John Herron

[Environment, April 24th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance.

This government has not learned from its make it up as you go strategy for Kyoto and climate change. The environment minister announced that a key component of her post Kyoto strategy would be rewarding industries for early action.

Why did the government fail to provide a tangible sign that it was serious when it tabled its budget in February? We saw no serious tax incentives for research and development on energy efficiency and renewable sources of energy. The government spoke about the need for early action. Canadians would be happy with any action from the government.

[Income Tax Amendments Act, 1997, March 23rd, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I have a couple of brief comments I would like to add on to the issues the hon. member for Calgary Southeast just touched on.

I want to touch on a few points that were brought forward by the member for Calgary Southeast because I think they are very prudent points.

A lot of the discussion that has been going on today and over the course of the weekend at the Liberal national convention surrounded the issue of health care. Under the current mechanism where the government has raised the ceiling for health care from $11 billion to $12.5 billion one would think that was actually trying to inject more money back into one of our true priority areas, that being health care.

But in my province of New Brunswick over the next few years the transfer payments with respect to the CHST will actually plummet from $322 million down to $311 million. Health care is going to be cut in the province of New Brunswick.

I challenge the government. If it seriously wants to make health care a priority under the mechanism for the funding of health care, not only should three provinces have increased funding under the CHST—those being British Columbia, Alberta and Ontario—but the other provinces should have increased funding as well. I am speaking on behalf of my home province of New Brunswick.

I am making this point in a very constructive fashion. When the government revisits the issue in terms of what its true priority areas are it should revisit the amount of money being allocated toward some of the smaller provinces, including New Brunswick, to ensure that we have more money for health care and not less.

[National Defence Act, March 19th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to speak to this bill today. The government has decided to address the issue of justice in the Canadian forces and we believe it is about time.

Addressing the issue of justice in the military is both important and urgent. My party understands that if we are to do something, we might as well do it right. Unfortunately, while there are some interesting points in the bill, it does not address the real problems faced by the Canadian forces today.

There are several questions which we must ask ourselves. What events brought us to the point to have this bill read in Canada's House of Commons? Did the government act in an appropriate way and does the bill address the need for change? If passed, will the bill work in a practical way when it is applied?

While all these questions are connected, it would serve us well to take the time to ensure that they are answered to the satisfaction of Canadians.

The first question is perhaps the most important. The key for this bill is what events brought us to this point.

I believe all members of the House are aware of the events which transpired as a result of other events in Somalia. However, they are worth repeating and repeating.

The Somalia inquiry was shut down for political and personal reasons last year. That brings us here today. Inquiry commissions are created because there is a public concern which needs to be addressed. As elected officials of this House it is incumbent on all of us to take such matters very seriously. It seems to me that if there is a good enough reason to begin an inquiry, then there is a good reason to complete it.

I would like to quickly outline what was the cost, in real terms, of prematurely shutting down the Somalia commission.

Robert Fowler, then deputy minister of national defence, now Canada's ambassador to the United Nations, said that on March 19, 1993 he told defence minister Kim Campbell's acting chief of staff, Richard Claire, that Somalia teenager Shidane Arone had died three days earlier as a result of foul play at the hands of Canadians.

Richard Claire, then acting chief of staff to minister of defence Kim Campbell, said he did discuss the death with Fowler and Vice-Admiral Larry Murray, then vice-chief of defence staff on March 19, but nobody mentioned foul play. He said at that time the death was still a mystery to him.

The Right Hon. Kim Campbell, then minister of defence, said that she was aware that there was an investigation going on from March 17. She knew this because she received a briefing note on that day. In that briefing note the death of the Somali was listed as perplexing and that Canadian forces had acted appropriately.

The Right Hon. Kim Campbell also knew from the same briefing book that Corporal Marchi had tried to kill himself because “he had roughed him up”, meaning Shidane Arone, “the truth was that he beat him to death”. It was not until March 30, 11 days later, that Kim Campbell learned that there was an investigation into the death.

