Jerry Pickard

[Supply, May 14th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I would suggest that very clearly, week after week after week during the last election, I heard nothing but cut, cut, cut.

When we came to this House the Somalia affair was going on. I heard nothing from the members opposite outside of how bad a job the Canadian military was doing.

I talked to a lot of people in the military and they felt demoralized. They felt that the actions of the opposition were tearing down the institution in this country. Without question it is not just the financial aspects, it is also the attitudes which strip any group of pride and greatness.

Quite frankly, I believe this Liberal government is moving that issue forward. It is making certain that we restore pride in the military. It is making certain we have good directions. Without question I believe that we have taken actions in order to move that agenda in a very positive way.

I would be very frightened if it were the Reform Party which took the reins of the military some four years ago. Would we have been able to react in Alberta to the fires that started last week? Would we have been able to react to the ice storm? To me the Reform Party has very little to give positive direction. It has been totally critical all the way. That is unfortunate. I do not hear positives, I hear criticisms. That is not good.

[Supply, May 14th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, with respect to the air cadets, on Friday night I saw the most exquisite drill team that I have seen in years. As a matter of fact, they were among the leading drill teams across Ontario.

There is no question that the reserves are working in my area. They are doing the job with young people that really needs to be done.

There is no question that these young folks are looking forward to all kinds of other opportunities as they go from the base level of training up through the air cadet level to experimental flying preparation and that type of thing. The army cadets are in a very well structured program.

I believe it could well be that in the hon. member's area that may not be happening. However, it is not the same scenario across Canada. In my area there is a well functioning group that is carrying on these activities with young people.

[Supply, May 14th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, this weekend I had a marvellous opportunity in my riding. We had inspection of our cadet corps of young people. It was lovely to watch. I was at an air cadet inspection on Friday and an army cadet inspection on Saturday. I watched the pride. I watched the skills. I watched the talent that was brought forth in these young people in my community. I found it pretty amazing.

The reserves are working with these young people and providing a fabulous opportunity in each of our communities for them to participate and to see firsthand the value that military training can bring to them.

I found it remarkable to see young people who when they became involved were not nearly as focused as they might have been otherwise. They developed pride, skills, excellence and moved forward. This is something our military people are supplying in every community across the country. Our military people are there when they are asked to be.

It does not matter if we are talking about the flood in Manitoba and the tremendous work the military did there. We can talk about the ice storm in eastern Canada, Ontario, Quebec and New Brunswick, and the service it provided and the praise people gave. We can talk about the recent fire in Alberta. Our military went there.

We have a very proud, a very strong, a very viable military that is doing a job of which we all have to be very proud. We need to thank the military for everything it is offering our communities.

Quite frankly I find that year after year the condemnation of the military and its plans and movements is wrong. It does not take very long to think who was in power from 1984 to 1988 and on to 1993. It seems to me it was a Tory government.

I do not remember the Tories bringing forward the issues they are bringing forward today. I do not remember them dealing with the problems in the military. I remember them as a very different group: see no evil, speak no evil, hear no evil. Three blind mice could probably have given a better scenario of what was happening than the people who sat there and did nothing to enhance our military bases during the nine years they ran government not very many years ago.

In 1997 we commemorated the 80th anniversary of the Canadian victory at Vimy Ridge, one of the greatest allied victories of World War I. Superb leadership, meticulous planning, and the courage, determination and spirit of the Canadian soldier won the day. The qualities that led to a stunning victory at Vimy Ridge have characterized the efforts of Canadians in uniform for more than 100 years. The Canadian military ethos is the heart of a proud traditional service and the heart of great sacrifice. Through two world wars, Korea and 50 years of peacekeeping it is what we define as excellence in the Canadian forces. That distinguishes our forces as a great institution.

This military ethos is based on strong, principled and effective leadership. Leadership is a good word to define the action taken by the government with respect to the Canadian forces.

One example of leadership is the government's proposed amendments to the National Defence Act, Bill C-25. Discipline is the lifeblood of any military organization. Whether in peace or war it spells the difference between military success and failure. It promotes effective and efficient qualities. Its foundations are respected for leadership, appropriate training and a military justice system where equity and fairness are unquestionably clear at all times.

