Nelson Riis

[Canada-United States Tax Convention Act, 1984, September 21st, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I was going to let the matter go to a vote but I was encouraged by the previous speaker to say a few words.

It is clear that Bill S-9 is a result of a complex process flowing from a tax treaty signed between Canada and the United States in March 1995. The Senate quickly got on to this important matter in its judgment and decided to give it top priority over a number of other pieces of legislation. As far as the Senate is concerned it requires top priority. The bill passed in May before the summer recess. Now, in the first few hours of this session of Parliament, the government also says that this is a priority. This tax measure has taken priority in Parliament over all kinds of other initiatives.

I can talk about the high levels of unemployment that are not being addressed. I can talk about all sorts of social, economic and cultural issues that are simply being ignored. The government is saying that this is a priority, that we must bring in a tax provision changing the Income Tax Act to benefit basically a handful of the wealthiest families of Canada.

That is what we are talking about. Let us be perfectly clear. This tax measure will not benefit many people in the constituency of Kamloops or the constituency of Okanagan-Shuswap. I could go through the entire country.

The legislation has been written, drafted or designed to assist the financial concerns of a handful of very wealthy Canadian families.

As the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance has argued, it is a matter of equity. I suspect that is true in the

government's eyes. Changes are required in the Income Tax Act so that they are not double taxed on U.S. investments and the fact they live in Canada. The whole matter of tax protocols, tax treaties and the resultant changes in the tax act is something anyone would support.

It is the process that troubles us. We are talking now about the principle of the bill. This is second reading. We are talking about the principle of the bill, that the government and the Senate feel that the matter is of top priority and that we have to do something to facilitate the financial concerns of a handful of very wealthy Canadian families. I doubt it. I doubt if Canadians would recognize it as a top priority.

I find it surprising that my friends opposite, including the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance, would have the courage to stand in the House of Commons to say that we have to spend hours today, if necessary, to help a handful of wealthy Canadian families get a better financial deal on their tax bills. There is something cynical about that.

No wonder Canadians are cynical about the government. It is the same members who said to all Canadians not many months ago that if they elected the Liberals they would abolish the GST. That was said from coast to coast to coast, constituency to constituency throughout the lower mainland of British Columbia, throughout southern Ontario, throughout the province of Quebec, et cetera. Liberal contenders in the election said: "If you elect us we will abolish the GST".

The Deputy Prime Minister said that if the GST were not abolished within the first year she would resign her seat. To be fair, I wish we could believe these folks. Canadians are saying that they believe they are actually telling the truth. When my friends from Toronto said to their constituents: "You elect me and I will abolish the GST", they believed them; they said yes.

Bringing some financial tax pain relief to every Canadian is not a priority. As my friend says-and I believe what he says-we will eventually get to it. I suspect that rather than abolish the GST they will abolish the name GST and keep the tax. They might do a bit of harmonizing and so on to broaden it even more so that more items would come under taxation. We could refer to the province of Alberta. Albertans will now have all goods and services taxed as opposed to none.

Changing the GST is not a priority but Bill S-9 is. I wonder how many of my Liberal friends across the way actually know what is in the bill or how many Canadians will benefit from it. Those people that have $600,000 or $1 million in investments coming from the United States will benefit. How many Canadians does that account for?

[The Late Dr. Charles Willoughby, September 18th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, all of us who knew him were sad to hear recently of the passing of Dr. Charles Willoughby.

Dr. Willoughby was one of those rare individuals who certainly left a lasting impression with those who met him. I had the honour of knowing Charles Willoughby for more than 30 years, first when he was member of Parliament for Kamloops. He was one of those individuals who was admired by all. Even his political foes could not find a negative statement to make about him ever. He was loved by all who came in contact with him. He was a gentleman in the true sense of the word.

As others have indicated, he was a very dedicated family man. He was an admired doctor for decades. Again he was one of those rare individuals in that every patient who came in contact with him loved him and admired him. He was certainly a respected author. He was a distinguished parliamentarian. He was a proud citizen not only of the city of Kamloops but of the world.

Over the years I would encounter Dr. Willoughby at public functions and on the streets of Kamloops. He always had words of advice and suggestions and was always aware of the issues of the day. His family said that even beyond his 100th year when the evening news came on all became quiet to allow Charles Willoughby to be updated as to the events of the day.