Because the Somali inquiry was cut short, this has never been resolved. The result is that Canada's fine military has been dragged through the mud and still there is no resolution. The result is that Canadians have less faith in their public servants as Robert Fowler remains Canada's ambassador to the United Nations and Larry Murray has just been appointed assistant deputy minister in the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, and still there is no resolution.

The result is that Canadians do not know the true story and still there is no resolution. That is why we are here today. We are not here because the government all of a sudden cares about justice in the military but because the government made a mistake and it knows it made a mistake and now it wants to hide that mistake as best as possible.

That brings me to the second point that I outlined earlier. Did the government act in an appropriate way and does the bill address the need for change? I would like to refer to the words of one of Canada's most respected sons, Chief Justice Brian Dickson. In a speech given in November, 1997 Chief Justice Dickson said: “Something is drastically wrong when the public feels that its military is incompetent and led by an inept if not corrupt hierarchy”.

I do not bring up Chief Justice Dickson for no reason. In fact, Chief Justice Dickson is an important player in the making of the bill because much of what is in the bill stems from the recommendations made to the minister of defence in March, 1997 by a special advisory group chaired by Chief Justice Dickson. It is worth repeating the words of Chief Justice Dickson: “Something is drastically wrong when the public feels that its military is incompetent and led by an inept if not corrupt hierarchy”.

My party agrees with Chief Justice Dickson. There is something drastically wrong. Does the bill address the need for change? I just told the House I disagree with the way the bill arrived here. However, there is much in the bill that my party agrees with. The problem, however, is that when one tries to cover up something rather than address the real issues, as this government so often does, the result is very often inadequate.

Similarly, because the government is introducing the bill for the wrong reasons, it does not go far enough in addressing the real problems. Indeed the government missed an excellent opportunity to instil new confidence in the military. The government could have taken measures that would have truly made a difference, measures the Canadian public could point to and say “my government listened and I now have faith in the way the military operates”. The government did not listen. Instead it shut down an inquiry and stifled debate and now the Canadian public will feel cheated, and justifiably so.

The government feels proud when it says that it is fulfilling 80% of the recommendations of the Somalia inquiry. I want to make two points about this not so great accomplishment. First, the Somalia inquiry was cut short and so we do not know what the full recommendations would have been. Second, while the government thinks 80% is something to brag about, my party's answer to that is quality is far more important than mere quantity.

The Somalia inquiry commissioners recommended that the judge advocate general be a civilian. The government ignored this recommendation. The Somalia inquiry commissioners recommended that the office of the inspector general be created. The government ignored that recommendation as well.

My party proposed in our election platform last year and we maintain today that creating the office of an inspector general would be the best way to make the military both accountable and increase transparency to give the public more confidence in its armed forces.

We proposed in our platform let the future begin: “Establishing an inspector general for the armed forces to act as an ombudsman to address concerns which cannot be dealt with in a routine chain of command”.

In the government's response to the Somalia inquiry, a document that for one reason or another my party has not yet figured out, called “A Commitment to Change” the government turns down the proposed inspector general. In “A Commitment to Change” the government states that the commissioners themselves are confused and that introducing an inspector general of the kind that they envisioned would demand the very sort of counter-expert body the commissioners consider inappropriate in chapter 44 of the Somalia report.

My party has looked very closely at chapter 44 of the Somalia report and found one thing has nothing to do with the other. Chapter 44 is entitled “The Need for a Vigilant Parliament”. The chapter does not speak about the office of the inspector general but rather how to better inform Canadian parliamentarians.

In chapter 16 of “A Commitment to Change” the government misleads Canadians into believing the Somalia commissioners asked for an inspector general and then said in chapter 44 an inspector general was not needed. That is not the case, and the minister and the government know this very well.

If that was not clear enough, my colleague for Compton—Stanstead put forward a motion on November 29, 1997 at the defence and veterans affairs committee because he knew it was very important to clarify this precise issue.

I would like to read the motion that my colleague presented at that time: “That the committee invite the three Somalia commissioners to appear before this committee to speak on chapter 44 of the Somalia report, `The Need for a Vigilant Parliament”'.