However, in recent years the capacity of the military justice system to promote discipline, efficiency, high morale and justice has been called into question by a number of incidents. The government looked closely at these events and acted decisively. The government has taken leadership. It responded to the report of the Somalia commission of inquiry very aptly titled “A Commitment to Change”. We are implementing about 83% of the recommendations in the commission's report.

In December 1996 the government commissioned a special advisory group under the Right Hon. Brian Dickson, former Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Canada, to assess the military justice system and military police investigative services. It reported on time and under budget. The minister of the day supported its recommendations in his report of March 25, 1997 on the leadership and management of the Canadian forces. The Prime Minister endorsed early action on recommendations and work began immediately to pursue the implementation.

The special advisory group on military justice and military police investigative services was also asked to examine the quasi-judicial role of the minister of the military justice system. Chief Justice Dickson's recommendations are now being implemented.

When the government saw that the military justice system was one of the key areas in which change was needed, it took action and demonstrated leadership. The government sought advice within the military and from the public at large, from distinguished Canadians who specialized in the knowledge of the military.

The amendments contained in Bill C-25 are a product of that process. The amendments proposed in Bill C-25 are the most comprehensive in the history of the act. Bill C-25 addresses a broad range of provisions in the National Defence Act. It will modernize the provisions with respect to the board of inquiry. It will clarify the legislative authority for the performance of public service duties by Canadian forces members such as the actions during the ice storm of which I spoke earlier.

However Bill C-25 is primarily about the modernization of the military justice system and has four principal thrusts.

First, it will establish in the National Defence Act for the first time the roles and responsibilities of key figures in the military justice system and will set clear standards of institutional separation for investigation, prosecution, defence and judicial functions.

Second, it will enhance transparency and provide greater structure to the exercise of individual discretion, investigation and charging processes.

Third, it will modernize the powers and procedures of service tribunals including eliminating the death penalty under military law.

Fourth, it will strengthen oversight and review of the administration of military justice.

These changes are made because it is absolutely essential for a military justice system to be rigorous, transparent and fair. The system of military justice is designed to meet operational requirements particular to the armed forces. It is intended to promote discipline, efficiency, high morale and justice in the armed forces.

On two occasions the Supreme Court of Canada has confirmed the need for a parallel and distinctive system of courts to meet the special requirements of military discipline. Indeed our armed forces must have portable courts which, by using procedures that are both speedy and fair, are capable of operating in conflict or in peace.

To better understand the special needs of the Canadian forces in respect of justice and discipline, one need only consider a variety of tasks they perform in such a professional manner. From the Golan Heights to Bosnia, from the floods in the Saguenay and in Manitoba to the recent catastrophic ice storm that occurred in Ontario, Quebec and New Brunswick, to the actions that I mentioned in Alberta they perform very direct services to all people throughout the world as well as to Canadians.

There is no question that they perform very specific functions and need to have opportunity to carry out those functions, but the justice system must be in place to help as well.

Bill C-25 will make it possible to modernize the code of service discipline so that it will meet the particular needs of the armed forces while reflecting the values and expectations of Canadians. It will make the system of military justice, to the extent that military requirements permit, more in keeping with legal standards that currently exist in Canada.

These measures will greatly enhance accountability and transparency, increase confidence in the military justice system and certainly give everyone a better understanding of our system. They will provide a more modern, effective statutory framework for operations of the department and the forces. They will enhance transparency and accountability. They will increase the effectiveness and efficiency of the Canadian forces and enable men and women of the forces to do so much to make the country a better place.

These changes to the National Defence Act demonstrate strong political leadership on the part of the Canadian government. The Canadian forces will benefit from the movements with which we are going forward.

I mentioned when I first started where my colleagues in the Progressive Conservative Party had been. They were here some eight or nine years in order to bring forward plans and changes in the military. It seems to me that during the election campaign the Tories admitted that the strength of the military was critical to our sovereignty. Yet the heart of their election plan was to weaken Canada by slashing an additional $2.6 billion from the national defence budget over four years. This government's restructuring and downsizing of DND has already produced a leaner military. Do they actually expect us to believe that they can find $650 million in savings by privatizing private property management and food services? Some of the suggestions they made are very questionable and certainly not well studied.

