In the process of doing very little in terms of what they should do and could not do to improve the small business loans program, the Liberals ignored the recommendations of the auditor general and 90,000 members of the Canadian Federation of Independent Business.

Bill C-35 is another example. Last week the government did not go far enough in amending the legislation governing anti-dumping and anti-subsidy tools applied to imported goods. The Liberals again ignored the interest of businesses and Canadian consumers that are downstream from an import duty or countervailing duty being imposed on an imported product.

Liberals could have granted the request made by our frontline police officers regarding the use of DNA identification to fight crime. Liberals could have helped small businesses prosper and create more jobs in the country. They could have simply provided for downstream businesses and consumers to be considered earlier in the process that would affect them.

In Bill C-51 the Liberals treat each of the six Criminal Code amendments in a very shallow manner. What they are proposing in the bill is very weak and indeed very meek.

The title of the bill mentions that it will amend the Criminal Code and the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act. Looking at the title, one would think this means the Liberals were to do something about drug related crime, drug gangs or other things.

The first issue the Liberals say they are addressing in Bill C-51 is illegal gambling. Can we imagine the dismay of my constituents and I when we realized that in terms of gambling solutions the government is doing only one thing. It is allowing international cruise ships to operate casinos while sailing in Canadian waters. That is all it is proposing in the bill.

There is no cleaning up of numbers games, bookies, illegal gambling rackets or underground black market racketeers. There is nothing of that sort. Canadians do not even take cruise ships because they cannot afford it. Canadians are so heavily taxed and our dollar is so low that they stay at home on their holidays. They cannot leave this country with a 65 cent dollar. They can only travel as far as their 10 year old cars can take them.

The Liberal government is not fooling anyone. In my constituency of Surrey the provincial government has approved slot machines and gambling and the local municipal government has not. There is a contradiction between both governments.

In Bill C-51 the federal government has moved toward legalizing some form of gambling. Something is wrong when various levels of government contradict themselves. Would it not be nice and progressive if all levels of government complement each other rather than contradict each other? Do the Liberals forget what synergy means? Do they want to make two plus two equal three or five?

The second effort in Bill C-51 is the homicide amendment. It does away with a 19th century law which says that in order for a murder to be considered a homicide the death of the victim must take place within a year plus a day of the incident which allegedly caused the death.

We had a death recently in my constituency of Surrey Central. Sandor Nyerges was a deaf and mute 80 year old veteran of two world wars. He was attacked in a botched robbery attempt in his home. This brave, strong and determined Canadian was a survivor. He lived in the hospital for several days before he succumbed to his injuries.

It is a good thing that the Liberals are finally doing away with this 19th century law. Not all victims die immediately and we should make room for that in our criminal law. Why did Canadians have to wait for a full century for this law to be changed?

The third thing the government is doing with the bill is allowing the use of wiretapping to solve the crime of living off the avails of child prostitution, keeping a common bawdy house and using underaged prostitutes. Also the bill makes it a crime to communicate with anyone for the purposes of obtaining or attempting to obtain the services I mentioned.

North America has a serious drug abuse problem. In the lower mainland of British Columbia this problem is well known. Injection drug use is on the rise and prevalent. It is the most dangerous and serious of the drug use categories. It causes people to become sick, reckless and desperate. It is good that Bill C-51 is helping the law enforcement community to deal with this problem.

The Liberals could have gone further. They could have taken the opportunity to increase the penalties for those convicted of these offences. However the Liberals are not getting tough on crime.

The fourth thing the government is doing is changing the conditional sentence portion of the law. This amendment will ensure that while a conditional sentence is being served, the clock is stopped immediately once a breach of the conditional sentence takes place. The clock starts ticking again once the breach of the conditions is dealt with and a new sentence commences.

It used to be that a court hearing regarding the alleged breach of the conditional sentence had to take place within 30 days of the alleged breach. Not anymore. Bill C-51 will make the requirement for a court hearing of a breach to be held as soon as practical. This will make our law less harsh in terms of dealing with breaches of conditional sentences.

