Val Meredith

[Public Works And Government Services, November 27th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, confidential documents from the Privy Council Office were discovered unshredded in a Burnaby warehouse, as were restricted NATO documents.

The minister has known about this for months, yet he ordered his department to cover up this massive security breach to avoid media attention. He went so far as to keep this information from the privacy commissioner.

Just how serious was this breach of security that the minister was afraid to inform the privacy commissioner?

[Jesse “The Body” Ventura, November 25th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, earlier this month when former professional wrestler Jesse “The Body” Ventura was elected Governor of Minnesota there were some comparisons between the first member of the American Reform Party elected to office and the election of our first Reformer, the hon. member for Edmonton North.

While it is true that the two have something in common, namely that either of them could whup any member on the government benches with one arm tied behind their back, there are actually a number of similarities between Jesse Ventura and the Liberals.

Both Ventura and the Prime Minister are adept at applying the choke hold. Ventura perfected the manoeuvre known as the “pile driver” and the Minister of Finance has mastered the art of driving piles of dollars out of the country with his tax policies. And how could we overlook Ventura's experience as a trained navy SEAL when the Liberal backbenches are filled with trained seals?

[Canada Small Business Financing Act, November 23rd, 1998]

The member opposite says that maybe they won't make the loan. If the taxpayer is paying for the default of that loan, maybe the person should not be getting a loan. Maybe small businesses that are too risky should either put up more collateral or be a little more responsible rather than putting the responsibility on to the Canadian taxpayer.

I do not know about the members opposite, whether they ever communicate with their taxpayers, the people on the street who vote for them. When I get letters from my constituents, from taxpayers, they are concerned that the priorities of government are skewed. That government is responsible for providing essential services to the people of Canada and by not putting its priority on funding special interests or businesses is a mistake.

We feel it is prudent for the government to be protecting the taxpayer by making sure that when it is covering loans or putting its neck out and supporting loans that may be defaulted there is a balance in that of what the taxpayer is responsible for and what the lender is responsible for.

The purpose of Motion No. 6 is to make sure that balance is kept, that the taxpayers are responsible for one half and that the lender is responsible for the other half. What we are talking about are high risk loans that are being loaned because traditional sources and vehicles of loans for small businesses are not available to them. We are talking about a very small percentage of small businesses that may or may not succeed.

Members across seem to feel it is the responsibility of the government and the taxpayers to make sure that everybody who wants to start a business is given money to do so. It does not work that way.

Not every child in this country has an education or has the available means for a post-graduate education. They have to earn that right. They have to go to school and get the marks. They have to show they are diligent in the requirements to go on to university or college. The same should apply to the small business community, to somebody who decides that he or she wants to be in business. There has to be an onus put on that individual to make sure that business has a market and is in a community that can support it.

When an individual asks for financing, either from a bank or a government protected bank, there should be minimum risk. The banks must know the business has the ability to survive.

Motion No. 6 states the lender would assume 50% of that liability and the taxpayer would assume 50% of that liability. It would put the onus on the small business to show the lender and the Canadian taxpayer that it has done everything possible to make sure the business is viable and will go ahead. I suggest the number of loans written off would probably decrease.

My understanding now is the default rate is 10 times higher on these loans guaranteed by the federal government. I suggest that 10 times higher is perhaps too much to put on the Canadian taxpayer. I think they would feel the priority of their money should be in things like health care and education, the things they feel are far more important than perhaps taking 85% on the default of a loan.

I think Motion No. 6 is reasonable and logical. I also believe it would have the support of the people who pay the bill when these loans are defaulted, Canadian taxpayers.

Motion No. 11 is self-explanatory when it states that the auditor should not have to give a 21 day notice. They should be able to do what Revenue Canada does, phone up and say they will be there in three days to go through the books. There is no reason why the same degree of short notice that Revenue Canada can avail on should not be applied to this bill as well. I hope everybody will support these motions.

[Canada Small Business Financing Act, November 23rd, 1998]

Madam Speaker, speaking on Group No. 3 motions before the House for debate, I challenge the previous member who said that Reformers are not in favour of small business. That is a crock.