At the same time I have heard some different viewpoints from the Reform Party. From what I have seen from the Reform Party over the last few years I have some questions. The Reform Party claims to strongly support a well equipped Canadian force. Its fresh start election platform made no mention of any plans to improve national defence or international security. The only time the words “national defence” were ever mentioned in its election platform was in the list of government areas that would be targeted for cuts and spending reductions. That is what I heard from the Reform Party during the election. That is what I have heard from the leader of the Reform Party. That is what most Canadians have heard from the Reform Party day after day.

The Reform Party has consistently called for major cuts in defence spending. In 1993 its zero in three plan would have cut $1.8 billion from the defence department's budget. In 1994 it wanted an additional $1 billion cut from national defence on top of a 15% cut across the board that it was planning for all departments.

During the Somalia affair the Reform Party stood and criticized day after day the fact that the military was not performing the Reform Party goals and objectives. Yet today it comes in here and suggests that it is supportive of military actions.

All Canadians remember the stinging attacks, the budget cuts, the crunches that it was suggesting. Now it has changed its mind on most of the policy that I see coming forward. I ask members of this House how many times they have heard the Reform Party talk about cuts. It is always more money here, more money there. It has totally turned its whole position around. To me it is very ludicrous.

I do not think that we should be playing politics as much as we do with these issues. It is clear that we need to be decisive. We need to put in place decisive measures. We need to move the agenda forward. We certainly need to show the respect that the Canadian military has and should have. We need to make certain that this process is in place so that we will have a service that defends this country not only at home but abroad. We have to make sure that we can move in a direction that is consistent with our allies. We have to move in a direction with the pride which these forces show.

It is clear, in my opinion, and I believe in the opinion of most Canadians that our military is a very proud institution, one that has served this country extremely well and one that continues to serve this country well. We have to look at the experts and suggestions that are coming forward. To stand and condemn day after day is a pretty bad role that our opposition has taken toward military, toward government and toward what is going on in this country.

[Housing Co-Operatives, April 28th, 1998]

Madam Speaker, I would like to respond to the motion concerning co-operative housing and Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation.

This government understands the importance of good quality housing to Canadians. We understand the importance of helping Canadians meet their housing needs. We know that good quality housing creates sound communities and a strong country.

This government is committed to playing a strong leadership role in housing. On behalf of the Canadian government our national housing agency, CMHC, is working in partnership with the provinces and territories, municipal housing authorities and non-profit housing co-operative groups to help low income Canadians obtain adequate, suitable and affordable housing. We are currently supporting more than 656,000 units of social housing across the country at a cost of $1.9 billion annually.

We want to ensure that these resources are used efficiently and are targeted to Canadians with the greatest need. That is why we have offered to the provinces and territories the opportunity to manage existing social housing, with the exception of the housing programs for aboriginal people living on reserves. The decision to offer the transfer of administration of social housing resources to provincial and territorial governments was made in order to clarify responsibilities in the area where both Canadian and provincial governments are active.

The central goal of this initiative is to eliminate duplication, increase efficiency and promote one-stop shopping for social housing clients. It simply makes sense to have only one level of government involved in administering the social housing resources in this country. This approach will maximize the impact of tax dollars by streamlining the existing arrangements and facilitating one-stop shopping.

So far, agreements have been signed with Saskatchewan, New Brunswick, Newfoundland, the Northwest Territories and Nova Scotia. Negotiations will continue with the remaining jurisdictions.

Co-operatives, like other social housing groups, are included in this transfer of responsibility to the provinces and territories. I would like to make very clear that there are sections of the new social housing agreements that require provinces and territories to carry out all of CMHC's responsibilities to non-profit and co-operative organizations and that oblige the provinces and territories to respect the rights of non-profit and co-operative organizations.