I am sad to say this motion for the need for a vigilant Parliament was turned down. This is shameful behaviour on the part of this government. It ends an inquiry and misleads Canadians in its response to the inquiry. When the defence committee wants to have things clarified, as is its right, the motion is turned down.

This government does not want a vigilant Parliament because if Parliament were too vigilant this government might not get away with all its schemes. Is this why 80% of the recommendations of the Somalia inquiry do not include the recommendation for a detailed annual report to Parliament? Instead of listening to the recommendations made by the Somalia commissioners this government chose to follow the advice given by the Dickson special advisory group. What my party cannot accept is the way this government picks and chooses what recommendations to follow.

The government might want an example and this might surprise it. Recommendation 35 of the Dickson report, which has not made its way into this bill, calls for “an independent office of complaint review and system oversight such as a military ombudsman be established within the Canadian forces and that it report directly to the Minister of National Defence”.

The Somalia commissioners call it an inspector general. The Dickson report calls it an ombudsman. My party calls it an inspector general to act as an ombudsman. And still this government does not act. In the words of the Minister of Defence, the military does not need someone looking over its shoulder.

Why is this minister convinced that the Department of National Defence does not need an independent inspector general when experts who have studied for months and made recommendations to his department tell him he does need an inspector general?

Before I move on to my final points I want to tell this House about another recommendation made by the Somalia commissioners that did not make it into the government's 80%: “That the National Defence Act be amended to provide clearly that any individual in the Canadian forces or any civilian can lay a complaint with the military police without fear of reprisal and without having first to raise the complaint with the chain of command”.

This recommendation does not appear in the bill before us today because in “A Commitment to Change” it is written plainly this recommendation is not accepted.

If passed, will this bill work in a practical way? My party will ensure during the committee stage of this bill that we invite witnesses who can enlighten the committee. I hope the government does not interfere with this process.

It is my understanding that my colleague from Compton—Stanstead will put forward motions to invite the Somalia commissioners. They are experts and they have something to add to this bill. He will also want to hear from those who worked closely on the Dickson special advisory group. But that is not all. It will be important to hear from the Americans, the British, the French and other like-minded nations on the operation and success of their military justice systems. It will also be important to hear from the stakeholders, namely members of the Canadian forces.

This bill addresses the issue of military summary trials, that is, trials run by military officers with no legal training.

When being briefed by the Department of National Defence on this bill, my party asked what sort of training company commanders were given. The answer that there was no formal training astounded us. Although Chief Justice Dickson recommends a certification process that allows officers to hold summary trials, the issue is not addressed in this bill.

Through my colleague, my party will argue that this bill should go further to create real change. We want the public to know the military serves them and not itself. I hope the government takes my party's suggestions seriously.

[The Environment, March 19th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, if the minister is serious about inspections, she might want to listen to this point.

On February 26 one of the minister's officials stated when referencing what happens to a CEPA regulation in Ontario, “If we do not have the resources, then it basically sits in a file until an investigator is freed up, and if an investigator is not freed up over a period of a year or two years, then the file just gets closed”.

Canadians want to know how many broken environmental regulations end up in a file that gets closed.

Why does the minister even bother having environmental regulations if she does not intend on having anyone to enforce them?

[The Environment, March 19th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of the Environment.

Last week the minister reintroduced the Canadian Environmental Protection Act and stated in the House that her department had sufficient resources to deal with every element of the Canadian Environmental Protection Act in its current form. Yet her own deputy minister stated in committee that there were not enough resources to enforce all the existing regulations.

How does the minister square what she said in the House last week to what her deputy minister has said? How does the minister expect her department to enforce a new act when it does not have the resources to enforce the existing act?

[Canada Shipping Act, March 19th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak to Bill C-15, an act to amend the Canada Shipping Act.

The Canada Shipping Act is one of the oldest pieces of legislation still in effect in Canada. It was enacted in 1936 and is the primary legislation governing Canadian ships in Canada's jurisdiction.

With the reorganization of both the Department of Fisheries and Oceans and the Department of Transport, a reprioritization and a clearer outline of the ministerial responsibilities of both these department is needed.