He was a wonderful individual. The people of Kamloops loved him to the end. Our hearts and our thoughts go to his family today.

[Business Development Bank Of Canada Act, June 21st, 1995]

Madam Speaker, again I am pleased to have an opportunity to make some remarks regarding this grouping of amendments to the bill regarding the new federal bank's name and some changes in the mandate.

I listened with interest to my colleague from Broadview-Greenwood when he said that the government will not miss that opportunity-and I suspect he is obviously implying the bank will not miss this opportunity-to provide an increased level of service to the small business sector. I am pleased when he reminded us that the new chair of the bank is listening in and is obviously getting a sense of the feeling among members of the House.

The member goes on to say that we can be assured that the new marketing thrust of this newly revised bank will be taking into consideration the needs of the small business sector. I will not even qualify it by saying probably, because I know he speaks the truth. I know this is what he wants to do. But why could we not have a little clearer direction actually in the legislation to guarantee that? We have seen tonight, in my judgment, that what the hon. member wants and what the executive wants can be two different things.

So let us acknowledge that, yes, it is good to say these great things and it is nice to comment on all the things the government plans to do, but we also remember the government's plan to abolish the GST. I suspect that probably somebody in there actually meant that at one time. They also said that they would abrogate the free trade agreement, and so on. It goes on and on.

There is some hesitation for us in opposition to become enthusiastic when we hear these commitments, verbal as they are. Mind you, the government even had the abolishment of the GST and abrogating free trade in their red book. These were actually written down, and they obviously have set those aside.

However, let us be positive this evening and assume that the member is accurate and that the new chair listening in will hear us and will take this bank in the right direction.

I listened with interest to my hon. colleague talk about the sensitivity the bank will have to ensure that adequate provision is given to small business enterprises in all the regions of Canada. We applaud that.

I just want to point out that my hon. friend refers to the west. I know he is from Broadview-Greenwood and I know that he recognizes the realities of western Canada. I want to remind my friend that the west includes two regions: the cordillera regions of British Columbia and the Yukon, and of course the prairie region. So let us be sensitive that we want to balance that B.C. and Yukon is actually a region that ought to get their fair share separate from the prairies and so on and so forth. That is just a little sensitivity from us across the mountain range.

I got a little shaky when my hon. friend was up talking about the letter from the new chair that said we must provide special consideration for the newly emerging technologies, biotechnology and telecommunications and so on. No one would dispute

that. I question whether or not this is the small business sector we are talking about here tonight in large part. It may be.

When I think of biotechnology and telecommunications, I often do not think of the person making the loan for $20,000 or $30,000. I would call for a little extra sensitivity. Yes, we would applaud that the bank ought to be leading a lot of the capital and funding initiatives into these sectors, but also we are talking about small business that is quite often apart from these two sectors.

We want to see expanded powers. Again, I will be looking carefully at the new initiatives. My hon. friend can simply nod at this, but I think he said that the chair of the bank wanted to come before the committee with his directors and meet with the committee to develop some of these ideas further. I think that is what he said. I applaud that initiative and look forward to that opportunity.

On behalf of my party we will be supporting with some enthusiasm Motion No. 7 by my colleague from Trois-Rivières. We will also be supporting Motion No. 10, by my friend from Edmonton Southwest. We will also be supporting Motion No. 20, Motion No. 21, Motion No. 22, Motion No. 23, and Motion No. 25.

I want to make a comment about Motion No. 23, and that is the addition in the legislation of the line "for the purposes of a committee or either House of Parliament" as the possibility of reviewing what the bank is doing. I do think that is an appropriate initiative if in fact that inclination is there.

Again, these are very thoughtful amendments. Some do not receive our enthusiastic endorsement. I appreciate the reasons people are bringing them forward, but I do not see the necessity and some of them I find actually rather regressive. We are being positive here tonight, so I will keep my statements on the upbeat and positive note.

[Business Development Bank Of Canada Act, June 21st, 1995]

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I think the reference the hon. colleague has made to the communiqué by the new bank chair is appropriate. I wonder if it would not be appropriate for my hon. friend to seek unanimous consent to append that letter to be part of Hansard today.

[Business Development Bank Of Canada Act, June 21st, 1995]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to have an opportunity to speak in the debate this evening. I listened with interest when the hon. member for Broadview-Greenwood, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Industry, made his presentation.