I also wish to highlight that existing project operating agreements with third parties, including co-operatives, will continue to be legally binding and can only be changed by mutual agreement of the parties concerned. CMHC's rights and obligations under these agreements are indeed covered.

The Government of Canada recognizes the close involvement of co-operative and non-profit housing groups in the management of significant portions of our federally assisted social housing portfolio. These groups also provide an important link between the government and the communities they serve.

I would like to assure my colleagues that CMHC is committed to finding solutions that will restore any social housing project, including co-operatives, to financial health where such solutions are feasible. In all cases CMHC works closely with sponsor groups and whenever possible provides the necessary assistance to these projects.

As well, over the past year CMHC has been working with the Co-operative Housing Federation to develop more streamlined and flexible guidelines to facilitate major repairs or renovations such as the replacement of roofs. Let me give the assurance that the Government of Canada is not withdrawing from its responsibilities to provide financial support for low income Canadians with housing needs. On the contrary, we will continue to meet our substantial financial obligations to social housing, $1.9 billion annually as I mentioned earlier.

These new arrangements are expected to bring significant benefits to a great many people. People living in housing projects will benefit far more from a streamlined management. Sponsors of social housing projects will benefit because they are now dealing with only one level of government, a level of government that will be able to better tailor programs to reflect local and regional social housing needs.

In essence, the people of Canada are going to benefit from the best of federal and provincial co-operation working together. This new approach to administration of social housing resources is about building on a solid partnership and working co-operatively with provincial and territorial governments for the benefit of all Canadians. It is about bringing government closer to communities and people across this country. It is about ensuring that taxpayer dollars are used in a most efficient manner, and that is good news for all Canadians.

Through Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation our government is responsible for a number of programs that help ensure Canadians are one of the best housed people in the world. In addition to our significant contribution to social housing this government provides support for several short term initiatives designed to help certain groups make much needed repairs to their homes. Programs such as residential rehabilitation assistance program, the emergency repair program, and the home adaptation for seniors' independence reflect the government's commitment to involve as many quality housing projects as possible.

On January 30, 1998 the Canadian government announced a five year extension of these three programs at a cost of $250 million. These programs will benefit as many as 40,000 households and create thousands of new jobs across Canada.

Of course, the families and individuals who have benefited from these programs appreciate the government's role, as do the partners in the housing industry. However, I am glad to mention the interest and support shown by the provincial and territorial governments. As well, they have worked with the municipalities.

The government's decision to spend $250 million over the next five years emphasizes its commitment to stronger, safer communities, to provide flexible federalism through federal-provincial agreements and to create jobs.

One of the primary goals of this new allocation of funds is to improve the quality of housing in low income neighbourhoods. This initiative combines good social policy and good economic policy. It also is an illustration of how well flexible federalism can work. At the moment a number of provincial and territorial governments cost share a large portion of these programs. They are invited to continue under this extension and positive responses have already been received from several provinces.

I realize that in addition to the $250 million there is considerable more that has to be done over time. A reflection of the importance of government ascribes to housing is very clear. It is also a symbol of the success in controlling the deficit. We have always said fiscal restraint was not an end in itself but rather a means to a greater end. Our goal has always been to restore order to public finances to be able to focus more action and interest for Canadians.

I stress the government remains committed to ensuring Canadians maintain the best housing for people in the world. For Canadians housing is more than just a roof over our heads. It is the centre of our lives. It is an important form of our self-expression. It is a crucial determinant of the quality of life. Good housing is a key to better building communities as well as the cornerstone for a strong economy in this country.

It is very clear to say housing is one issue that unites us. From Victoria to St. John's, Newfoundland Canadians are coming together to make sure we provide desirable housing for all.

Let us be very clear at this point. The government will show leadership in housing and make certain that we have an enhanced way of life through good housing programs for all Canadians.

[The Budget, February 26th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I would very quickly point out that again the member said nothing positive. He has really not tried to present an alternate viewpoint. All he has done is to hammer the government for what it did. I would challenge some of the things he said. I really do not think I have read press clippings that say it is a disaster for the middle class. As a matter of fact, I have read some very positive clippings along the way.