The merger of the Canadian coast guard with the department of fisheries was completed with responsibility for the coast guard functions being transferred to DFO with the exemption of harbours, ports, ship safety and pilotage and crown corporations.

Transport Canada has the prime responsibility for overseeing the reform of the Canada Shipping Act. However, some of the sections of the act will fall within the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, specifically those related to pleasure craft, search and rescue, receiving, receiver of wrecks and pollution preparedness and response.

The reform that is currently under way will help simplify the regulatory framework and make the shipping act more consistent with current regulatory policies. In the end, reforms should contribute to better economic performance in the marine industry.

The government chose to carry out the reforms in a two-step approach. The first step takes place with Bill C-15. Under Bill C-15 there will be a new general part that will be added to the beginning of the act, followed by a revision of the existing Part I that will deal with ship registration, ownership and mortgages.

Part II of the reforms to the act will review the remaining parts of the shipping act, specifically dealing with the areas of safety, certification and conditions of work, accident investigation, navigation, wrecks and salvage and economic and environmental issues.

It is my understanding that Part II of the reforms is estimated to be ready in early 1999. We anxiously await these reforms and look forward to receiving and debating the issues that emerge at that time.

Bill C-15 will enable Transport Canada to assume complete responsibility for ship registration and related activities. The Minister of Transport will be permitted through the act to appoint a chief registrar who will be responsible for a register of ships. The register will deal with specific information such as the name and description of a Canadian ship, the official number and its registered tonnage, the name and address of its owner and details of all mortgages registered. This gives Transport Canada responsibility for ship registration that is currently performed by Revenue Canada's Customs and Excise.

The legislation will require that every ship that exceeds 15 tonnes gross tonnage, that was owned only by qualified persons and was not registered in a foreign country, would have to be registered. Proposed in this bill for the first time, certain foreign ships will be allowed to register in Canada.

We are in favour of many of the reforms included in the bill. It is important to point out that Bill C-15 was introduced in October 1997. However, it is essentially the same bill as C-73 that was introduced in December 1996 but unfortunately died on the Order Paper when the election was called.

Reforming the outdated shipping act is important and provides significant benefits for Canada such as more employment and business opportunities for Canadians and, above all, a rejuvenated marine infrastructure and a better service for Canadian exporters. This is particularly important as our country is an export-driven economy and we need to ensure that we have cost competitive mechanisms to get our product to market.

We only wish these reforms were of greater priority for the government and were introduced earlier. We are still pleased the bill is here now and that it will be dealt with in committee. We look forward to looking more closely at certain issues and concerns.

Under clauses 35 and 36 of the bill the minister can appoint tonnage measurers to calculate a ship's tonnage. A tonnage measurer may withhold a tonnage certificate until the person requesting it pays the tonnage measurer's fees and travel expenses. The minister may set limits on the fees and expenses charged.

Although tonnage measuring is obviously important, we hope the fees and expenses remain reasonable so we limit possible additional costs being passed on to shippers and we can have cost competitive access to our own markets. This is something to consider and watch for in the future.

The current part I of the Shipping Act will be replaced with a new part I that will modernize the registration of ships. Certificates of registry will have an expiry date. The subject of expiration is understandable in the context of a transitional period, updating the registration of ships under the old act to registration under the new act.

However, section 48 outlines many sweeping changes the governor in council may make. One area of concern under this section is the issuance and renewal of certificates of registry. Although it is important to have updated registration information about all ships, we hope future changes that may be made will not mean more bureaucracy and excessive costs associated with too frequent registration requirements.

Also under the bill the Department of Fisheries and Oceans will be provided with greater authority to regulate pleasure craft. In this regard we are somewhat concerned that the government not go too far and have too much regulation of pleasure craft. If there is a safety risk we are certainly in favour of it. However let us not have regulation for regulation's sake. We would encourage caution here. The parliamentary secretary stated that they plan on making amendments to pleasure craft at the committee level. We are very pleased to hear this.

