Alex Shepherd

[Standing Committee On Industry, November 14th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to involve myself in the debate on the industry committee report "Taking Care of Small Business". Indeed, I worked many, many hours on that committee. I thank colleagues from all parties for their co-operation.

One of the basics of that report was the examination of some of this country's banking structures. I was pleased to take this a bit further this week by accepting the invitation of the Royal Bank to go through its executive headquarters in Toronto and speak with the executive staff on how they are administering their loan portfolios for small and medium size business. I think we are getting a little better understanding of where the problems lie but there is still much to be done.

A mere six years before the turn of the century is an ideal time to consider whether we should reinvent a new industrial strategy for Canada. The problem with Canada and Canadians is that we are not aware of our own greatness. Biomedical research, software development, telecommunications, and geomatic engineering are only some of the areas in which Canada is a recognized world leader.

The new economy will not be based on brawn but rather brains. Also, small and efficient will be the watchwords as big industrial structures come apart crumbling into decay. The smokestacks will be silenced as Canada moves from infancy to adulthood.

Nuala Beck in the recent book Shifting Gears: Thriving in the New Economy refers to some of these changes. In British Columbia more people are engaged in telecommunications than in forestry. In Nova Scotia there are more people engaged in the workforce in education than in the fishery, forestry and construction industries put together.

Small and medium sized businesses will be the engine of the future economy. This engine will be fueled by knowledge and driven by a new breed of entrepreneurs. They will be the employers and the wealth creators of the 21st century. It is by them that employment will be created and they will deliver new consumer goods.

As a government we must redefine ourselves in light of these new changes. We must get out of the way of this new engine lest we be run over by it. But more important, we must restructure government so that it can assist this emerging economy, so that Canada's small and medium sized businesses can dare to be the very best in the world.

How can this relationship between government and small and medium sized business be strengthened to ensure Canada reaches its full potential in the next century? I am pleased to see that our government has undertaken a number of initiatives in support of small and medium sized businesses. Over 30 per cent of our gross domestic product is accounted for by trade. Currently almost all of this is done by a mere handful of companies. Clearly this is not good enough.

The Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade has undertaken along with our banks a robust venture to redefine what skills our business people will need to attack foreign markets. It ranges from aggressive training sessions, more intuitive financing devices for export trade through the Export Development Corporation and the Canadian Commercial Corporation to development of a data bank of contracts and highlights of emerging markets.

In addition we will have to restructure our foreign trade missions. I have had some experience with this having been in Beijing in the spring. I can say that some of the people in our trade missions are not cognizant of some of the needs of small business in an international environment. These people must work hand in hand with business to ensure that Canadian companies can make the leap to international traders.

I need only remind my colleagues of the great successes we are hearing from the Team Canada mission now travelling in Southeast Asia. As I mentioned, I had the opportunity of visiting Beijing on a trade mission along with some of my parliamentary colleagues in the spring. Unfortunately some of my Reform colleagues did not bother to come along, but it was a very big success. It was a trade mission of a lot of small and medium size businesses basically from the Ontario area. We went to Beijing and created new alliances.

I am happy to say that due to that process, their mayors and a number of people from Weifang in China, with over 85 million people, have signed an economic alliance agreement with the township of Whitby in my riding. Many of our small and medium size business today are trading with China. Some of our small businesses have opened branches in Beijing. These are the things we have to do.

The change is happening now. More employment has now reached my riding of Durham. I can only say that we must encourage more of this sort of development. I believe the initiatives of the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade will do just that.

I have spoken about the area of trade. We must also address some of the needs of small and medium sized businesses as they attempt to establish themselves in the domestic market. Often government practices are a hindrance to them. High commercial and business tax assessments, meddlesome provincial standards and regulations, our own dreaded GST, as well as an inordinately high level of taxation are only some of the overwhelming obstacles faced by our business community.

The deficit hems us in as a government and does not give us the affordability to pursue more aggressive policy. Indeed, by being a heavy borrower governments have crowded out the capital requirements of small business. In a way our best commitment to small and medium size business will be deficit control and reduction.

Current high interest rates and high taxation are choking off business formation. To arrest this problem is a major commitment to small and medium size business.

Having said this, I believe that there are things that government can do better to achieve a greater degree of business confidence. We should seriously consider bringing back a form of income tax moratorium on capital invested in small and medium size business. In other words, encourage capital retention within the business sector by deferring capital gains recognition to that date when the investor wants to enjoy the fruits of his or her labour. This would allow more aggressive capitalization of small and medium size businesses.

I have mentioned how we could change the taxation system. We also need to reform how small and medium size businesses get access to new capital. I note this was the basis of a report. However, I think there are some other things that we could do. Most small businesses will fail in the first few years of operation. Often this is not because their product was faulty or poorly marketed but because of insufficient capital.

The government has done much in this area. The Small Businesses Loans Act, venture programs administered by the Federal Business Development Bank, working ventures, and even section 25 of the Unemployment Insurance Act are all good initiatives to help small and medium size businesses but still there is something missing.

