Crucial Fact

  • His favourite word was business.

Last in Parliament May 2004, as Liberal MP for Toronto—Danforth (Ontario)

Lost his last election, in 2004, with 41% of the vote.

Statements in the House

Small Business Loans Act October 25th, 1995

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate the member for Madawaska-Victoria for her intervention today on behalf of small business. She has shown great leadership in the last two years for small business in her community.

No one in this House will ever forget the member for Madawaska-Victoria's very first intervention on this floor two years ago when she said: "We will be a government that is lean but not mean". Reform Party members obviously heard her say that but they do not understand where she was coming from.

Reformers forget about some of the great wins Canadians have experienced from Atlantic Canada in terms of business enterprise.

I want to talk specifically about a very small business which received a bit of help in 1979-80 from a Liberal government. I was there. It received about a $4.2 million grant.

Small Business Loans Act October 24th, 1995

How do you know?

Small Business Loans Act October 24th, 1995

Mr. Speaker, I was listening attentively to the member. I could not help but get frustrated when he kept referring to the small business men and women who failed as losers.

I would like to know how the member would propose that the banks, which administer this program, would chose who would get these small business loans in a way that there would be an absolutely perfect track record? What special insight or ability to judge entrepreneurship, what special formula does the member have that would allow him to never make a mistake on judging a small business person's ability to absolutely be-

Small Business Loans Act October 24th, 1995

That is not the bill.

Small Business Loans Act October 24th, 1995

Mr. Speaker, even before the red book came into being during the last election, the Liberal team in opposition made a commitment that if we were to be given the trust of the people after that election, the small and medium size business community would be the centrepiece of any policy development that would be part of our agenda.

We believed in opposition and we believe now that the greatest hope Canadians have for putting other Canadians back to work rests with the small business community. It is the small businessmen and women who, in many cases with very few resources, created, through their own ingenuity, creativity and sweat and toil, products and services that grew not only into businesses but became a very important and vital ingredient in the economy of this country.

When we were elected about two years ago we started immediately to deal with the number one difficulty that small businessmen and women had in trying to meet their objectives which was getting access to capital.

It is very important for me to recognize the critic for the Reform Party. One of the very unique experiences that we had in the industry committee was the fact that we worked as a team. We have many differences with the Reform Party. I for one do not feel as committed as they are to their attack on the deficit and debt. I find their approach too radical and too swift. However, one issue which we have consistently agreed on is the fact that small business is the hope of this country when it comes to putting Canadians back to work. It was because of our teamwork that we have been able to move an agenda forward on the access to capital front.

The amendments in Bill C-99 before us today, which is an act to amend the Small Business Loans Act, are from feedback we have received from the men and women in the House who have been working on this issue. They are the result of feedback we have had from industry and the banking community. They are also the result of the feedback and the success we have had with the Small Business Loans Act.

Some members will recall when we were in opposition that the then Conservative government initiated, in its last budget, amendments to the Small Business Loans Act. At that time, we supported those amendments because we believed that they were instruments for trying to break up the hardened attitude that many people in the financial community had toward taking risks with small businessmen and women.

This bill is not meant to be a cure all for the difficulties that businessmen and women are having. It is a bill where we told the financial community that we would develop an act in Parliament where 90 per cent of the risk that it takes on a small business project, up to $250,000, the Government of Canada would guarantee if that business should fail.

Since the Small Business Loans Act started, over many years, it has been used to help just under 500,000 small businesses in this country. Many people have had, through this act, the opportunity to take a shot at their dreams, create jobs and ultimately help create the economic fabric of this country.

When the Government of Canada is guaranteeing such a large amount, the number one question obviously is what is the down side for the taxpayer.

Until two years ago, on a loan float of about $3.5 billion, the loss to the crown was approximately $26 million. A loss of $26 million on a $3.5 billion float is pretty respectable. In the last year and a half, the float has increased considerably. The float right now is closer to about $8 billion. On that float, the estimated losses are approximately $100 million.

Because of that increased loan loss, that $100 million, and because of our commitment to fiscal responsibility, the government

has decided to listen to the Reform Party, to listen to the banks and others. It has decided that the act has to be redesigned in a way where those costs are recovered.