We are pleased with certain aspects of the legislation. Clauses pertaining to definitions are important. Passenger safety will be enhanced by eliminating the specific reference to owner or charterer in the current definition of passenger, which in the past has possibly permitted some charterers to get around meeting specific safety regulations. Therefore we think this is good.

Another area we believe is good is with respect to small vessels. Presently the legislation deals mostly with large vessels and has not taken into account that small vessels are often built by manufacturers or individuals that may have fallen outside regulations that apply to larger vessels. It is important for these manufacturers to comply with construction and manufacturing standards as manufacturers of larger vessels have to do.

We support the bill. It is long overdue. It is unfortunate the legislation was not passed when it was originally introduced in the previous parliament as Bill C-73. However, it is here now and we support most of it. Certain parts of the bill warrant further analysis at committee. We should look more closely at the area of pleasure craft and how much further regulation is required. The parliamentary secretary referred to the point that they would be making amendments concerning pleasure craft at the committee level. We think this is very good and we are pleased to participate in a constructive fashion at committee.

We look forward to phase two of the reforms that will be implemented in 1999.

[Small Business Loans Act, March 18th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, it is with pleasure that I rise today to debate the conclusion of Bill C-21 which is known as an act to amend the Small Business Loans Act. We found out during the previous debate last month and on review of the auditor general's report that the bill would be better identified as the small business loans act with need of substantial review and improvement.

The bill was labelled by many as a bill that lacked performance indicators and a bill excessively responsive to lending institutions rather than responsive to the lending needs of small business. This legislation has always operated with a sunset clause to ensure periodic review for improvement and assessment on whether the bill is meeting the needs of small business, not merely renewal.

On our assessment as well as the auditor general's, the bill is in need of improvement and the return to its original focus. This government has yet to make up its mind on what it wants to do with the act in the first place. As a result of its indecision it has requested that Parliament renew the act as is for another calendar year while it continues to review the program.

It is with regret that we support this legislation only because without it as of March 31, 1998 the current lending period would cease and SMEs, small and medium enterprises, would not have access to capital under the SBLA, the Small Business Loans Act.

However this government should not expect the support of my caucus colleagues or for that matter the small business sector unless this government begins to review, improve and update this act to ensure that appropriate access to capital is afforded to the real engine of job creation, that being the small business sector of this country.

I would hate to sound cynical but I am really worried given this government's reluctance to establish specific debt reduction targets. As well as its reluctance to reduce taxation, broad based tax reduction for both consumers and small business, the government's plan to create more small business is to continue to tax us to death so that more large and medium size businesses become small companies.

The government has missed a real opportunity to show SMEs that they are indeed serious about the concerns that SMEs face today. In fact they are not alone as the auditor general has pointed out in his recent report on this piece of legislation. In section 29.87 he states that new lending under the program will end as of the 31st of March, 1998 unless the government decides to renew it.

This presents an excellent opportunity to review the program's contribution to filling current financing gaps and stimulating economic growth and creating jobs. The auditor general goes on to say the review would also enable Industry Canada to assess whether the program meets the needs of the small business sector in a rapidly changing economy.

We should not have wasted this opportunity to improve the act. This government was criticized for the very fact that this red book promise was broken by its own rank and file in the preamble to a priority resolution at the October 1996 convention: “The banks and other financial institutions have not yet taken any concrete steps to alleviate the hardships faced by the small and medium sized firms in obtaining investment capital”. Those are the words of the Liberal Party of Canada, not ours.

In my previous statement at second reading, I outlined a number of observations and recommendations within the Report of the Auditor General. I was pleased to hear during the debate that the industry minister agrees with the observations of the auditor general's report. I would like to take this opportunity to reiterate the minister's statements.

The minister stated “The auditor general's report would be a very useful tool as we review the SBLA and design ways to make the Small Business Loans Act even better in the future. A one year extension of the act will provide the time needed to complete the review of the program”.

Before we further discuss the necessary initiatives required to improve this bill, it would be useful for us to remind ourselves, in particular those on the opposite side of the floor, the impact the small business sector has.