I would point out that a lot of members have suggested taxes have been increased and we have a huge amount more money coming in today than we did in 1993. That is very correct, but I want to point out why that is correct.

We have worked very hard to get the fundamentals right in this country. Low interest rates, trade missions, promotions for small business loans, all of the fundamentals that require a thriving society; that has been the goal of this government. As a result, we not only have created a tremendous number of new businesses in this country, more successful businesses in this country, but we have also employed one million more people. The extra revenues have not come from tax increases. The extra revenues have come from putting more Canadians to work. Those extra revenues are now coming back to help us with the costs of operating the country.

It is fundamentally important to understand that we as a government have done everything we can to make certain the fundamentals are correct. By doing that, more Canadians are working and taxes do increase.

[The Budget, February 26th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I think a very historic budget has come out. I have no question that the Minister of Finance has, along with the cabinet, along with the Prime Minister, done something that all Canadians have longed for over the last several decades. When we talk about eliminating the deficit, it is extremely important and it is extremely historic for Canada.

We were the basket case of the G-7 countries a short time ago under the former government. We have totally turned that corner and now we are moving in a very positive direction. Eliminating the deficit is not the end, and every person in this House realizes it is still very important that we maintain a course that is set to improve the financial status, the financial balance sheet, the whole finances of Canada.

At the same time, it is extremely important that we look at the socioeconomic side of what is happening to our people. We look at what measures a government can take to create a better society with the assets we have.

I think when we talk about complaints regarding how dollars are being spent, it is like a family. There is no question that every person in the family is not going to agree with exactly how every dollar should be spent.

Surely we can agree on some basic elements and principles that have been going on in the last three years. We can agree on some basic directions in which we are intending to go in the future.

This budget does set a course. The course is not to spend lavishly, not to move our finances into a precarious position by huge tax cuts, not to put at risk what we have achieved to this point.

There are those in the House who say that we should cut taxes, a big cutting of taxes so that people can go out and spend more money. Are they responsible in looking at the view that we should not follow a course of being prudent, being cautious, being careful and realizing that the roller coaster of economics goes up and the roller coaster of economics goes down?

We in Canada cannot control world markets. We in Canada are subject to actions that occur in the United States, actions that occur in Asia, actions that occur in South America, actions that occur in Europe or anywhere else in the world.

If we are not really cautious about charting a course, putting a little money away for a rainy day, cushioning the effects that world economic questions can raise, then we are really at risk of falling back into a deficit. If interest rates throughout the world start pushing higher, if our Canadian dollar comes under heavy assault, as it really did a few weeks ago, if the Asian markets do not stay steady and move along, we are vulnerable.

Therefore when we talk about tax cuts, heavy payments, social spending, if we do not stay the course we have set over the last three years, we leave ourselves very vulnerable not only today but in the future.

Some would say we have a scenario to deal with. We have almost $600 billion in debt and the interest on that money is crushing. There is no question about that.

Huge interest payments are very expensive to Canada. For every $3 we take in in taxes, one of those dollars is spent against the debt on interest alone.

Therefore realizing that enormous problem we have, realizing what is happening within the spectrum of payments, we must make certain that we can pay that off without extending our debt, without extending other programs beyond our means whereby we would fall further into a deficit situation in the future.

I believe the finance minister has achieved that. I believe he has a very conservative approach to maintaining our financial security. But at the same time he has examined very carefully what is going to make us more prosperous.

The decision is let us get the population that is going into the workforce as well educated as possible. Let us put those people in a position where they understand high technology, where they have post-secondary options not available to many young people today. Let us make sure that every young Canadian has the opportunity to have the highest level of education they can achieve and the education that is going to bring them to a point of good, solid income earners.

How does that affect Canada? If we educate our young people to the abilities of handling high tech, we can then develop this high tech industry in this country and move forward. We can move forward with business opportunities never perceived before. We have a great opportunity here to move our young people into those high tech areas, move our young people into job situations which in fact will pay tremendous benefits to this country in the short term as well as the long term.