Reformers very much support small business. What we do not support is the Canadian taxpayer funding businesses that may or may not survive and being responsible for the debt incurred.

Motion No. 6 is simply asking for an amendment that lowers the percentage of the government's liability for defaulted loans.

What we are talking about when we are talking about the government's liability is that the government does not have any money itself. It is taxpayer money.

What we are talking about is making an amendment that lowers the percentage of taxpayer liability for a defaulted loan. What is meant is that the person who is lending money to a small business that is more risky, that has a higher chance of defaulting on that loan, has to assume a higher risk. That is a very logical move to make.

What we are asking for is instead of the taxpayer assuming 85% of the risk in covering a default that they assume only 50%. I suggest that if the lender is still responsible for 50% of a defaulted loan, they will be a little more judicious in making sure that some very extreme risk cases are not funded.

[Health Care, November 23rd, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, when a Liberal government introduced the Canada Health Act and national medicare 30 years ago there was a commitment for the federal government to provide 50% of the funding. Under this Liberal government that commitment has dropped to 11.5%, yet it claims that health care is its top priority.

This government spends millions of dollars a year funding golf courses, ski hills and banks—not only Canadian banks, but foreign banks as well—yet it claims that health care is its top priority.

While the premiers are unanimous in requesting that this Liberal government restore some of the billions of dollars that it cut out of health care, the response is that it would be foolhardy to do so.

The only thing that is foolhardy is to believe that health care is this government's top priority.

[Division No. 265, November 23rd, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to speak to the amendments to the legislation. I want to give brief consideration to why I am a little concerned about the legislation in terms of dealing with funding to small business.

When funding businesses government does not often look at whether or not the businesses are new or whether they will be in competition with existing businesses that have not had government funding. People who have worked very hard, made sacrifices over a number of years, and built up businesses in communities often find themselves suddenly confronted with a government subsidized business that is working in competition with them.

To the business person who has worked for a number of years to establish a business it does not seem fair that the government is subsidizing someone to actually work in competition with them in an unfair and unequal way.

One has to ask what is the priority of government in funding small businesses and what the parameters of the decision to fund them should be. A colleague of mine has put forward an amendment that no two people in the same family can apply for a loan for the same business. This shows that the legislation has serious flaws.

If a business cannot get funding from a traditional source and goes to a government source of funding, it would only make sense that it be very controlled as to the risks of the taxpayer. It should be quite obvious although not explicit that the government should show due diligence in making sure that there is only one loan going to a particular family business.

Another motion under Group No. 2 talks about the level of funding that should be available. The amendment is suggesting that the level of $250,000 as set out in the legislation is far too extravagant. It is too great of a risk for taxpayers to put funds into a business that cannot get funding through a traditional source.

I will expand upon that concept. We have banks. As a matter of fact we now have a commitment from two major banks to establish a single bank responsible for lending money to small businesses. They have committed a substantial number of dollars solely to funding small businesses. If I remember a comment made by the CEO of the Royal Bank not too long ago, presently only a portion of that funding is used. I believe the number he mentioned was something like 70% to 80%. This means that 20% of the funds put aside for small businesses has not even been lent out.

The people who are applying for support from a government agency for whatever reason, and generally it is because the risk is too great, have not been given funding from traditional sources. When we start asking taxpayers to risk a maximum of $250,000 per applicant we are asking them to put at risk a fairly large sum of money.

It is interesting that the average size of loans made under the old program was only $65,000. We have to ask why the government would feel it should raise the maximum loan amount from $100,000 to $250,000 when the average loan is only $65,000. It seems to me that the $100,000 was plenty. It allowed some discretion on the part of loans officer or the people putting together the finance package. It allowed them a considerable amount of support. The fact that most successful applicants only get two-thirds of it shows that $100,000 was adequate.

We have to question why the government feels it is necessary to amend the legislation. Why does the government feel it is necessary to put that kind of financial support behind small businesses?

Having been a small business person I do not want to say that the government has no role to play. However I am not convinced through my experience with community leadership. I watched governments fund industries that had no hope of success. The government ended up having to eat the investment in industries that had no hope of success. I have seen governments do the same with small businesses. I have to ask whether it should be an area of federal government involvement.