The Liberals did not take the opportunity to prevent the application of conditional sentencing to violent offences. The government missed another opportunity today to get tough on crime.

The fifth area the bill deals with is organized crime. No more can a mobster be considered for parole after serving one sixteenth of the sentence. There is a big change. Canadians do not want anyone being released on parole after serving one sixteenth or even one third of the sentence they have been given by the court. We do not give sentences by square root. It does not mean five years. Twenty-five years means twenty-five years, but here we are talking one sixteenth.

Gangland figures are already given the full benefit of our generous system of day parole, full parole and statutory release. The Liberals are leaving Canadians with a penal system designed to process criminals as fast as possible. The Liberals return the criminals to the streets as soon as possible so that they are not taking up space or time in our penal institutions.

Canadians know the Liberals are allowing minimal if any concern to be given to the possibility that the offender will commit more crimes or more offences.

The Liberals are more concerned about the rights of criminals and they are less concerned about the rights of victims and the safety of Canadian society.

The Liberal government should not be concerned about the rehabilitation of the criminal. It should be concerned about the criminal committing further crimes. Instead, the government is concentrating on aspects of how early a person convicted of a crime can be released. Again the Liberals are not getting tough on crime.

In the sixth category of changes this bill proposes, we have the catch-all category and the Liberals are going to do a number of housekeeping things. For example, Bill C-51 proposes to put a stop to using computers to copy currency. That looks good but in this category there are other measures but my time will not permit me to go into them.

In five of the six categories I have mentioned, the governing party in the House has disappointed us and let us down again. The Liberals are not taking concrete measures to protect Canadians, make our homes and streets safe and reduce crime through deterrence measures. Gambling, drugs, prostitution, organized crime, gangs and even homicide are a sad and threatening part of our culture.

Last week the British Columbian attorney general stated that our law enforcement agencies are losing the war against organized crime, gangs, drugs, prostitution, et cetera.

Most of us wish we did not have to deal with these things. Yet again, we want to deal effectively with the perpetrators of these crimes and reduce their harmful effects on innocent victims.

Speaking in terms of government and society, we can see that all over the world different governments approve of different things for their societies.

Some governments permit liberal use of dangerous drugs like heroin. In some societies prostitution is legal. Sometimes the results are very bad and harmful in those societies and sometimes not, as hard as that is to believe. For example, in some societies gambling is allowed.

The problem we encountered with these activities was that very often where one activity is treated as a crime it is often linked to other vices. In the same geographical area where gambling is legal they may have problems with organized crime and prostitution. Through education and prevention we can improve the way our society handles these vices. Our government should be proactive and not just reactive.

My colleague from Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca had the House pass a motion supporting a national head start program for our youth. The goal was to care for each child and ensure that the needs of each child are met. This would help our children to lead crime free, healthy and prosperous lives.

The people of Surrey Central want our federal government to exercise a leadership role in terms of getting tough on crime. The Liberals have not done so with Bill C-51 which we are debating in the House.

On this side of the House we hope the Liberals will want to strengthen Bill C-51 along the lines that I have been talking about at the committee stage and the bill's progress through this House.

Having said all these things, I will not be supporting Bill C-51 in the House.

[The Late Leonard Jones, October 6th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the Reform Party of Canada and Her Majesty's Official Opposition I rise to pay tribute to Mr. Leonard Jones.

Mr. Jones, a World War II veteran, lawyer and former mayor of Moncton, served as Canada's first elected independent member of parliament from 1974 to 1979. He will always be remembered as a man who stood by his convictions and who never shied away from confrontation. He was another Canadian who bravely battled cancer.

I have learned that his great passions were law and politics. He was a formidable opponent in the courtroom. Mr. Jones was Moncton's longest serving mayor. He was first elected as a councillor in 1957 and only lost one election in his political career that spanned more than two decades. Mr. Jones supported Moncton's head start program for children. He is survived by his wife and long time law partner, his daughter and his sister.

On behalf of all Reform Party members of parliament I extend Mr. Jones' family our very sincere condolences. Mr. Jones will be missed by all who had the privilege of knowing him.