It will attract businesses into Canada that are working in the high tech industry and we can become a very focal point of high technology for Canadians, for North Americans, for the world. I have no question when we look at that issue it is extremely important that we be the leaders.

How does that affect other jobs? Even those who do not go to school will have opportunity to move into other areas because there is no question once you develop a high tech area, once you develop more jobs, there are other job opportunities, small business and so on, to support those people working in the industries, which we are going to train Canadians to do. This budget speaks of our prosperity in the future.

I would also like to touch on the questions we talked about with regard to what is most important for us at this point in time in order to help low income Canadians. I agree it would be nice if we could give more tax breaks and tax cuts. But we did target low income Canadians with a personal exemption. We removed our 3% surtax, which meant that many of our low income and middle income Canadians will have a much better opportunity within the tax structure than they had before.

I see my time is up. I would like Canadians to sit back and think about what opposition members have been saying to this point. I have heard them criticize what has been said, but in fact those critics are always going to be there. I have not heard them present good, solid solutions which would cure our illnesses.

I think we have moved to a very positive area. We are on the move, and staying the course is the only way I see this country gaining the most benefit it can.

[Supply, February 18th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I found the hon. member's comments rather interesting. I am sorry but I did smile.

I smiled because I recalled a sales tax in this country called the manufacturers' sales tax going from 9% to 13% under five years of Conservative government.

I smiled because I saw the business tax base go up and up, year after year, when the Conservatives were in office.

I smiled because the GST was introduced by—

[Small Business Loans Act, February 16th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, the point I was trying to make was that most loans in most of our communities across the country are controlled by one or another financial institution.

In those financial institutions there are certain criteria. We know the criteria, depending on the security, depending on the amount of money coming in, depending on a lot of factors. Someone can borrow money for a start-up business at a certain per cent.

If they cannot get a loan from a bank, they might then go to another financial lending institution which may lend them that money. Often that money is at a higher rate, a rate that makes it very difficult for that business to operate.

Someone can have a tremendously great business plan. They may have a lot of factors involved that would make this business a go and people sitting down and analysing it can give them a tremendous amount of support.

They still may not have any reserve capital that would allow a bank to say it will lend them that amount of money.

My point in suggesting this is that I believe at the outset often businesses do need a little extra support. Government programs giving an 85% guarantee is giving that support to those businesses. The track record of the lending pattern has been very good.

We know the costs in that program. We have laid on fees that match the costs. If the bank would lend that money without the support of the Small Business Loans Act, fine. We support that very much.

All we want to do is make certain that for those folks who do need that bit of support it can be there and it can be helpful for them and it will not put them into a situation where they cannot go ahead with that small business.

The program allows a lot more people to enter the business sphere. It also gives guarantees that people need within that structure.

[Small Business Loans Act, February 16th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, at the outset I would like it known that I will be sharing my time with the member for Etobicoke—Lakeshore.

As we look at the economy of Canada and as we think about the changes that have occurred in the last four years, we can be very proud that the tremendous potential in moving forward to make our economy much better is critical.

I look at the employment figures. Some million new jobs have been created. That is a net gain. That is a very important aspect for all of those who have been looking for employment opportunities. It a very important aspect for our country's growth and country's potential in the future. There is no question the government has done a tremendous amount to move forward an agenda of job creation along with business promotion.

The Prime Minister took on the role of Captain Canada, as many have called him. He took on the role of going abroad into Asian countries and South American countries to expand our trade potential. He took our business partners and our provincial partners and made certain the message he was bringing forth was heard throughout the world. Throughout countries it was heard that we had a great potential to work with, not only today but also in the future.

We have had an opportunity to look at youth programs and move that agenda forward. The bill is looking at the important issue of the finances of small business.

I have no question in my mind that the engine of the economy is business itself. Let us not sell short big business. It is as important to the country as small business. Small business happens to be the generator of jobs in today's day and age; the niche market; the market in every town, every community and every area of our country; the fellow on Main Street who makes sure that everyone is supplied with products they need and with products they desire.

One of the biggest obstacles to business today in our society is availability of capital. There is no question availability of capital is an absolute must for business.

