Nelson Riis

[Points Of Order, November 18th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I want to expand on some of the comments made by my colleagues.

I think I have a possible solution to assist you in your decision and in a sense get you off the hot seat.

Obviously the other place is involved in this issue. It has dealt with it. It has passed it duly through the process.

Obviously the House of Commons now is captivated by this issue. The government certainly is interested in the issue but, most important, the people of Canada and the children of Canada are involved.

Notwithstanding the constitutional arguments, notwithstanding the procedural arguments, notwithstanding whether this is a tax or a levy or an impost, if there is a will to pass this legislation surely we can agree among ourselves today to just set this aside and the government can introduce a ways and means motion tomorrow morning. It will pass before Christmas if there is a will here on behalf of the people of Canada to do this.

Rather than perhaps go on for hours, if the will is here and I suspect from what I have heard that the people have spoken through their duly elected representatives in the House, we can actually have legislation before us in the morning and deal with this expeditiously and actually have the entire legislation passed and proclaimed before Christmas.

What a generous gift it would be for the Parliament of Canada to give the people of Canada a life saving gift for generations to come.

[Petitions, November 18th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I have another petition on the APEC gathering. The petitioners are concerned that the implications of the potential agreements coming out of APEC inevitably eliminate any concerns about human rights or environmental or labour standards.

They point out that hopefully all agreements taken by the Government of Canada in the future will include these crucial elements.

[Petitions, November 18th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, on another topic petitioners from various communities of central British Columbia point out their concern regarding the courts' rather lackadaisical approach to people who inflict various forms of cruelty upon animals.

They feel that the sentences that have been meted out are woefully inadequate and judges should have a course on the seriousness of this crime.

[Petitions, November 18th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to rise pursuant to Standing Order 36 to present a petition on behalf of a number of residents of Kamloops, British Columbia, who have analyzed the tax system and have a set of recommendations for tax reform.

Rather than go into each one individually, I will simply say that they are calling for a major change to the tax system along the lines of the Carter Commission of the 1960s.

[Education, November 17th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I acknowledge the great contribution made to the economy and society of British Columbia by the University College of the Cariboo.

The University College of the Cariboo created a cult of innovation for young entrepreneurs and investors throughout the central part of British Columbia. It developed a culture of openness, welcoming students from over 21 different countries to study and to enrich the educational atmosphere of that university college.

Its programs from degree granting to training and upgrading reflect the totality of the British Columbia economy. The plans of the University College of the Cariboo reflect a changing economy, a very innovative university college to meet the demands of the ever changing economy of the 21st century.

It is a model for the rest of Canada and provides the kind of educational experience that truly reflects the realities of the new millennium and the true realities of a knowledge based economy.

[Canada Small Business Financing Act, November 17th, 1998]

My friend from Saskatoon—Humboldt is in the wrong profession. He belongs at Yuk Yuk's on Friday and Saturday nights. He is a stand-up comic. He said the Reform Party would form the government in the next election. This is the ultimate form of hilarity and comedy. He is a great speaker, but he is in the wrong place. He will have great audiences at Yuk Yuk's.

New Democrats will support the amendment. It goes to the crux of what the legislation is all about. The legislation is about helping small businesses but not any small business. If a well established small business that has been doing well for a number of years wants to expand into a new area, getting support from the financial sector is not a problem.

My friend from Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre has been a small business operator. He has been liaising with the small business community from coast to coast for many years. He would concur with what I say. For many small businesses accessing capital is not a problem. For others it is a problem, particularly the sector we want to see expand and build. I am referring to new businesses, young businesses that reflect the emerging new economy of the country. They are often a little short of hard assets and have difficulty accessing funding.

The amendment acknowledges that group. It acknowledges people who would otherwise have difficulty accessing financing. I am not referring to small business individuals who can easily access financing. They do not need help. It is the ones who have difficulty accessing funding.

This is where I differ from the parliamentary secretary. Why not make the legislation exclusive and have it available only for small businesses that cannot get funding elsewhere and help them particularly? All of those that would normally get bank loans anyway do not need the help. They could probably get loans at a lower rate.