More than 98% of all businesses in Canada are small businesses with employees of less than 50 in number. Half of Canada's workforce is employed by the small business sector. It is widely recognized that the small business sector has had the greater proportion of new job creation in recent years, as the auditor general pointed out.

Small businesses play a very significant role in our economy. They are the heart of economic activity and community development. In addition they sometimes develop into large firms of the future, as long as they are not taxed to death and there is more disposable income in Canadians' pockets.

Small businesses contribute 43% of Canada's private sector economic output. With this in mind it is imperative that as legislators we ensure that small businesses have access to reasonable financing to ensure the growth of this critical sector of our economy.

As the minister stated, the original Small Business Loans Act was introduced in 1961, as I said before, even before I was born. However since then the objective and the focus of the bill has been greatly distorted. The bill no longer serves as a loan guarantee for small business; rather it serves as a loan guarantee program for banks.

The intent of the act was simple: to provide small business with access to capital for loan requirements that would not be considered under normal lending circumstances. The federal government would in turn guarantee these incremental loans. That is the issue in play here, it is a loan guarantee for incremental loans.

Over the years nearly 40% of the loans that fall under the SBLA are loans that would be granted anyway by lending institutions. Those are not my words, they are the words of the auditor general.

The original intent of the legislation was to ensure that incremental loans to small business were approved in exchange for the business sector being willing to pay a higher rate of interest and even a fee for the access to incremental financing.

As mentioned, the two amendments we voted on just the other day relate to the continuation of the bill as well as to increase the ceiling of the total amount of the loans from $14 billion to $15 billion. Four times the federal government has had to increase the ceiling on the total amount of loans. One would think with this kind of exponential increase that small business would actually have access to financing and that small business financing would no longer be a problem. I know the member for Kings—Hants would actually put that logic into play.

However, I would like to state to my colleague that the Canadian Federation of Independent Business stated that the rejection rate of loan requests was actually 2% higher in 1997 than it was in 1987. Who was in government in 1987? It was the Progressive Conservative Party of Canada.

The CFIB also indicated that 29% of business owners surveyed in 1997 said that availability of credit is still the most serious business concern they have. This is double the concern they expressed in the late 1980s, according to the CFIB. These are not just my words.

I challenge the government to return to the original intent of the SBLA in providing incremental financing to small business when they re-enter the bill as the Progressive Conservative Party advocates, as do the CFIB and the auditor general.

The overall theme of the auditor general's report and my principal concern is that Industry Canada does not have the performance indicators and benchmarks to properly assess whether the act is actually accomplishing its original objective, that of providing incremental financing.

The program's raison d'être is to help fill existing financing gaps for business. Without true financial support and adequate financing for growth of our small business sector, growth will be stunted within our economy and the future prosperity of Canada can be threatened.

As I earlier indicated, the principal problem with the act is that it lacks clear objectives and performance indicators and benchmarks to measure the success and effectiveness of the legislation. The government could benefit from the old adage, what gets measured gets done.

As I stated earlier, the bill was first passed in 1961 yet the type of business that would likely have been started back then was either retail based or perhaps light manufacturing. The Canadian economy has greatly changed over that period of time. Now we have different sectors such as the service sector, the knowledge and information sector which form a much greater part of the economy today, with the latter sector having a high net employment growth. It is imperative that when the act is reviewed the government ensures there are innovative solutions and commitments from lenders that address this need.

The greatest concern that we have today is that the original intend of the program was to provide incremental financing and access to capital to start-up ventures or small firms that would not otherwise have been granted a loan from today's lending regulations. The relative size of the loans was intended to be small so borrowers could handle a higher rate or a fee in exchange for a loan that did not tie up their leverage of their personal guarantee.

The result today is that given the expansion of the program it is now beginning to displace traditional lending rather than enhancing marginal loan volumes and filling gaps where small venture loans are required. Given that 90% of the loan was to be guaranteed, the lending institution would then consider engaging in that loan.

Now we are getting to a situation, instead of having small size loans, where some of the loans are actually teetering on over a quarter of a million dollars. I am not advocating that we necessarily hamstring the SBLA in terms of actually having a smaller cap, but the emphasis has to be on more marginal financing, incremental financing, as opposed to getting into these larger type loans. At the end of the day these are the kinds of loans the banking institutions would actually approve.

