Alex Shepherd

[Supply, December 5th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with great interest to the member's speech. I know he is very interested in his riding and I have heard him many times express his concern about the issue of employment in the province of Quebec. I recently had the opportunity to read a report by the Quebec Manufacturers' Association, who said that employment conditions and problems of labour and employability within Quebec were very serious. I would like to get the views of the member.

I understand unemployment insurance benefits in Canada are some of the highest in the western world. Many people feel that because these benefits are inordinately high compared to countries we compete with in international trade, it has created a lower productivity. In view of that, a number of people feel that productivity in Canada has been declining over the last ten years and no less so in Quebec.

A very positive aspect of this legislation would be to increase labour productivity, increase the attractiveness of Canada and of Quebec as a competitive place in which to do business. What we are really looking at is a long-term commitment to create a great number of jobs within that province.

[Symbols Of Canadian Nationalism, December 5th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the Leader of the Opposition, who recently recognized the importance of the symbols of Canadian nationalism by supplying my office with Canadian flags. I dutifully handed these out to hundreds of our citizens in Christmas parades across Durham. I can assure the member that the deep expression of love for our country and each other was reflected on the faces and in the hearts of all of these communities.

There are other symbols we should change in order to reflect the reality of all the people of Canada as we approach the 21st century. Our currency should reflect the true Canadian traditions rather than foreign monarchs. The head of our state should be truly elected by Canadians for Canadians. Finally, here and across the land, when people take the oath of office or oath of citizenship they should swear allegiance to our great nation, Canada.

[Small Business Loans Act, November 28th, 1995]

Madam Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to once again enter the debate on Motion No. 6.

I listened to the hon. member for Trois-Rivières talking about how different Quebec and its people are from the rest of the country. The Small Business Loans Act shows us very realistically how we are all similar. The problems of small and medium size businesses whether in Montreal or Chicoutimi, Oshawa or Vancouver are very much the same. Small and medium size businesses have difficulty obtaining access to capital.

Clearly it is important for us as a country to look at as big a market, as big a capital access as we possibly can and to assist small and medium size businesses. What are we talking about here? Ultimately, we are talking about jobs and the ability to create jobs.

I was very interested recently to read a summary by the Quebec Manufacturers Association that stated that Quebec is the least attractive jurisdiction in Canada in which to do business. This is not something that has been created by the federal system; it is something that has been created within the province of Quebec. I addressed some manufacturers from Ontario this week and asked them how we could assist our fellow business people within that province overcome some of the problems of high wage structures, high interest rates, and so forth that the manufacturers of Quebec are having, which means an inability to create jobs in that province.

This motion deals with the ability of making the administrative changes to acts within the purview of the committee system. What we have to do is ask ourselves what is our role as parliamentarians. Psychologically, it sounds very good to say that we should be involved with every decision of government, possibly every change in the Income Tax Act, possibly every idiosyncracy or change in the Environmental Protection Act, fee structures that are administered by Canada Post. There are all kinds of administrative actions that occur on a daily basis.

When I practised as a chartered accountant I had a list of complaints, and I agree that the system is too complex. I had a stack of information that came in every week of changes within the system, a stack of about four or five inches. If that is to be the purview of the committees, I do not think they will get much work done.

The other aspect of this is that we need to empower somebody with responsibility, somebody who is answerable, somebody who can appear before the committee and answer for decisions that are being made. I question whether on a daily basis we can have members of Parliament involved in all of these individual decisions. On paper it sounds very good, but the reality will be that we are going to delay the decision making.

For instance, on administration fees, the object of that exercise was to basically make the administration of those loans break even for the government, for the government to have no costs involved, covering our loan losses, et cetera. For the committee to make rational decisions on an ongoing basis, they would have to know almost on a weekly basis the administration of those loans, the numbers that have gone into default, the industries that are being pressured, and so forth to know whether to increase or decrease fees in certain areas.

I would like to draw the attention of the House to the fact that committees do not meet that often. The reality is that Parliament is only in session less than half of the year. How could it possibly react on a daily or weekly basis to these kinds of changes? That is not the purpose of Parliament or even the purpose of the committee system.