Why are we talking about small business loans and amending the act to make another billion dollars available in the next year? It is so vital. Small business contributed to 81% of new job creation in 1996. With four out of every five jobs being created by small businesses we must ensure they have all the tools and mechanisms in place in order for them to prosper.

We know that more than 2.5 million small businesses exist in this country today. They employ well over 50% of Canadians. Everyone who realizes these conditions knows that we must make the loans and support for those loans available to small business. Any dollar spent by the Canadian government to make certain loans are available is a well spent dollar. We are repaid in many ways.

Some have called it a subsidy to business. We have put in place charges for those services and those charges were there to cover the costs of any losses that occurred within the programs. As time goes on, any cost to that small business program will be covered by the fees that are charged for small businesses entering those loan programs.

Some were critical of the administrative costs to the federal government. We introduced fees to cover the administrative costs within the small business loans sector. Any costs that may be attributed to the Canadian government in the form of covering loans or in the form of administration are retrieved by the programs that have been put in place and the charges that have been levied according to the provisions of the act.

It is important for us to realize that as we review this program it needs to be updated. The auditor general has made suggestions that we need as a government to re-examine the whole spectrum of how the Small Business Loans Act operates. The government has taken on that responsibility. It is doing a comprehensive review of the small business loans program. While this review is going on we need a bit of time to ensure the availability of loans.

That is why these adjustments are being introduced in the act today. They are adjustments to make certain there will be capital available for small businesses, those starting up and ready to move forward. There is capital available for those that may not be quite at the point where a bank would be willing to lend them money but the potential is so great that for that community, for that group of people it is a very vital investment.

There is no question when we look at the issue it is very important to realize this is an act that supports the grassroots of our communities. This is the act that supports all those small businesses on the streets of Toronto, on the streets in Leamington in my riding, on the streets of Chatham in my riding. It is the act that supports those rural community operations that are required in order to make certain we get fair and equal treatment right across this land.

Think of the kind of supports there are. Every one of the Reform ridings has thousands of small businesses in it. Each one of those small businesses needs the support that is offered through this act. That is how important it is.

I would also suggest that we consider others who are talking about this program. The Canadian Federation of Independent Business strongly supports this plan. Why? There is no question that if these loans are available they will allow the organizations to grow. They will allow the communities which require services to have those services. These loans will allow entrepreneurs to begin businesses. They will stabilize a lot of businesses having problems with cashflow at the present time.

I suggest that the costs are horrendous for someone to get into business today. They have to buy equipment. They have to buy stock to sell to their customers. We need to have financial mechanisms in place to support those businesses. Without that support we are certainly not going to see the growth which we have seen over the last few years.

It is not just the growth we are seeing in the Small Business Loans Act. This growth has to do with other programs that have been put in place as well.

Today interest rates are at the point where small businesses can survive, go forward and achieve a lot of their goals. Four or five short years ago, when interest rates were three and four percentage points higher, that put a tremendous burden on small businesses. They were unable to compete. They were unable to turn a profit in the first few years.

When my son looked at the cost of getting into business, the interest on the capital he had to put out represented a huge portion of the revenues he took in on an annual basis. There are many businesses in that position.

The lowering of interest rates and making loans stable gives tremendous support to small businesses and enables them to thrive.

We know that in 1996-97, 30,000 small and medium size businesses used this program. They accessed some $2 billion in financing. That alone tells us how important those dollars are in enabling small business to move forward in this country. That alone is the key measure in why we need to increase that funding by $1 billion today to make certain those dollars are available.

I strongly support the minister's position to go forward with the view of reviewing the entire policy to ensure it is fair and supportive of business.

[Small Business Loans Act, February 16th, 1998]

Madam Speaker, I thank the previous speaker for his comments on the SBLA presently before the House.

The member has been here for many years and has probably gone through the process more than many of us as far as reviewing acts is concerned. We extend the act for a year. We review it in the standing committee. We take into account the auditor general's comments and all information from opposition parties and the government to research how we can improve it.

This has been done before and the effectiveness is usually good because it provides the time and ability to do research in more depth. I ask the member for his comments.