The government has no business in areas of responsibility where it is not needed. This is one area where we have private institutions, banks, credit unions and other areas where people can get financial help. If they cannot it is often because their proposal is not solid enough. Maybe individuals need to be encouraged to make sure their business plans, concepts and ideas are solid enough to make their own sacrifice and not look to the taxpayers to make a like sacrifice for them.

I have great difficulty supporting the legislation although some of the amendments proposed by colleagues, particularly the amendment limiting the number of family members who can apply for a loan and lowering or keeping the level at $100,000 instead of $250,000, gives me an opportunity to say I can support it to a lesser degree. I question whether the federal government would be satisfying more Canadian taxpayers and Canadians in general if it were to put that kind of money into health care, education and those areas where Canadians feel the federal government should put its dollars.

That is all I will say on the bill and amendments. I want to take a few minutes to talk about the government's response to debate on the legislation. It is deplorable that the government has chosen one more time to seek closure on debate. I question that in any democracy a government should have the right to say, because it does not agree with what we have to say, that it will not allow us to be heard.

It is shameful the government continues to use closure to limit debate and to try to minimize any criticism on the legislation it brings before the House. If it honestly feels that the legislation it brings before the House is good, it should not have any problem with people challenging and debating it. If the government cannot defend it in the House of Commons perhaps it should withdraw the legislation and come up with something that is better and meets the needs of the Canadian public.

[Supply, November 19th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, my position is that when the federal government encroached on provincial jurisdiction in 1968-69, it made a commitment to those provinces in order to get them to buy into the new program it was proposing. That commitment by that Liberal government was that the federal government would in perpetuity fund it at 50%. That was the agreement the government had with the provinces at the time when they agreed to, or were forced to go into this program.

That is what I would like this federal government to do. Forget the 11%, the 14%, the 16% or whatever number it comes up with and return to the 50% commitment that it made to the provinces at the time. I am speaking on my own behalf that I think the government should follow through with the promise it made.

[Supply, November 19th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I do not speak on behalf of the Reform Party when I say this. This quote is from the press release by the premiers in Saskatoon on August 7: “They expressed concern about unilateral federal cuts to the Canada health and social transfer, CHST, beginning in the 1994-95 fiscal year that now represent more than $6 billion per year. This is the transfer to provinces which helps support core health care services, post-secondary education and other social programs for Canadians. The federal government cut its funding for social programs through the CHST by 33% while at the same time spending on federal programs fell by just 6%”.

I would like to know whether the hon. member thinks the premiers across the country are playing with figures and are not being forthright in saying that this is how they see how the federal government unilaterally cut money that it had promised to the provinces.

[Supply, November 19th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to speak on the motion today.

I start by stating the motion so that Canadians clearly understand what we are debating, that this House support the unanimous resolution of the provinces as agreed at Saskatoon August 7 to the effect that the federal government must reinstate, through the current mechanism of the Canada health and social transfer, at least $2 billion immediately in contributions to primary health services, considering that the federal government has already accumulated a budgetary surplus of $10.4 billion for the first six months of the 1998-99 fiscal year.

I refer to a press release by the premiers in Saskatoon on August 7. They reaffirmed their commitment to maintaining and enhancing a high quality universal health care system for all Canadians.

The premiers observed that every government in Canada but one, the federal government, has increased its funding to health care. The premiers are committed to directing additional federal funds to core health services.

The premiers also pointed out that since 1994-95, the Liberal federal government has introduced cuts that now represent $6 billion per year. These cuts to the Canada health and social transfer amount to 33%. The government cut 33% of the transfers of federal funds to the provinces but it only cut 6% in its own federal program spending. For every dollar the government cut out of federal program spending, it cut $5.50 out of money transferred to provinces for health care, education and social services.

The hon. member for Stoney Creek assured Canadians that health care is a top priority for his government. He said that it is irresponsible to make dramatic spending commitments in an economy subject to international changes. He also said that although health care is at the top of the list of priorities for Canadians, spending must be addressed with prudence and that it is foolhardy to make a commitment of $2 billion.