Once again, I am opposed to this group of motions. If we want to improve the committee system, we should ask whether the reviews the committees enter into are efficient and adequate, whether the powers of investigation are adequate and whether they exercise them adequately. Those are really properly the issues that would face parliamentarians on how to make this place more efficient and more democratic.

There is room for possibly strengthening the committee system, and I thank the member for Trois-Rivières for making that point. A lot of people in this country would like to see the committee system strengthened to use the talents of members of Parliament to their optimum benefit. Quite frankly, approving administration fees I do not think is one of them.

There is another important aspect we overlook about the administration fee. It has been the complaint of the SBLA program that it was essentially the prime borrowers, well heeled companies, that were getting the loans. In other words, these people could possibly get loans on their own without that guarantee but chose to get the guarantee because it was a cheap source of capital for them, with a government guarantee attached to it. By increasing this fee that will no longer be an advantage to them.

As a consequence, what we have done is opened up a significant amount of capital for small and medium size businesses. What this means is that those companies that can afford to pay regular rates of interest will be unattracted because of this fee structure and will go off and borrow through the normal financial channels without the SBLA guarantee. The companies that will be left will in fact be those emerging companies, the ones that find difficulty in getting access to loans.

Time and time again on the industry committee and through our report, Taking Care of Small Business , we have been told by small business that the most important thing is access to capital and not necessarily the cost. Of course there is a point at which the cost of capital becomes prohibitive, but those small emerging companies, the ones we are looking toward as creating new jobs and new industries, are going to have better access to funds under this system. This sounds ironic, because the fees are slightly higher, but it will open up an area for small and medium size business that does not currently exist.

Getting back to the original motion, I think it will be a detriment to those industries if for some reason the administration fee is somehow logged into a committee that is cumbersome and takes a long time to react. It is wise that the government leave that decision making possibly with a bureaucrat. That bureaucrat from time to time and at the discretion of the committee can appear before the committee and explain his actions. If for whatever reasons we find him negligent, we can get rid of him and hire somebody who is better. I believe that is more appropriately the administration of the committee system.

In conclusion, very simply, I am opposed to Motion No. 6 because I do not believe it is in the best interests of small and medium size business.

[Small Business Loans Act, November 28th, 1995]

Madam Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to enter the debate at report stage of Bill C-99, specifically Motions Nos. 1 and 5 brought forward by the member for Trois-Rivières.

I was interested in the member's speech. He discussed the need to defend lenders. It seems unusual to me. Sometimes when I look at the Small Business Loans Act the question that comes readily to mind is why the Government of Canada has to encourage and guarantee lending to small business, which is the obligation of our financial community.

I was very surprised to hear the member defending moving the guarantee from 90 per cent to 85 per cent. He defended the potential liability for another 5 per cent on these loans to lenders. The banks of the country have reported something in the neighbourhood of $1 billion worth of profits. It is apropos that as legislators and parliamentarians we are concerned about the small and medium size business communities and where they fit.

The question could well be why the guarantee is at 85 per cent. The intent of the legislation is to recognize a liability exists for the Government of Canada in terms of these loans. As far as I can understand, the guarantee has been amended to 85 per cent basically to allow more lending to occur. The growth in the SBLA program has been remarkable. In that sense it has been very successful in channelling investment loans to small and medium

size businesses. By leaving the guarantee at the 90 per cent level, loan losses could well exceed $100 million a year.

As we have heard from the hon. member from Okanagan the government is committed to reducing our expenditures and our risk to loss. He spoke about a maximum liability of something in the neighbourhood of $12 billion. That is erroneous. That kind of risk would be like giving somebody an $85,000 mortgage on a $100,000 house and expecting to lose the entire $85,000. Most of the small business community could look at that situation and realize it is an unrealistic assumption.

Most of the loan loss provisions that have resulted in losses to the government are somewhere in the neighbourhood of 2.5 per cent. That is not unreasonable in the lending business, which gets me back to my original question of why we cannot encourage our financial institutions to be more aggressive in lending to small and medium size businesses rather than require the federal government to guarantee the loans.