[Supply, October 5th, 1998]

Madam Speaker, the question speaks for itself as to how the Liberal Party understands the important issues in the House.

The transfer payments to the provinces were cut by the huge amount of 23% which is more than $6 billion. It affects health care and education in our provinces. The provincial governments and the municipal governments are under pressure.

I invite the hon. member to come to my constituency and talk to the people who are not offered emergency services. How long is the waiting period? How many hospital beds are closing? I ask the member to wake up and listen to Canadians to understand the situation in the country.

The member talked about balancing the budget and eliminating the deficit. Anyone can balance the budget. They could have balanced the budget 29 years ago if it was to be balanced on the backs of the Canadian taxpayers. We are paying 28% higher taxes than the average of the G-8 countries. We are paying higher taxes than the Americans south of the border. Look at the effect on the Canadian dollar. The Canadian dollar is diving. The hon. member needs to understand all these things before he asks that kind of question.

[Supply, October 5th, 1998]

Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. member for the wonderful question.

The new Canada act is a draft. It is there for public consultation. It is so good that everyone is embracing it and we are getting very positive responses from every corner in the country.

On the other hand the remarks of the Prime Minister who is supposed to lead this country are very arrogant. Can anyone believe the Prime Minister of Canada making these remarks when he says that if the premiers do not want to take what he is offering, they take nothing. I do not expect that from the Prime Minister of Canada. Probably the prime minister of Indonesia could make that kind of comment. It is very arrogant and is not acceptable in our society.

The new Canada Act which we introduced in the early part of this year is working and we are getting responses from every corner. I am sure that the other parties are getting these ideas and I am very happy and proud that they are learning from the Reform Party.

[Supply, October 5th, 1998]

Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my time in this pressing debate with the hon. member for Edmonton—Strathcona.

I rise on behalf of the people of Surrey Central to address the motion of the Bloc Quebecois. Briefly the motion talks about the House recognizing the disastrous impact federal cuts to social transfer payments have had, particularly on health services in Canada, and that the House support the consensus reached by the provincial ministers in Saskatoon on the social union project.

The four principles mentioned in the motion are: to reinstate federal health transfers, to require support of the majority of provinces for new federal initiatives, to provide an opt out option for the provinces, and to provide new mechanisms of co-operation to avoid conflict.

Last week federal-provincial discussions took place to change the way social programs are developed and delivered. Our new Canada act introduced these concepts earlier this year. This indicates that the federal government and the provincial governments are somehow getting their ideas from the official opposition.

The new Canada act unveiled by the official opposition in May 1998 is a proposed blueprint for building a stronger federation in the 21st century. That act incorporates some of the Reform Party's best ideas on strengthening the federation and puts them into a new legislative format. It works on two of the main founding principles of the Reform Party of Canada: reform of the federation and democratic accountability.

The new Canada act outlines how our federation can be transformed into a true partnership between the provinces and the federal government. It balances existing powers, strengthening the federal and provincial governments in several key areas.

The present Liberal government has shown no leadership on one of the most important issues facing the country. When it comes to strengthening our federation, the Liberals have been unable to reach beyond the status quo. Our leader has said that it is our duty as the official opposition to fill this leadership vacuum.

The social union discussion on the weekend was the first where Quebec was a participant and not just an observer. It makes me proud that the new Canada act introduced by our worthy leader with a true vision of Canada is an alternative that federalists as well as separatists will embrace. Therefore I will be voting to support this motion.

I remind the House that the Liberal government has been making massive cuts to transfer payments to the provinces, amounting to about $6 billion or 23%. This has completely destabilized the social safety net. As a result it has placed greater pressure on provincial governments. It has forced cuts in hospitals, medical staff and pharmacare programs. All the while the Prime Minister and the finance minister, the prime minister wannabe, shed crocodile tears and pose as the champions of medicare. Our health care is suffering. Just yesterday the old Calgary General Hospital building was demolished.

Cuts to health care by this Liberal government have affected the delivery of health services in Surrey Memorial Hospital in my constituency. Patients have even died due to lack of adequate equipment and services. All schools, hospitals and medical or health care facilities across Canada have been hurt by the government's efforts to balance the federal budget.