The essence of this bill deals with a new formula so that those loan losses can be covered. Essentially the three components in the bill to recover the loss on that rather large float would be the following: the major elements would be first, a reduction in the minister's liability to pay a loss on any business improvement loan from 90 per cent to 85 per cent. The second point is the establishment of an annual administration fee and a restriction on the passing on of the fee to borrowers except through interest rates, the establishment of a claim processing fee and the granting of authority to make regulations respecting the release of security taken for the repayment of any business improvement loan.

What we have done is this. Previously the guarantee was 90 per cent. It has been reduced to 85 per cent. If this is the way that the Small Business Loans Act can continue to be viable so that it is not going to be a drain for the taxpayer or a strain on the treasury or something that would generate too much nervousness with officials in the Department of Finance, then I naturally support all these amendments. These amendments are all good, solid amendments.

The most important thing that the Small Business Loans Act did was this. Because all of us worked together on the Small Business Loans Act, it led to another journey that we all went on in the last two years. That journey happened in the industry committee where the Bloc Quebecois, the Reform Party, and government members all worked together on this total review of the difficulties that small business men and women were having in accessing capital.

Members would probably recall that almost a year ago, the committee published virtually a unanimous report "Taking Care of Small Business". That report dealt with all of the various experiences men and women were having when dealing with financial institutions.

All of us in this House heard over the last few years story after story after story of the difficulties many of our constituents were having in dealing with the various banks or other financial institutions. It was through that feedback that we became united in dealing with this issue.

Some of the key recommendations in the report are now being implemented. As of the end of this month there will be a common quarterly reporting chart and statistics on the whole thrust of each individual financial institution's lending to small business by sector, by gender, by municipality and the size of the loan. That kind of accountability is going to change the whole bank culture and attitude toward small business.

That has been the biggest accomplishment of our committee. We have made a very strong impact in causing the men and women who are managing the banks to reflect and review the way they have been dealing with business. Not big business. We all know that whenever big business wants a $500,000 or a $3 billion loan the banks trip over themselves trying to lend those larger businesses the money. In the past few years some of those loans the banks were tripping over each other to give to the larger businesses ended up coming back in their faces, or part of them came back in their faces.

We were not really concerned with the larger corporations. We respect the larger corporations and the job creation contribution they make to the community, but we were concerned with the small business community and the fact that the small business community represents virtually all of the new job creation that is happening in this country. I believe and I know many members opposite believe that those quarterly accountability sessions are shifting the attitudes of the banks.

Ultimately, it does not matter what side of the House we sit on, we are here for one reason. We are here to get the economy of this country going again. The economy is only going to start going again when collectively we can work at creating an environment where business can flourish and give men and women the dignity of a job. That is the most important thing we can be working on today.

It is no secret that there are just under three million men and women who do not have work. I cannot imagine getting up in the morning and not having a job to go to. Many of us here have been blessed with the fact that not only do we have a terrific opportunity to serve our country right now, but we have also had the opportunity to work throughout our careers. Very few of us have felt the pain or the assault on our dignity of not having a job. That assault on dignity is the toughest thing a man or a woman can face. Our number one responsibility is to assist in creating an environment where business can take those risks and chances to get the economy going. That is why we on this side of the House, supported by members opposite as well, believe that whenever we can pass an act of Parliament that will improve on creating more jobs, even if they are minor improvements, then we are on it right away.

It is important that a bill like this does not take a long time to go through the House. That is why it is important to work together. If we can work together and get the proper amendments in this bill, then this kind of cohesion gives confidence to the marketplace and the people who execute this bill, the banks.

This bill is not executed by the government. After it is passed by this House this bill will be implemented by the financial institutions in Canada. The bank managers make the decision as to whether or not that taxpayer guarantee should be given to a small business man or woman. The implementation of the act is totally delegated to the financial institutions. Because of this guarantee those bank managers can take a bit more risk. Ultimately that is going to assist in getting the economy going.

The small business sector represents the greatest hope we have for putting Canadians back to work. It is going to accomplish that once the proper environment is put in place. Also, the small business man or woman does not tend to create a lot of bureaucracy and therefore can be more efficient when operating a small business. They tend to have much closer relationships with the men and women who work with them. The family-like environment which happens in a small business in many cases generates the kind of activity that allows creativity to flourish, that allows productivity, which allows business to create better products at better prices.