The hon. member mentioned a number of other issues, not the least of which was investment in new and emerging technologies. Certainly that is a good point. The history of the loans has been that they are used for capital additions to small and medium size businesses, basically equipment, real estate and so on. The aspect of new technology still befuddles the investment community generally. We need to look for new and different types of sources of capital for small and medium size businesses. I suspect small and medium size businesses and the SBLA program do not look to this source of capital to finance emerging technologies.

About a year ago I had the opportunity to tour the Royal Bank. I talked to some of the portfolio managers and listened to their concerns about emerging technologies. I still believe that the financial community has not come to grips with how to deal with emerging technology. It is still very much focused on the concept of security, based on what it was doing 10 or 20 years ago, looking for hard assets as security for the loans.

The most prevalent asset was real estate. I do not have to tell my colleagues what has happened in the real estate industry in the last five years. The banks, in an effort not to be burned twice, are getting back to using real estate as a security item, which has compounded the problems of small and medium size businesses. The banks are refusing to enter even traditional markets because they do not know from where they will get security.

Through the Small Business Loans Act the government has attempted to inspire financial institutions to come forward and lend to small and medium size businesses. Most businesses will be smaller, based on some of the changes to the act. When we are talking about sales of $5 million and so forth a lot of people in the riding of Durham do not think that is small business; they think it is big business.

The changes to the SBLA will allow it to be more focused on genuine small businesses. The question is how big businesses occur. They occur from the emergence of small businesses that are allowed to grow within the system. The Small Business Loans Act has really been a hand up for some small businesses. As the hon. member for Broadview-Greenwood suggested, it may well be the only hand up that exists between the financial sector and small and medium size businesses.

The second part of the motion deals with the possibility of having the industry committee approve changes in the guarantee aspect of these provisions. One thing that small business needs is flexibility and rapidity in decision making.

I question whether it is in the purview of the committee system to undertake this sort of review process knowing the heavy workload the committee constantly has in this place. I also question whether it is within the competence of the committee to make those kinds of decisions.

In order for the committee to change these kinds of guarantees it would need rapid and up to date information about the experience of loan losses. It would have to be able to understand emerging tendencies within the lending business.

I really question whether it would be a service to small and medium size businesses which would find a great lag in being able to have a flexible relationship with the government. I think the government is attempting to be very flexible in allowing this plan to emerge and foster support of small business.

In conclusion, I am opposed to both of these motions for the reasons I have mentioned.

[Supply, November 22nd, 1995]

Madam Speaker, it was very interesting to listen to the comments of the hon. member for Saint-Hubert.

She touched very briefly on the rights of native communities. I was wondering if she would reflect on the rights of the Inuit people who reside within the province of Quebec. Does she believe they have the right to self-determination? Does she similarly believe that they could also be a nation within the definition of that word? Do they have the right to secede?

[Supply, November 22nd, 1995]

Madam Speaker, I listened to the member's discussion. Simple solutions for complex problems seems to be the agenda of the Reform Party. If we have problems with taxes, flat taxes will solve the problem. If we have problems with debt, just cut government in half and they will al go away. If we have a problem with the criminal justice system, rename a day, rename a week; that will make it better.

The reality is the problems with crime in this country are deep seated. I do not hear the Reform Party talking about how to solve the real issues of crime in our society.

I have some statistics on violent crime in Canada which include all categories: crimes of violence, property crimes, Criminal Code offences, drugs. From 1991 to 1992 there was a 6.3 per cent reduction in total crime. In 1993 there was a further 5 per cent reduction in crime. In 1994 there was an almost 5 per cent reduction in crime. Remarkably these are periods of a Liberal government. During the entire period of time this government has been in office crime has been and is being reduced in Canada.

This will not make headlines in local newspapers but the reality is crime is being reduced. I know the hon. member on the other side does not want to hear that, but these statistics are factual.

I will address what I consider some aspects with the problems of crime in our society. We have gone through a whole generation of young people whose only access has been the electronic media. Often the only babysitter of choice for a whole generation has been the electronic media, the television. We have glorified crime on television and a lot of these young people today cannot distinguish between pretend crime and real crime.