The Liberals have not reduced or eliminated waste and duplication in government spending. Immediately upon balancing the federal budget, the government announced new spending initiatives.

It is important to emphasize that the Liberals balanced the budget by raising taxes. They did it on the backs of Canadian taxpayers. They did it by giving Canadians the highest tax burden in the G-7 countries. Nothing is sacred. The Liberal finance minister is eagerly and desperately searching for a way to take and spend the $20 billion employment insurance surplus. I warn the Liberals that Canadians will not stand for that.

Surrey Memorial Hospital is supposed to be providing hospital services for our community. Many people in Surrey Central tell me about the long waiting time, sometimes one to five hours, in the emergency ward. The situation is so bad that many of the people I talk to say they will go to a hospital in Vancouver if they need emergency medical attention.

Surrey is probably the fastest growing city in Canada. Our hospital services have not kept pace with our growth but the cold-hearted finance minister, the legal-talking lawyer health minister and the know nothing Prime Minister do not care about that.

We do not have a health care system in Canada. We have a sickness care system. The system does not help you stay healthy or get healthy; the system only serves you if you are already sick.

Turning to the question of the House supporting the consensus on a social union project reached by the provincial ministers in Saskatoon, we know that the only stumbling block to support for the project is the Prime Minister. The provinces want to limit the federal government's power to launch new programs in areas of provincial jurisdiction, such as health and education, without their support. They want better collaboration in launching new social programs and rules established in the event that collaboration fails.

This desire to establish rules is magnified because of concerns about remarks made by our Prime Minister last month. His willingness to give up some control over social programs was not made clear. His remarks in an interview claimed that “if the premiers do not want to take what I am offering, they take nothing”. This is completely unacceptable. The Prime Minister prefers fighting the old battles and maintaining divisions rather than bringing people together. No one is free to disagree with the Prime Minister. If you do, you will get fired or pepper sprayed.

Reinstating federal health transfers has been a Reform Party policy for at least as long as the Liberals have been cutting the transfers. In our fresh start platform we promised $4 billion more for health and education. We would have gone through our federal government's expenditures department by department, program by program, and if necessary, desk by desk to reduce and eliminate wasteful spending and duplication of work. On the contrary, Liberals preferred to fund the old pork barrel programs and sometimes invent new ones like the millennium scholarship fund. As the government we could find taxpayers' money to redirect to health and education.

Again, requiring the support of the majority of the provinces before starting new federal initiatives that are under provincial jurisdiction is a proposal found in the new Canada Act. Why would we want our federal government to implement a program that six of the provinces did not want? The new Canada Act calls for the federal government to have the support of seven provinces and 50% of the population before foisting a program on all of us and forcing taxpayers to finance it.

The Bloc motion also asks the House to support providing an opt out option for provinces with full compensation from new or modified federal social programs in the provinces' jurisdiction when that province offers a program or initiates a project in the same field of activity. The new Canada Act that the Reform Party is promoting offers an unconditional opt out clause.

The Bloc asks us to support providing new mechanisms of co-operation to avoid conflicts to deal with them fairly. No room for pepper spray here. I presume the Prime Minister will not be able to support this one. This is a well-known legal tool used to reduce levels of conflict. The goal is to replace the adversarial system of conflict and dispute resolution with a more co-operative system. Arbitration can protect both sides in a dispute.

I will be happy to support this motion. As hon. members know, the Liberals have been sneakily recycling our ideas and the other opposition parties have been learning from us as well. Now the Bloc has shown some interest in us.

I am proud of my leader and Canadians will be proud when he is the next Prime Minister of Canada.

[Taxation, October 2nd, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, small businesses create more than 85% of jobs in Canada. The Canadian Federation of Independent Business, with 90,000 members, says that the number one thing this government can do to create more jobs is to lower payroll taxes like EI and CPP.

Either we believe this taxman or small business. Either the money is better spent by this taxman or by businesses, workers and their families.