I will take this opportunity to discuss a lot of other things which affect the small business sector and the SBLA. Unlike the Reform Party yesterday, I am not necessarily interested in tying up a entire day of speaking time on an issue. I would rather talk about issues that Canadians are actually concerned about.

I want to talk about small business. One of the Reform Party's founding principles is its members are here to represent their constituents. If one asks the CFIB whether the small business sector likes the SBLA, it will state it is a program it is very much aware of. It believes it is key to financing within the small business. It is very important. This is whether you are in Atlantic Canada, Quebec, Ontario or the west.

If the Reform Party is truly representing its constituents I suggest it actually votes for the SBLA amendment tonight so we can continue on with the process of this bill. Otherwise one of its founding principles of representing its constituents has been thrown to the wayside.

There are some other initiatives in terms of what this government has to do in order to make the small business sector more competitive. The Canadian economy is very overtaxed. After the budget was tabled the Canadian Chamber of Commerce tabled a press release in response to the budget. In the press release it challenged the government to draw up a detailed fiscal framework for the new millennium based on clear criteria for growth, competitiveness and opportunity rather than arbitrary commitment to allocate half the surplus to spending and half to debt.

The small business sector is still way overtaxed. In our election campaign we wanted to move the small business tax rate from 12% down to 8% which would make some marginal business plans into more profitable business plans and actually put more money back into small business pockets.

We need to lower EI premiums for small businesses. Right now the EI program has a $7 billion surplus annually which actually belongs in the pockets of employees and employers. What this actually does is taxes every new job is created.

In this same communique the Canadian Chamber of Commerce stated that if the EI premium were reduced to $1.95 instead of the present $2.70 per $100 of insurable earnings, every medium size company across Canada would be able to hire at least one additional person.

We know that all taxes kill jobs but payroll taxes at the end of the day are actually more punitive than any other tax initiative.

What we challenge this government to do, when it is reviewing the SBLA, is to review all the issues that affect the small business sector. People may ask if the fund is sustainable if we lower the EI premium from $2.70 down to $2.00. The chief actuary for the government stated that if it were lowered from $2.70 down to $2.00 it would be able to withstand a severe recession. That is an initiative that the Progressive Conservative Party clearly advocates.

We also know that the only economies which have any kind of consistent growth are those economies that have less debt and less tax. In order to reduce the overall tax burden of our country, we need to lower the debt. That is why the Progressive Conservative Party advocates lowering the debt to 60% of GDP by the year 2000 and to 50% by the year 2005. It goes back to my adage of what gets measured gets done. By saying we will put half on new spending, half on new debt and half split between debt and tax reduction, at the end of the day I get very worried about that. Canada will not have a surplus if that kind of approach is taken because at the end of the day we will end up spending it.

We need less debt and taxes. We recently had a budget where the government raised the personal exemption from $6,500 to $7,000. That took 400,000 Canadians off the tax rolls who should not have been there in the first place. What we advocate is that is not nearly enough. We want to raise the personal exemption to $10,000 which would take two million Canadians off the tax rolls overnight who simply should not have been there in the first place.

Budgets are more than just about numbers. They are about values we share as as nation. By that I mean that it is very troublesome from the standpoint that we actually tax individuals who earn $14,000 less than the poverty line.

We challenge this government to develop a plan for growth in this country based on less debt, less tax and putting more disposable income back into the pockets of Canadians.

Mr. Speaker, I know as the fiscal conservative that you are, you can actually understand that Canadians are poorer today than they were approximately eight years ago. I know the hon. members over here will understand that the disposable incomes of Canadians has gone down 6% since 1990.

We need to ensure that we put more disposable income back into Canadians' pockets so that more individuals can have an opportunity to participate in the economy in general. The only way to do that is to provide Canadians with broad based tax relief.

It is with regret that we are voting for a bill because the government did not take advantage of the last five years to seriously look at the SBLA.