I must say from the outset that for many years I have listened to my hon. colleague from Broadview-Greenwood and I have learned from much of what he has had to say. I have appreciated the sincerity he has always brought to the debate. I appreciate his personal commitment to small business and the funding plight it faces. I have never heard a more pathetic explanation in terms of why the government has done something.

First I want to take him off the hook. I cannot imagine that what he was saying was his own idea. I can only assume that he has been given marching orders from cabinet. As an advocate of small business funding he has stood in the House for years urging the previous government and encouraging the present government to take action. He has led the way on a number of initiatives in terms of support for small business. He has been actively involved in the development of the report called "Funding for Small Business" which had a whole set of recommendations. To make this proposal is not the kind of initiative he would take.

When I first saw Bill C-91 I was elated. I was encouraged because after years and years of the Liberals saying we had to take dramatic action to provide funding for small business here was the opportunity. I read the bill. I suggest we should make another name change.

The bill at the moment is entitled "an act to continue the Federal Business Development Bank under the name Small Business Bank of Canada". Probably a more accurate title would be an act to continue the Federal Business Development Bank with an inadequate mandate, with a pointless mandate, with a wimpy mandate. We could use whatever word we like because in my judgment we have missed a real opportunity, looking at Bill C-91.

At the moment we are talking about the name change. Most members of Parliament were elated when they saw that the government had listened to the committee and had decided to call the Federal Business Development Bank the Small Business Bank of Canada. We could hear cheering from coast to coast to coast. We could hear small business organizations, chambers of commerce and boards of trade saying that finally the federal government had acknowledged the fact that something needed to be done in the country to provide funding for small enterprises.

I am talking about the kind of enterprise that requires a $10,000, $20,000, $50,000, $75,000 or $100,000 loan. All of us have countless cases on our desks that we have worked on over the years. We know small enterprisers, small entrepreneurs or small business people have a difficult time obtaining capital for their operations, to start a new venture or to expand a venture. If they need $20,000 they might as well forget about it because they just cannot go to the traditional lending institutions, the big banks.

We are not here to assist the big banks. Headlines the last few days read: "Banks on track to record profits. The earnings for the first half of 1995 exceed even last year's $4.25 billion pace". In other words, the chartered banks are doing just fine. As a matter of fact they have never done so well. They can take care of the large enterprises, traditional enterprises and so on.

However, we are not here to facilitate the chartered banks. They make profits for their shareholders and that is it. We understand their mandate. We are here as members of Parliament for something else. We are here to provide opportunities for that job creating sector of the economy called the small business sector.

In my judgment, having looked at Bill C-91 for many days, clause by clause, we have missed an incredible opportunity. Part of the opportunity we have missed is betrayed by what the government is now asking us to do. It said it first came up with a winning idea based on the recommendations of the committee to call the FBDB the small business bank of Canada. I say, right on, government. It has done the right thing. However, it now says: "Hold it, we want to change that. We are going to call it the development bank of Canada". What does that mean? What kind of a signal does that send?

By changing the name of this bank, a tremendous cost will accrue to change every bank sign across the country, every letterhead, envelope, and all kinds of other things. It is going to cost hundreds of thousands of dollars, perhaps even millions, to call it the development bank. We do not need another development bank. We have the large chartered banks. We have other federal lending institutions that are able to provide that kind of capital. We need something to assist the small business sector. The name the small business bank of Canada would indicate a new initiative or a new direction or a new mandate for the FBDB. God knows it needs it.

However, according to the legislation this is the purpose of the bank. It reads: "The purpose of the bank is to provide Canadian entrepreneurship by providing financial and management services-in carrying out its activities. The bank must give particular consideration to the needs of small and medium size enterprises".

I have read wimpy legislation and legislation that meant absolutely nothing and this legislation says absolutely nothing. It states that the bank will give some consideration to small and medium size businesses. Well big, bloody deal. What does that mean? What kind of a mandate does that give the bank? What requirements does it give the bank? Absolutely none.

What was going to be called the small business bank of Canada and not called the business development bank of Canada will be just like the Royal Bank of Canada or the Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce. It will be lending to the very secure borrowers, the larger businesses and so on. Those small entrepreneurs and small business people will still have to be scraping and searching to find capital for their new enterprises. This is wrong. This is a missed opportunity.