Why would anyone take his word over the word of small business?

[Canada Post, October 2nd, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, Canada Post franchise holders across Canada want the government to stop the negative impact of Canada Post's proposed changes to the operation of postal outlets.

The Canada Post chairman has agreed to review this matter to ensure franchise owners are not forced to operate at a loss. Many businesses will be badly hurt and the government should step in.

A very short timeline has been set for these businesses to finally have their evidence heard on the negative effect of the changes. Up to now there has not been adequate representation of franchisee concerns.

Feedback on the proposal was not accurate. The consultation process leading up to the implementation date of the changes was not sufficient. The Liberals should take immediate action to save these businesses and these jobs.

The government must act today and save these 1,700 businesses. Do not make them operate at a loss.

[Canada Small Business Financing Act, September 28th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for his question. He has been frank because he does not know or probably is not up to date on how many recommendations from the auditor general's report have been incorporated into the new act.

When we debated Bill C-21 we had concerns and we mentioned them. The auditor general has a full chapter on this, chapter 29, and he has included all the details. I had a long list of the changes which are expected to be made in this bill so that this bill can be effective.

We will support this bill once it is effective. It will be a good bill provided these changes are introduced which are not introduced at this time. Who would not support modernization and improvement to small businesses? Who would not support increasing the availability of financing for small businesses for their expansion? We will, but only when this whole program is effective.

The system is abused. The banks are using all kinds of practices to abuse the system. It is not the small businessman who is taking advantage of the system. There are many examples that can be put together.

This bill needs a lot of amendments. The whole small business loans program, introduced in 1961, has not been renovated.

Once the changes I mentioned in the conclusion of my speech are incorporated, we will be more than happy to support this bill. Until then, we ask the government to take this opportunity, take the free advice from the official opposition and include it in the bill so that it affects small businesses.

We want small businesses to progress in this country because they are the ones creating jobs. Let us create the tools. Industry Canada has the opportunity to have those tools in its hands and to give those tools to small businesses to take advantage of.

[Canada Small Business Financing Act, September 28th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on behalf of the people of Surrey Central who oppose Liberal government Bill C-53, an act to increase the availability of financing for the establishment, expansion and improvement of small businesses in Canada.

The lofty claims of the title of the bill as we shall see are not accurate. The contents of Bill C-53 do not live up to the claims in the title of the bill. It looks on the surface very good, yet it needs improvements and we need to modernize the act.

Canadian taxpayers, Canadians without jobs and Canadian small businesses are disappointed with Bill C-53 that we are debating today. On this side of the House we wish the government would introduce legislation that would be of assistance to Canadian small and medium size businesses. The official opposition would support modernization of the small business loans program and would like to support the improvements in financing for small businesses, but what the Liberals are proposing is not good enough. No one is fooled by Bill C-53. The Liberals are ignoring small business.

Earlier we debated Bill C-21 to extend the Small Business Loans Act to March 1999 and to raise the government's total liability to $15 billion. The official opposition opposed it because the government was failing to address the real issues.

The government does not listen to the official opposition or the other opposition parties, to small businesses, to the Canadian Federation of Independent Business or to the auditor general. In terms of the Small Business Loans Act the auditor general has some concerns.

For example, I would like to address some of the main concerns the auditor general has cited in his report. There is a need to define the results expected from the SBLA program. We need to ensure that it is designed to maximize its impact. The department needs to clarify expectations and to develop indicators of the program performance in establishing, expanding, modernizing and improving small businesses. What is needed is a performance evaluation framework to ensure the program is achieving its intended results.

There is a need to strengthen SBLA program management and delivery mechanisms. Incrementally, it is also critical for the purpose of this program that lending should be additional to lending that would have occurred anyway and not merely replace it. The latest study indicates that only 54% of loans, particularly to newly created enterprises, could be considered incremental. It is important for Industry Canada to define the levels of incrementality it expects for these loans.

The department should provide parliament with better information to assess whether the program is achieving its objectives. For example, the auditor general estimated that the program will incur a net loss of $210 million for loans issued between April 1993 and March 1995. This compares with a surplus of $72 million reported for those years on a cash basis. The difference occurs because the department does not include a provision for loan losses in its annual report.