The government knew it had to be reviewed, but all of a sudden it came to a stage and said “oops, the bill is coming up for renewal, what are we going to do about it?” Instead it said it would wait for the report of the auditor general.

I find this kind of perplexing because yesterday the finance minister wrote a letter to the auditor general saying that they are not so keen on some of his work. On the other hand right now, they are saying they want to wait for the report of the auditor general.

The member for Kings—Hants made a comment that I will address later. What I am trying to say is that if there is one credo this government can be described by, it is that sometimes it makes it up as it goes.

This Small Business Loans Act really is an example of that. It is oops, do you mean we actually have to review a bill? What we are going to do is ask for another year.

I believe that the government, in good faith, is going to take a serious look at the auditor general's report and act on some of those initiatives as opposed to making it up as it goes. We saw that in Kyoto. Sadly, we also saw it in the unity issue in 1995 during the referendum.

We need more planning and less improvization. We also saw it again with a provocative approach regarding the supreme court reference. It comes down to exactly what the member for Kings—Hants states, brinksmanship.

The supreme court reference kicks a hornets nest. It does not tell us anything that we do not know. The government has chosen to play Lucien Bouchard's game of getting this kind of issue back on the national agenda.

The reason the government is doing that in the absence of plan A is that it tried to come up with a kind of plan B. There is no such thing as plan B. There is no Canada unless we have our territories and all 10 provinces.

I challenge this government to do two things. The first is to develop an approach or a plan for growth for our country based on less debt, fewer taxes, more disposable income into Canadians' pockets so that more Canadians can participate in the economy.

Second, have more planning and less improvization as we saw in Kyoto, as we saw in the unity issue and as we see here in the SBLA or even in the postal strike.

I am looking forward to the bill being tabled in its new form in the coming days.

[Competition Act, March 16th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I have a question for my colleagues here on the left, the New Democrats. They have spoken a fair amount, from a competition perspective, with respect to the potential bank merger which we may or may not see in the coming weeks.

The questions that I have for the hon. member relate to the bank merger. Given the fact that there are nearly 92,000 jobs that actually come into play, does he not think that there is actually some kind of a moral obligation on behalf of the government to ensure that this decision is actually done in a reasonably expedient fashion?

A little while ago two insurance companies that merged were London Life and Great West Life. When that was done the government was able to make some kind of a rapid analysis of whether it met the criteria for the Competition Act. Given the fact that on February 14, 1997 a WTO ruling made the banking industry open to foreign competition, is it the hon. member's assessment that the finance minister should be surprised that the other banks would actually be talking at some time or other?

[Competition Act, March 16th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, in terms of referring to an actual economic philosophy based upon less debt and less tax, I actually take exception to the concept that an economic philosophy based upon less debt and less tax and putting more disposable income back into Canadians' pockets is considered to be a 19th century philosophy. If anything, over the last 10 to 15 years we have learned that governments cannot spend their money any better than individual Canadians do. The only economies that actually have any consistent growth are the ones that have less debt and less taxation.

Looking at the initiatives in other countries such as Ireland or the Netherlands, when they made substantial reductions in terms of their personal taxes what was the result? The result was more growth in their economy.

The Canadian domestic economy is at its lowest compared to the other G-7 countries. The reason is that there is not the amount of disposable income in Canadians' pockets so that they actually have an opportunity to spend money and get the economy going here in Canada. Any growth we have is based on our export industry.

Will the member at least admit that the only economies that have actually had any consistent growth among the G-7 countries are the ones based upon less debt and less tax?

[Agriculture, March 13th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, New Brunswick and Canadian dairy farmers are extremely upset that the government has chosen to side step its responsibilities and commitments to Canada's milk producers by referring the butteroil-sugar blend issue to the Canadian International Trade Tribunal.

At the signing of the final act at the Uruguay round the government indicated that imports of dairy blends would be subject to import controls.

Does the minister understand that it is the cows which are supposed to be milked, not Canadian dairy farmers? Why do the government and the minister insist on milking Canadian dairy farmers to the tune of $50 million each year?