I want to share with Canadians some of the prudence with which this government is spending their money. The department of agriculture spent $200,000 on an information kit for members of parliament called “At Work in Rural Communities”. The Canadian Consul General in Shanghai felt that a 5,000 square foot house was no longer acceptable, so Canadians are paying $15,000 U.S. per month so he can rent a downtown apartment in Shanghai.

There is more foreign affairs spending. Canadians are spending $3,500 U.S.—and we all know how that translates in currency exchange—per month to store furniture at one location although that furniture is only valued at $1,000. Although one ambassador's residence is two times larger than the guidelines allow, the extra large house is costing Canadians $37,000 a year to maintain.

There are many golf courses included on this list but I want to point out some of the more outrageous support that this Canadian government feels is a priority. The Ontario Lawyers Association, $95,000; the Canadian Bar Association, $46,532; the Manitoba Trucking Association, $70,000; the British Columbia Trucking Association, $42,900; and Imperial Oil Limited, $120,601. Here are some more examples. The Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce, $25,000; General Electric Canada, $1,239,268; Novem BV Credit Lyonnais Bank Nederland NV, $125,368. We do not even believe in keeping the money in Canada. Nutek Sparbankernas Bank, I believe in the Netherlands, $10,810; Technical University of Denmark, $5,692.

These are only a few examples of the Liberal government spending priorities over spending on health care. We have to question the sincerity and honesty of the Liberal commitment to health care for Canadians.

All of this has a trickle down effect. When the federal government cuts transfers to provinces and the provinces have to make up those cuts to ensure Canadians receive a high quality health care system, they have to cut spending in other programs. One of the expenditures they cut is the transfers to municipalities. That is downloading expenses onto the local governments that normally would have had assistance from the provincial government. It is not just the provincial governments that are feeling the effects of these kinds of changes and the miscued priorities of this federal government.

I want to share with Canadians the accountability of this government. The government has tried to claim that it is not its fault that the health care system is suffering and that Canadians are having difficulty getting access to health care, hospitals and doctors. The government says that it is the provinces' fault.

The health minister has on more than one occasion blamed Mike Harris, the premier of Ontario, for the lack of health care services in the province. I would suggest to the health minister that he should look in the mirror if he is looking for a villain. Maybe with a bit of luck the finance minister will be standing behind him and his image will also be there and he can share the responsibility. The health minister cannot possibly blame the provinces for having to struggle to make up the difference. We are talking about a 33% cut under this Liberal government.

I know the health minister has made comments that it was the Liberal government that brought in the Canada Health Act and it was the Liberal government that brought in medicare. Yes, he is right that it was a Liberal government but at the time when it brought in health care there was a commitment to fund at 50%.

In Alberta there was great consternation that it had to go along with this program even though it was provided with a much more superior system to what was being offered because it was assured that it would be 50% funded. The Alberta health minister of the day knew that the time would come when the federal government would renege on that promise and would not support it at 50%. However, he had no choice but to bring Alberta into the program.

It is interesting to see this government has shown that the Alberta health minister was right that the federal government would renege on its responsibility and commitment. I know very well who that health minister was because he was my father. He resigned his post as the minister of health because he knew that the Canada Health Act would bankrupt the provinces. It is being shown today that is exactly what is happening.

I would ask this government where its commitment is to health care. Where is the government's commitment to Canadians that this is a priority when the commitment the government made when it was introduced of funding at 50% has been reduced to just over 11%? Where is the government's commitment to Canadians that health care is a priority and not spending on foreign affairs and public relations documents for members of parliament on agricultural issues in rural communities? Where is the government's commitment to Canadians that health care is its priority?

I would suggest to the House that there is no commitment and no sincerity in that commitment. This government has shown by its arrogant attitude that it is not going to support the demand and desire of Canadians for a secure health care system in the future.

[Transfer Payments, November 6th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, this government pays less than 15% of health care costs in this country, but it still wants the control. The largest RCMP detachment in Canada is in my constituency of Surrey. The federal government pays only 10% of the costs but it still wants the control.

I ask the Prime Minister if the government is not prepared to pay its fair share of the costs, when will it transfer control to the people who pay the bills?