How do we want to address these real factors? The government, through the CRTC, is now trying to find ways to use the V chip to take violent acts in programming out of the home environment and allow parents to have the ability to filter out violent programming within their houses.

The hon. member is saying the Liberal government is doing nothing. I think this is a very profound thing which affects over a long period the attitudes and conduct among young offenders. Just by doing away with the Young Offenders Act we will not do away with crimes by young offenders.

It is time the Reform Party started talking about real problems and real solutions instead of just saying hang them and they will go away.

I wish the member would address some of those real problems.

[The Late Gary Herrema, November 22nd, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, it is with sorrow that I report on the passing on Monday of Gary Herrema, chair of the regional municipality of Durham.

Mr. Herrema, who was a long time resident and farm operator in Uxbridge, was first elected in 1969 as councillor for what was then Scott township. As a testament to his leadership abilities, Gary Herrema became Durham regional chair in 1980 and remained in that position until his death just this last Monday.

Durham, for the edification of the House, represents 425,000 people.

I am proud to note that not only was Gary Herrema a Liberal candidate in the 1984 federal election, he was also an active and long time supporter of his community, of Parliament and of Canada.

Today, Durham residents and their fellow Canadians are saddened by the loss of Gary Herrema. On their behalf, I convey my heartfelt sympathy to his wife, Helen, and to his family.

[Nigeria, November 20th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Foreign Affairs.

Mr. Ken Saro-Wiwa and eight other civil rights activists in defence of the Ogoni people were summarily hung by the military Government of Nigeria after a surreptitious court proceeding.

Could the minister tell the House what actions are planned by the Canadian government to protest this heinous act?

[Department Of Health Act, November 6th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the hon. member a question about education in the province of Quebec, an area that has always interested me.

Education, as the hon. member knows, is exclusively a provincial jurisdiction. Over the years Quebec has had complete control of it. If it was so important and useful in such a supreme system to have exclusive jurisdiction in this area and if it was better for the people, why is the dropout rate in Quebec one of the highest in Canada?

[Department Of Health Act, November 6th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I listened intently to the comments of the member for Mercier, as I always do. I am always very interested in her deep understanding of social issues.

As I listened to her speech, it ran across my mind what she was talking about were communicable diseases. I wondered whether she thought diseases like AIDS or other diseases knew national boundaries. Are specific diseases that could possibly occur in Quebec unique to the borders or indigenous to the borders of Quebec, or are they diseases that can occur throughout the country and indeed throughout the world?

When we are talking about research in diseases and communicable diseases it seems to me that as a country we need to consolidate our work in these areas to try to find solutions rather than be fragmented and have separate research areas throughout the country.

Next is the whole aspect of governments being closer to the people. We have talked a lot in the House about the issue. I have often wondered if it is psychological talk. We look at a map and we see Ottawa and we see Quebec City. However, what does it mean to someone in Chicoutimi, Arvida or other places in Quebec to get government services closer to the people?

I know in my province, for instance in the area of education, we say that it should be close to the people. The reality is our education system is run out of Toronto. It is not any closer to the people than if it were in Ottawa. I suspect this is true in Quebec as well. The actual government getting into the lives of people on the streets of those communities is not any more well developed from Quebec City than it is from Ottawa.

An issue that really concerns me about Quebec and its economy is the over-preponderance of provincial debt in that province. Also there is the preponderance of the province of Quebec to borrow, incidentally outside its borders. Some 54 per cent of Quebec's debt is funded outside Canada with foreigners. The referendum actually required the Government of Quebec to borrow $35 million from foreigners to ask its people if they wanted to be an independent country. It seems a little absurd, quite frankly.

Could the member address some of these issues but mainly the whole issue about how we are to get government closer to the people? The federal government, for instance, pays old pension cheques and the Canada pension plan. It deals directly with people. The Canadian employment services are right in our communities. They are the federal government but they are not in Ottawa. They are right in our communities and are dealing with community problems. I ask her whether some of this stuff is psychological.