I wonder if there is any sensitivity to the fact that we have to encourage the bank to carry out a fair lending practice across Canada so that one region does not benefit over another. Acknowledging that 85 per cent of the new jobs in the future are going to be created by small businesses, will that same business be created in the eastern, central and western part of Canada? No, not with this legislation. Every single cent of this new bank could be put into one province, into one region, into a few cities. Is that the kind of bank we want? Absolutely not. It is a disgrace and a disappointment.

I do not hold my hon. friend from Broadview-Greenwood responsible for this wimpy initiative. I hold the government and the cabinet responsible. I am pleased to see that representatives of the cabinet are here because they have not only done a disservice to the small enterprises of Canada, but they have done a disservice to the incredibly excellent work done by that committee which worked hard for months on end to incorporate diverse points of view and had an excellent set of recommendations. Then the cabinet and the minister said: "We don't care about the work you have done. We don't care about the research that has been done. We don't care what the witnesses said. We want to simply put our stamp on this legislation". That is wrong.

I do not think this is a good piece of legislation. I do not think this is a good amendment. When I vote later tonight I am not going to be voting to do away with the name the small business bank of Canada and replace it with the business development bank of Canada. It is wrong and bad. It sends the wrong signal. It says we do not care about those enterprises that create jobs, that

we want to continue to support the GMs, the Nova Corporations, the big corporations.

I know my friend across the way, the member for Broadview-Greenwood, was making a valiant attempt to explain the government's initiative when he said that the small business title limits and restricts loans, that the government wants to encourage the leading edge technologies to seek funding through this federal bank. So they should.

The fact that small business does not exist in the present name does not preclude small businesses from seeking loans. Calling it a small business bank does not preclude a medium size business from seeking loans. We will do the entrepreneurial sector of Canada a disservice if we pass this amendment.

I call on my colleagues from all sides of the House, from the Bloc, from the Reform and particularly those members of the government that have some sensitivity to small business and some respect for the work of the committee, to give some respect to the people that come into our offices day after day seeking capital to assist their small business enterprises. In other words, listen to the people just once.

[Petitions, June 21st, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I have another petition, signed by people primarily from Ontario. It indicates that deep cuts to Canada's social programs will hurt all Canadians and have a profoundly negative impact on the four million adults and children living below the poverty line.

The petitioners point out that 50 per cent of the debt of Canada is the result of monetary policy, 44 per cent is the result of tax policy and less than 6 per cent is a result of all government programs.

Therefore they point out that social programs ought not to be severely limited, in that they are our right and heritage.

[Petitions, June 21st, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, I have the honour to present a petition on behalf of a number of Canadians from Merritt, Kamloops, Oliver, Langley and Surrey, British Columbia.

The petitioners point out that Canadians, particularly women and children, are becoming increasingly fearful of walking on the streets in their communities. They ask the House of Commons and the Minister of Justice to take whatever steps are necessary to amend the Criminal Code and parole system to ensure that safety and peace return to our neighbourhoods.

[Petitions, June 12th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to present a petition on behalf of JC-55 super country

radio station in Kamloops, who circulated a petition and have now collected nearly 75,000 signatures.

They point out in the petition that Canadians are becoming increasingly fearful to walk on our streets and in our neighbourhoods. They believe that many violent offenders and sex offenders are being paroled prematurely or being released without proper treatment or rehabilitation. They believe that those convicted of dangerous offences or sexual offences should be incarcerated until they have successfully undergone treatment and can demonstrate unequivocally that they have been completely rehabilitated.

Therefore, they are simply asking the House of Commons and the Minister of Justice to take whatever steps are necessary to accomplish these aims.

[Indian Affairs, June 12th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the parliamentary secretary for the minister of Indian affairs who will be well aware of the six-week old blockade checkpoint now on Adams Lake in British Columbia.

Tensions are escalating. Will he or the minister of Indian affairs please travel to the site to attempt to resolve this issue, primarily over land claims, before serious problems begin?

[Firearms Act, June 12th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have an opportunity to speak on this legislation.

As my colleague, the previous speaker, has indicated, it is unfortunate that many members of Parliament will not have an opportunity to speak at report stage, since the government has introduced closure and will limit the debate at this stage of the legislation. However, I am pleased to have an opportunity to say a couple of remarks about the bill itself.