Why not make the legislation available only for business entrepreneurs, business investors and creative people who simply cannot find financing through traditional agencies? We as a society want to see these folks expand and grow and to see our economy grow. When the economy grows, jobs grow, the economy prospers, the tax flows in and the country gets to be a better place. That is what it is all about. That is what the legislation is all about. That is why the amendment makes a lot of sense to me. The auditor general has reminded us from time to time that was the problem and the amendment acknowledges it

I beg my friends in the Reform Party to change their position on the legislation. To my knowledge the Bloc Quebecois supports it. I think the Conservatives support it. Presumably the government supports it because it is behind the initiative. We in the New Democratic Party support it. We need to send a signal to small businesses and say that we are behind them. We want to particularly help small businesses that cannot access financing from traditional sources.

I ask my Reform friends to get behind parliament and join with us to say that the small business sector is where the action is. The small business sector is where the jobs are being created. We are behind small businesses 100%. We want to support them. We want to encourage them. We want to nurture them. That is why we should all be supporting the legislation with enthusiasm.

[Canada Small Business Financing Act, November 17th, 1998]

My friend is saying that we should do absolute nothing. The point is they are not the government but they say we should have a perfect world. Soon my friends in the Reform Party will say we do not have the perfect world but we should do away with pensions. In a perfect world we probably would not need pensions or a medicare system. We do not have a perfect world and that is why we have governments.

What does the legislation do? Is it new legislation? No, it is not. The legislation has been around for a long time. Some time ago somebody acknowledged the fact that a lot of creative small businesses, real entrepreneurs, people with good creative ideas could not get financing from traditional lending institutions.

The banks would not listen to them. The banks could not care less about a young person with a great idea. The banks or financial institutions could not care less about a new entrepreneur who arrives with creativity and energy but could not get financing because he did not have the capital to put up for security or because he was too creative. The government of the day had to come up with something.

It asked what it could do to encourage financial institutions to support people who create things, lead the way, are on the cutting edge and build the country. What could it do? The banks were not being helpful.

The government introduced the Small Business Loans Act. Basically the legislation said that if one had difficulty accessing financing from traditional lending institutions the government would provide support in terms of a guarantee. If the bank felt that a group in its judgment was too risky, we would share in the risk, society and the bankers or society and the lending institutions.

We have talked to small business representatives, individuals and the Canadian Federation of Independent Business. We have asked what they think about the program. They say their members like it. I recognize they only speak for 90,000 small business people.

A small business organization from Halifax to Inuvik to Victoria could not be found that would not say it liked the program. Most federal government programs are bogus when it comes to helping small business. I am prepared to say that most programs are fluff. Most programs sound good but do not work. There are two or three that work well and this is one of them. That is why I cannot understand my friends in the Reform Party saying they do not support it. It is a mystery how they can say that.

It is fair country. It is a free country. They can support what they want but it mystifies me. I ask the next Reform speaker to explain in some detail why they do not support it. I realize that they say if we had a perfect world we would not need it. We do not have a perfect world. We will probably not have a perfect world for another few weeks or months or years or decades.

[Canada Small Business Financing Act, November 17th, 1998]

However the competition is not coming so in the meantime it should be no to bank mergers. Talk about somebody being seduced by Ottawa, being captivated and overcome, or being Ottawa-ized. It is something like being customized or whatever.

Something else puzzles me. My friend from the Reform Party says if we had the perfect world, as the Reform Party would describe it, we would not need this legislation. We do not have the perfect world and we probably will not have the perfect world by the end of the week, by the end of the year or even next year. My friends from the Reform Party would have to agree that their perfect world will not happen soon, but in the meantime should we do absolutely nothing to help the small business sector?

[Canada Small Business Financing Act, November 17th, 1998]

That is what I heard, that members of the Reform Party said they would like to have some more competition in banking.

[Canada Small Business Financing Act, November 17th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, it is amazing what Ottawa does to people. My friend from Saskatoon—Humboldt talked about the Liberals never leaving Ottawa or being captivated by Ottawa. I do not mean this in any personal way to my friend from Saskatoon-Humboldt, but members of the Reform Party came out yesterday with the comments that they have decided to support the bank mergers. I wonder who on earth they would have spoken to in the country to come up with this conclusion.