In the last two years, Industry Canada has placed considerable emphasis on moving the program toward full cost recovery. Under the present fee structure and loss sharing ratio, it is uncertain whether full cost recovery will be achieved. The department should carefully study the extent to which the objective of increasing the availability of loans at reasonable rates can be achieved simultaneously with the objective of full cost recovery.

The government does not listen to the opposition parties, nor to the small businessmen, nor to the auditor general.

The department needs better tools to properly forecast future loan losses and monitor any changes in its loan guarantee portfolio. For example, the auditor general finds that the files did not show information on thorough credit risk analysis. In some instances, lenders had charged administration fees for granting loans, contrary to the act. Also, related borrowers were found to have obtained numerous loans whose total exceeded the $250,000 loan limit to operate the same business.

These practices are contrary to the intent of the act which we are debating today. Currently there are no provisions under the SBLA to prevent this particular abuse.

The Canadian Federation of Independent Business would remind the government to stick to its knitting with respect to this program. It says that working capital needs should not come under SBLA because it could ruin the entire program. The government should test a program on its own merits and see whether it works because lending for working capital purposes is a different game altogether.

We worry about the long term sustainability of the SBLA program. Every conceivable need cannot be put under the umbrella of the SBLA.

The government must reject the suggestion that the only way the banks will lend to a small business is under a credit guarantee scheme. SBLA in no way is to be used by the banks as their response to the broad financing problems experienced by the majority of small firms in Canada. The objective of SBLA is to ensure the sustainability of this program and keep it effective and relevant.

The present SBLA loan size threshold is $250,000. There should not be any increase in the threshold because the average loan size is well under $100,000 for small businesses. If the limit is increased, it will create problems related to larger firms trying to beat the system. They will abuse the system.

Similarly, the sales volume threshold is set too high. According to the CFIB only 7% of firms are larger than $5 million and 18% of firms are larger than $4.2 million. Statistics Canada numbers indicate much the same. Loans of this size are beyond the fundamental intent of this program.

The SBLA application forms also must be transparent. Loan officers should fully explain the opportunities and the costs of this form of financing. Many loan applicants do not know what they are receiving. They do not know they are receiving money under a government guaranteed program for which they are paying the premium.

In the past the method of assessing the program has been a weakness. Tighter monitoring and program evaluation is a must. For those issues that are fundamental to the program, for instance, structural changes to the program such as lenders permitted, loan thresholds, qualifying loan recipients, et cetera, these should be dealt with under this legislation, not regulation, in order to ensure accountability and transparency under the program.

It is important to differentiate between loans under the SBLA and normal bank loans. Solutions practical to small firms must be pursued with more vigour. Better solutions to the equity issue for small firms will do much to build not only the financial health of the firm but also its ability to grow and contribute to the economy in terms of jobs and wealth creation. The outcome would be less reliance on government subsidized credit guarantee programs such as the SBLA. Government should use instruments of fiscal policy to resolve the equity gaps for small firms.

The legislation governing the program has remained unchanged since 1961 with respect to the types of assets eligible for financing. It needs to be reviewed and will need to continue to be reviewed as our economy becomes more complex. For example, the service sector and the knowledge sector are expanding and create significant numbers of new jobs. The Small Business Loans Act needs to take into account the needs of these sectors. At present the SBLA is not considering these needs.

Financial institutions are coming up with new services and new products. Are these institutions able to take full advantage of the SBLA? Are the Liberals investigating the financial, service and knowledge sectors of our economy in order to ensure that small businesses in these sectors are receiving the assistance they need to develop, to compete internationally and to create jobs at home for Canadians? The answer is no. By introducing Bill C-53, the Liberals are not concerned. They are not looking to the future.

For about 10 years the CFIB has been fighting the changes the Liberals are going to make with this bill. Before the Liberals came to power, the Tories were trying to increase the financing along the same lines as the Liberals are finally doing with this bill without cleaning up the operations of the act.