That is ultimately the reason our exports are going to be our hope as well. In the last few months our exports have been holding the economy together. Many of those exports, for example in the automotive sector, came from small and medium sized corporations. Some of them are organized in larger institutions but many of them are small, individual plants with a maximum of 30 to 50 workers.

We have to stop thinking of small business in the traditional way it has been thought of in this Chamber. For many years in Ottawa most of the attention was given to the larger businesses. The larger businesses had the resources to come to Ottawa and lobby their MPs or they had the resources through accountants and lawyers to do the work on the basic grants and support systems that were in place. Larger businesses had the resources to get their tax credit put into the tax act because they could afford to lobby the various departments including the Department of Finance.

In the last two or three years we have discovered that a lot of these larger businesses with all the great contributions they have made in terms of job creation and research, are not creating the same kind of economic thrust. Now it is the small business community. Many of us have had to reorient ourselves, go back to basics and reacquaint ourselves to try to understand what the small business community really needs.

Even though I frequently talk about access to capital, there are a couple of other things the government is going to have to address as well. We have to take up the challenge to reduce the paper burden and red tape. How many times do we hear that small business men and women are spending more time pushing paper and government forms than on their own businesses? We have become a nation of paper pushers. We have to realize that along with access to capital we must reduce the red tape and paper burden.

The Department of Industry, the Department of National Revenue and the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs have been working very hard in the last few months trying to create a one-all form. They are trying to organize various forms for business. They are working on a system that will be on one form, a simplified system for business reporting on various aspects of government responsibility.

That is also another realization we have come to accept and support as a result of our continued campaign on the access to capital front. In other words, that journey on access to capital has led to the realization that reducing the paper burden is something we must also work on very diligently.

The last thing I will touch on in terms of policy is where small business is crying out for our attention, which is the whole area of tax reform. Small business is telling us that the tax system is complex and inefficient. Many of them argue it is not fair.

As a government we are committed. Our red book stated quite clearly that the whole GST regime we fought so vigorously against in opposition is something the government has to address in its mandate. There is absolutely no way any Liberal member of Parliament could ever expect to go back on the campaign trail to get re-elected unless the whole issue of the GST is dealt with.

My goodness, in opposition we fought against the GST to the point that it nearly caused a riot in the other place. We challenged the government because of the complexity, the paper burden and the inefficiency of the GST. We on this side of the House are working very hard on total tax reform. It is a very complex issue to dismantle an entire structure the previous government set up. As the Prime Minister would say, it is not a matter of saying "poof" and it is gone. It has to be done responsibly, in a way that will not create a bigger problem than already exists.

We believe that dealing with the issue of tax reform is central to the requirements of small businesses and their ability to work in an environment that allows them to maximize their potential. Bill C-99, an act to amend the Small Business Loans Act, is another example of where the government is fine tuning by working with small businesses and the financial institutions and dealing with the financial markets, the currency traders, who have control on our interest rates and our dollar.

There is an issue I wish we could one day debate in Parliament. With the various challenges we take on in the House, whether related to industry, social programs or fiscal responsibility, deficit and debt with all the cutbacks, I would say the one challenge that we as a House of Commons have yet to face is the challenge of how we work with these currency traders who are essentially running most of the central banks of the world. These unaccountable, unelected currency traders move literally a trillion dollars a day, pushing paper, playing the derivative games. I have referred to them before as the private casinos in the financial institutions of the world. These men and women who move that currency around in an unaccountable way are affecting our interest rates, which in turn affect the investment activity and the job creation activity.

I do not know how we can call ourselves a sovereign nation when we think of the fact that we have essentially lost control of our currency. We are sitting here as elected people, but every day we bow down to the currency traders, asking what the dollar is going to be, what the interest rates are going to be.

Do the men and women in this room have anything to do with what goes on with those currency traders? No. Those currency traders are controlling the agenda. No matter how fiscally responsible the government is in the House, they could say that it is not good enough. Then suddenly they give us another squeeze and drop our dollar or cause a jerk in interest rates.