I am certainly not a spokesperson for what people would refer to as the gun lobby. Yes, I have been a fur trapper with my own trapline. Yes, I have been a big game hunter. Yes, I have been a recreational shooter, but that was some years ago.

The fundamental question I asked myself was whether this legislation will curtail the number of people who are killed each year by firearms. That is fundamental.

I looked at the details and noticed, for example, that about 1,400 people die of gunshot wounds each year, which has fallen substantially over the last number of years. How does the 1,400 break out? Eleven hundred people die as a result of a firearm wound through the commission of suicide. In other words, people who have decided to take their own life are using a firearm. If that firearm were registered would the person interested in committing suicide likely not commit suicide? I could only conclude that it would probably have little effect at all, recognizing that suicide is a fairly thoughtful process and that people normally think about it for some time. That takes care of 1,100 people who die of firearm wounds.

About 150 people die each year as a result of domestic violence, when one partner decides to shoot the other partner. Would that be reduced if firearms were registered? Would people not shoot their spouse or their partner? I concluded that probably would not have any effect either. If things have deteriorated in a relationship to that extent, whether the .22 is registered someplace will probably not deter the person from committing the act.

Then I noticed that about 100 people each year die who I will define as gangsters. I suspect that gangsters do not register their sawed off shotguns or pistols, so I concluded that would not have much of an impact.

About 50 people each year die in Canada as a result of shooting accidents. A shooting accident will take place, I presume, whether or not a firearm is registered.

When I looked at the 1,400 people who lose their lives each year as a result of firearms, I could only conclude that no one would not die as a result of the legislation.

Will our streets, neighbourhoods and country be safer because of the legislation? We have to acknowledge we will tie up the work of the RCMP and police forces, which will spend hundreds and thousands of hours doing evaluations and filling out forms. When I talked to many of the RCMP officers in Kamloops, I did not find a single one who actually supported the legislation. With respect to the tens of millions of dollars that will go into the registration system, they said put more members of the force on the street and it will make Canada a safer place, as opposed to a gun registration system that by and large will not be effective. Then I listen with interest to some of the aboriginal members of Parliament when they say the law ought not to apply to First Nations peoples.

When there are people in the Senate and in the House of Commons saying this legislation should not apply to First Nations people, what kind of system will this be in the end?

I will give the Minister of Justice credit. I suspect he was honourably motivated when he brought this legislation forward. I believe he thought it would make Canada a safer place as a result of many people urging him to take some kind of action. Will Canada be a safer place? By and large, no. I wonder if it does not get the government members off the hook so they can go across the country saying: "Look at the tremendous action we have taken to combat crime in our streets".

The legislation is by and large a smokescreen. It is a scam, it is a sham, it is an illusion the government is taking action against crime when very little change will occur. I will not say there is nothing good in this legislation, of course there is. Every year I have been here I have supported changes to Canada's firearms' legislation but not this one. This is a phoney piece of legislation that gives the impression of real action when very little is taking place at a tremendous cost both in terms of abusing the lives of legitimate firearms owners and, more important, taking so much time of the RCMP and other police forces.

Is it a priority to tie up hundreds of thousands of person hours in this type of activity? That energy, time and money are misdirected. I assume because of the muscle the government is using in Parliament that the legislation will pass. That motivated me to put forward this amendment. I will read the amendment: "In the year 2000, no later than June 1 and every three years

thereafter, a comprehensive review of the provisions of this act shall be undertaken by such committee of the House of Commons as the House may designate for that purpose".

I appreciate that the previous speaker indicated the interest in the auditor general's evaluating legislation prior to action. I support that because the auditor general has said on numerous occasions that in his judgment the present legislation has not been evaluated to see whether it is effective.

Even the justice department has stated time and time again the evaluation of the effectiveness of present legislation has simply not been done. Why then is the government so determined to proceed with a whole set of changes on existing legislation that has yet to be evaluated in terms of cost effectiveness?

Basically this is an attempt through one of 267 amendments to say that if the government is to proceed with this anyway as a result of its parliamentary muscle, let us at least include a provision so that this changed legislation is evaluated on a regular basis to see if it is effective, whether the registration system is effective, whether the whole initiative is cost effective and presumably to identify areas that need improvement.

It is meant to improve the legislation. I hope government members take it seriously and give some thought to building in some type of process by which this legislation can be reviewed on a regular basis.