The CFIB has been saying that if the current abuses of the Small Business Loans Act were curbed and if the parameters of the program were restricted, this program would require less of an allocation of funds while being effective in meeting the program's objectives. The Liberals are not addressing these issues in Bill C-53.

The thresholds for financing are too high. The legislation defines small businesses as those firms that have up to $5 million in sales. That is not a small business. That is a medium business.

The 1998 CFIB presentation is remarkably similar to its 1993 letter to the prime minister. In other words the CFIB has been asking for these changes for five years. What does the minister responsible for small business give us? Bill C-53 indicates only the amount of money that Canadians can lose on small businesses that fail.

If the size of the loan and the size of the annual sales of the business were reduced, we would have a system that serves small businesses. We would also have a system with a drastically reduced rate of abuse.

Small businesses create jobs. It is not the government that creates jobs.

Why should Canadian taxpayers support the increase in the amount of money taxpayers are on the hook for if the program is flawed and we are not fixing the program?

This is the same government that gives big businesses big subsidies. The Liberals have just given Bombardier a $25 million interest free loan. Do the Liberals give interest free loans to small businesses? No. Canadians know they do not. The Liberals are also giving big corporations sole source contracts, for example a $2.85 billion sole source NATO contract.

The Reform Party is not in accord with the Liberal government but is in accord with successful business. We will continue to push for transparency in government. It is not enough for the government to say that the loans are fully repayable on commercial terms. At the heart of it, we want to see it as a payment so that taxpayers can be confident that arrangements can be made. We will welcome Bombardier's help in pushing the government to implement a reporting regime that would protect both the company's competitive position as well as allow public scrutiny of the grant program.

Canadians know the abuses in the small business loans program. We know that the parameters of the program need to be constricted. We know that a lot of work needs to get done so that financing is available to small businesses in our country. Helping our small businesses access financing is one of the most important things we can do for job creation in the country.

The Liberals are tinkering with the small business loans program. The Liberals do not see the need to improve the program. There is a need because if the problems of the program were addressed, there would be more financing for small businesses.

Small businesses face a high tax burden. The government has placed tax increase after tax increase on Canadian businesses and individuals. We must not forget that individuals own small businesses.

Payroll taxes, including the CPP and EI premiums, and the GST are killing jobs in Canada. The personal and retail tax rates are killing small business owners.

The Liberals are doing nothing about the underlying economic problems small businesses face. The Liberals by ignoring these issues are killing job creation. I want to find out from my colleagues, where are those jobs which they promised?

The Liberals are failing us in this regard. They are not taking advantage of the opportunity Bill C-53 offers to create jobs. They are not even doing what the CFIB has been asking them to do for the last 10 years. The CFIB represents 90,000 businesses across Canada from virtually every sector of our economy.

We can see the long laundry list of problems and areas that need to be improved in the operation of the small business loans program which the CFIB presented to the Standing Senate Committee on Banking, Trade and Commerce in July 1998. The CFIB's presentation to the committee refers to the CFIB's 1993 letter to the Tory minister responsible for small business. The department should look into and correct various elements of the act such as capital leasing and delivery mechanism. Lack of working capital is not covered in this bill. The department needs better tools to monitor the loan program. The department needs better forecasting techniques. The department is not reviewing risk analysis in this bill. Loans made to related parties and charging of administration fees are not reviewed. Related articles in the Income Tax Act need to be fixed so that this bill can be effective. The financial information presented to parliament is not enough, following a cash basis versus accrual system.

There is no provision for losses on outstanding balances in this Small Business Loans Act which is $6 billion. The borrower is not guaranteed but the bank is guaranteed for its bad decisions. Thus the objective is to promote the small businessman and not the small business. The job creation record is very bad. The displacement effect is negative. Job creation figures under SBLA have been inflated by this government as much as five times. Industry Canada does not do an audit of an account until a file becomes a claim file. A complete cost benefit analysis has never been done.

The list is long but my time is up. I urge Industry Canada to look into these conditions so that we can improve and make this program effective. Therefore we cannot support this bill.