I would love to have a debate in the House one day on how the currency traders of the world manage their affairs and what their accountability is-not unlike the challenge we took up two years ago when we said that we wanted to see what was going on with the financial institutions in the country and what they were doing with small business. These financial institutions were not initially receptive to our exchange, our views and our attempts to try to make their attitude and their culture more responsive to business. However, because we worked together I believe we now have a constructive relationship with the banks. I now believe those banks are actually starting to enjoy the growth and the improvement they are experiencing in their small business relationships.

I would like to put to the House that an even bigger challenge would be how we could take on the currency traders of the world so we can once again get control of our economic agenda.

In closing my remarks on the bill once again I thank members opposite, members of the Reform Party and members of the Bloc for working with us on these amendments so we can hopefully get them through the House before the end of the week.

This is probably the last time I will be on my feet before the referendum vote on Monday. I appeal to those small businessmen and women who hopefully are watching or are participating in this debate to think between now and next Monday about anything they can do to help make sure this campaign for Canada is won.

I personally believe that one of the things small entrepreneurs can do, because they have flexibility, is maybe find a bit of time to get into their vans, cars or trucks and take their families to visit our great province of Quebec this weekend.

When I was a small businessman I did a lot of business in Quebec, and I never had any difficulty doing work in that great province. I believe that one of the ways we can make sure Quebec votes for Canada on Monday is to make sure that a majority of those people, especially in the outlying regions of Quebec, feel comfortable with those of us who are outside Quebec.

I know it is a precarious moment right now. Things are very tenuous. However, I think the greatest asset we have in the country is people from one region of the country talking to another, one on one, not through television ads. I respect these rallies, but the best way to bring togetherness is when people sit down and have a constructive, warm and caring relationship.

I do not think it is too late to make a tremendous turn in those numbers we all read in the newspapers right now. I believe the best way to turn those numbers is by making sure this weekend, if one is from Ontario and maybe planning on driving north to a cottage or east down to Buffalo or Niagara Falls, to travel instead to the outlying regions of Quebec. Together, when we talk about all the assets we have as a whole nation, we will end up staying together.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker, for giving me the opportunity to speak on the bill. I pray God that next week everything is all there for Canada.

Cultural Property Export And Import Act October 24th, 1995

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to speak in support of Bill C-93, an act to amend the Cultural Property Export and Import Act, the Income Tax Act and the Tax Court of Canada Act.

The bill, as previous members mentioned, establishes two processes. The first gives the donor or the recipient institution the right to request that the review board reconsider its initial determination of fair market value.

If after receiving a redetermination from the board the donor is still not satisfied, he or she may take the second step of appealing the board's decision to the Tax Court of Canada. The fair market value of cultural property certified by the review board is eligible as a tax credit of 17 per cent on the first $200 and 29 per cent on the balance over $200. The donor can claim the fair market value of the gift up to the total amount of his or her net income and there is no tax payable on any capital gain resulting from this gift.

This is a technical bill, as was mentioned by colleagues earlier. The objective is the preservation of Canada's cultural heritage.

I understand from a tax policy point of view where Reform members are coming from. They have a system of tax reform not unlike my own approach, a single tax system in which they want to flush out from the entire tax act of Canada all the preferences given in the various sectors.

However, until we as a government get involved in total tax reform we cannot deprive sectors of our economy vital to the economic soundness of the country the opportunity of growth and participation in the economy. This is where the Reform Party is short sighted.

If we say to the artists, the cultural community, that we do not want to give them the opportunity to participate in the tax act through tax credits, we cannot say no to them without having the same approach for the energy sector, the forestry sector, the tourism sector and so on. I am philosophically supportive of where Reform members are coming from but they cannot oppose only one sector.

Until we get a commitment from the House for total tax reform we have to continue to do these tax credits on a sector by sector

basis. Otherwise we will be punishing one community while other communities get a free ride. That is wrong.

Do we want to punish the cultural community and let the very wealthy people have the ability to send their kids to ivy league universities where they get tax credits or estate tax redemptions of up to $600,000 on property in the United States? It does not work.

I want to come at the bill from another point of view, what cultural properties contribute to the tourism sector. I will give a specific example of a museum in Toronto which I know the Speaker is very familiar with, Canada's Hockey Hall of Fame. This is an example of a museum that celebrates the cultural soul of the country, hockey.

About three weeks ago I had the opportunity of going through the Hockey Hall of Fame. I was absolutely blown away by the historical relics on display, with the feeling one gets as one goes through the hall of fame and looks at the history of hockey, its contribution in terms of job creation in hockey, the celebration of those magical moments in great Stanley Cup goals and so on. One walks out of that building with a sense of pride which I cannot describe on the floor of the House.

There is another feature to this museum on which we are not dwelling. It is relevant to all museums, all cultural property establishments across Canada. These are tourism assets. The spinoff we bring to our community when we celebrate and package our cultural properties is phenomenal. What industries are affected by these tourism assets? We are talking about hotels and restaurants. We are talking about replicas of these assets manufactured in small craft shops. These cultural property assets and historic museums exist right across the country.

I have been glancing through "On the Road to Quebec", a guide to the sightseeing attractions in Quebec. We are on the eve of a very important decision in our country. As I was going through this guide I could not help but feel emotional about some of the great cultural and historic sights and assets in Quebec. There is a litany of sights, tourist attractions and properties that celebrate the great history and the great contributions Quebec has made to Canada. Just going through those assets in Quebec right now alone makes the bill worthy of merit.

I believe many Canadians right now are listening to these debates in the House because we are going through a very fragile time in our country's history. Many members are receiving calls in their offices by people concerned about the referendum on Monday. This is no secret. There have been many newscasts on television and radio and many newspaper articles stating that things are very fragile right now.

To Canadians not living in Quebec, if ever there was a time when they could celebrate the great cultural assets in Quebec, try to travel this weekend to Quebec to visit and celebrate some of these great Canadian cultural assets all over Quebec, especially in the outlying regions. We have great centres where our history and cultural assets are celebrated. This would be the weekend for Canadians, if they could find the time, to go and visit these centres, these communities and these small hamlets. While they are there they can go to the local manor, the local inn, stay for the weekend, talk to the community and express to them our hope and our wish that on Monday they vote for Canada.

If a lot of Canadians did something like that, they would be making a great contribution in making themselves feel comfortable in another region of their country, and probably the Quebecers would welcome it. It has been my experience that the hospitality that Quebecers show, especially to people from outside their province, is first class-the restaurants, the inns, all the activities that go on in Quebec.

I want to reflect for a second on the experience you and I have both had, Mr. Speaker, as fathers whose sons played in the Quebec pee-wee tournament, another great celebration we have in our country. Young boys from all across Canada go to Quebec City every February, a majority of them unilingual English, and play in the Quebec pee-wee tournament. One of the unique features of that Quebec pee-wee tournament is the fact that each and every member of the teams from across Canada lives with a family in a home in Quebec City.

We both know, Mr. Speaker, that there is a very special feeling, a very special emotional attachment that stays with those young men when they finish that tournament and come home to their communities right across Canada. This tournament, which has been going on for almost 80 years now, has been one of the unique experiences young boys celebrate. It is a substantial and concrete example of hockey as a cultural instrument pulling people together in the country.

I have absolutely no difficulty in supporting the bill before the House today. If our culture is strong, if our culture is celebrated in every aspect, our ability to galvanize and stay as a nation increases. In my mind, over the last few years we have had too little celebration, too little promotion of our history, of our culture and all those things that bind us as a nation.

As I mentioned the other day in the House, we have become so preoccupied and so focused on deficit and debt reduction that we are actually melting away some of the glue that has been holding us together as a community and as a country. When we see cultural instruments as just another expense and in the name of deficit and debt we have to cut, we have missed the whole point.

The celebration and support of culture is an investment in the community. It is an investment not only in an economic sense but also in a spiritual sense. If we were to spend more time celebrating that aspect of our cultural heritage, we probably would not have some of those parochial thought processes that seem to be so apparent today taking over the agenda.

I repeat that I celebrate the bill. I support the bill. I appeal to all Canadians who are looking for something to do this weekend to travel to Quebec and look at the great Canadian cultural properties that celebrate not just the heritage of Quebec but the heritage of Canada. It is those kinds of discussions, one region to another, one community to another, that ultimately will lead, I hope, to a great victory for Canada on Monday.

Cultural Property Export And Import Act October 24th, 1995

Integrity.

Cultural Property Export And Import Act October 24th, 1995

Agreed.

British Columbia Treaty Commission October 23rd, 1995

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to speak in support of Bill C-107, an act respecting the establishment of the British Columbia Treaty Commission.

It is important that we go back to the last Parliament when the Liberal members from eastern and western Arctic came to the House and made sure that parties on both sides of the House were fully acquainted with some of the difficulties, frustrations and road blocks that our First Nations have had over the years in trying to get some of these outstanding treaties resolved.

I can reflect back to our very first year as rookie members of Parliament. Mr. Speaker, I remember being with you and our

caucus colleagues when we spent a long weekend in Iqaluit. We were all immersed in the community and the culture. Many of us realized that old expression "out of sight, out of mind" reflected what has been going for many years with many of our First Nations communities.

As I mentioned, the members from the eastern and western Arctic urged us on and we as a caucus and now as a government are fully participating in ensuring the realization of some of those priorities which interest the First Nations are becoming legislation.

It is also a tribute to the government, specifically to the minister responsible for Indian and northern affairs. As one of our members mentioned earlier, some of these issues have been on the books for over 100 years. We just keep putting these treaties aside. The Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development probably had to twist some arms, because this has always been a tough issue to get on the front burner and get to the point where it becomes legislation on the floor of the House.

Today we can celebrate. Maybe there are some members in the opposition who do not like the process that is evolving as we get the issue resolved, but I am happy to hear that in spirit they are essentially supportive of the legislation. I think that is fair ball. There is always room for improving the process in this place.

At times it strikes me as funny that the Reform Party tends to come from a background where they want less government, less red tape, and the activity around this particular bill has been that. A lot of entrepreneurial people from all levels of government and all sectors of the economy have worked together in a very constructive way. They have worked expeditiously, and now when they seem to be getting some real results the Reform Party is saying hold on a minute, we are getting a little head of ourselves; let us not be too efficient here, because we have to make sure that the MPs ratify this and place the seal of Parliament on it before we confirm or negotiate transactions.

The Reform Party should know that all of those discussions and activities and exploration that have taken place are really conditional upon the work in the House. The Reform Party should not get too upset about the process, as long as in the end we get this resolved. I think that is where we are all coming from.

I have worked over the last six years with my colleague from the Western Arctic, who has made me as a city member of Parliament much more aware of some of the difficulties some of our first peoples are having trying to get their dreams, policies, and objectives resolved. I believe all members would agree that our member for the Western Arctic has been very passionate about making sure that her communities and her people have been represented in this Parliament over the last six years.

On behalf of my constituents in downtown Toronto, we support the government on this bill. We hope that our first peoples, with the

help of this bill, will realize a good part of the dream they have been working on for so many years.

British Columbia Treaty Commission October 23rd, 1995

Mr. Speaker, as I listened to my colleague from Edmonton East I could not help but get a sense of one reason the bill was going through the House so quickly and with so much co-operation. Obviously it is because of the tremendous team that has been put in place and the co-operation the team is bringing to the table not only in the sectors of tourism, mining, forestry, et cetera, but in all levels of government.

My community, which is downtown Toronto, is going through a very difficult time. The brotherhood of carpenters and joiners, the drywall lathing and installation workers, a very large union of about 2,800 members, has been on strike on and off since June and has voted recently to go on strike. Less than 1,000 members decided this. At a time when our economy needs to be working at full throttle we have in Toronto a situation in which the leadership and the various principals cannot seem to co-operate. The people who are affected by this, the thousands, are suffering.

Yet here in western Canada we see a beautiful example of all levels of government coming together. All the principal stakeholders and all the various sectors of the economy have come together. We see that a piece of legislation goes through the House in no time flat. The community in western Canada and ultimately all Canadians will be the beneficiaries.

I appeal to the leadership of that very strong union in my city to use this example in British Columbia as a possible model on how to get all of those people back to work in Toronto.