What we need in this country is an aggressive, over the counter equity market, one which provides relatively cheap access to capital markets but also has the regulatory regime

which can earn the respect of the general public. This is the focal point of investing in ourselves. Canadians have all too often avoided investment risk. This has worked against our potential as a nation. This new and improved market would provide a relatively easy trading system. I note in fact that something of this nature already exists. It is called the Canadian dealer network and is part of the Toronto Stock Exchange. Still, it is too expensive to access and it must be made easier to access.

Finally, we need to believe in ourselves and our great abilities. We need to see beyond tomorrow to what we could be. Business itself will have to be more effective in networking, seeking out solutions of excellence in everything we do. We need to end some of our parochial attitudes which are holding us back from being the best. We must learn to share with each other so that Canadian products will be the best there is and so that the 21st century will truly be Canada's century.

[Standing Committee On Industry, November 14th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I also was very happy to have worked on this committee with my hon. colleague. Could he clarify for me one comment in his very good and very well presented speech? He talked about his concerns with concentration in our economy. Since we focused a lot of our time on the banking sector I am assuming that is one of the specific areas of our economy to which he is referring.

As we know, a high concentration of chartered banks basically control the banking sector. Has he some specific proposals regarding how to break the banks down into smaller units? What are his ideas?

[Governor General, October 31st, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, Canada is evolving as a nation and it is time we reflect on our symbols of nationhood. Canadians want to be part of the process of deciding such a national figure as our head of state.

In cursory surveys I have conducted in public schools in Durham, I have discovered that few of our youth can identify the Governor General. This is partly because they or their parents have not participated in his selection.

Of twenty-four OECD countries only three appoint their heads of state and Canada is one of them. I note the election of the head of state would not require a constitutional amendment but could be done by convention. I suggest that we elect the Governor General at the time of a general election. As an interim step we could have the House vote on a short list prepared by the Prime Minister.

I believe this methodology would give the position of the Governor General more credibility and strength in our federation.

[Immigration Act, October 31st, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to enter the debate on this motion by the hon. member for Calgary Northeast. I congratulate the hon. member for bringing this matter to the House. I am certain that HIV testing is a major concern of most people in Canada.

There is a great deal of concern about this disease. I believe the whole medical profession is evolving in its attitude toward the disease and in trying to find a cure for it.

I can speak from personal knowledge because I watched the son of a friend die from this very debilitating disease. I watched that young man lose weight, go into trauma. It was a very traumatic experience for us all. The effect it has on families and friends cannot be measured by anyone who has not experienced that.

In addition, I have also had the advantage of travelling around the world a bit. One country I was able to visit was Kenya. Kenya as some may know has a major problem with this disease, much more than we do. In some ways it has reached epidemic proportions in that country. In spite of my own experiences with the disease and watching people suffer from it, I have to reject the motion of my friend. I reject it not from an uncaring point of view but rather the importance of getting this thing right.

In other words it is very important that we start monitoring our immigrant population coming into our country. However, we must get the system correct. By getting it right, I mean the minister is now conducting a review of this whole area. In that process he is consulting medical practitioners. He is basically trying to get the system correct from day one.

Most Canadians recognize this is a very serious disease. However, authorities are somewhat split on how important a disease it is and how it affects the host population. For instance, this disease cannot be spread by personal contact; most medical practitioners do not believe it has reached crisis proportions in our population and do not regard it as a serious public health or safety threat.

Why is it important to get things right? This is the whole essence of this debate. It is not so much in monitoring our immigrant population, those coming into our country, but rather the effect we can have on the current population in recognizing this important disease.

In looking at the Immigration Act, I note in 1952 that our country disallowed the admission of immigrant populations that were disabled for medical reasons. That was not that long ago. How would our resident population of disabled people feel when their own country denied access to this nation because people were disabled? I suggest that it would make them feel like second class citizens. Many in our population do have AIDS. We

must use every resource we have to try to do away with this important disease.

It is also crucial we do not give the opinion, from the government point of view, that there is something inordinately wrong with these people, that if they want to come into the country they would be denied, that they are second class citizens.

I know that the disease itself, even in testing positive for HIV, does not mean that you have the disease. As a consequence, today as we talk, there is no clear way to effect the admissibility of immigrants coming into this population; there is no real way to measure whether they have the disease.

I note that currently the practice is that where there is a suspicion of the disease, the authorities do require testing, and they do deny admissibility. However, it is done on a selective basis, it is not done on a comprehensive basis which maybe the hon. member had anticipated.

In conclusion, it is very important that we get it right. I do not think we are really disagreeing with the importance of the monitoring process; what we are talking about is how to get it right. We have to get it right not only so that we monitor people coming into our country but we get it right in our attitude as to how to deal properly with this very important disease in our own country.

[Department Of Public Works And Government Services Act, October 26th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to rise in the debate on Bill C-52, the public works and government services act.

Less government, less cost, a more responsive attitude: This is the message Canadians are giving us with respect to our government operations.

I conducted a social policy forum in my riding just last Sunday. It was held at Durham College in Oshawa. Many speakers gave me their views on how to change our social programs. This is an important part of our democracy in ensuring that the people who are affected by policies are involved in them. While this forum did not deal specifically with the structure of government, speaker after speaker expressed their views of the need for a smaller and more efficient government that would interact with the public in a manner that would restore meaning to the phrase civil servant.

Many of our civil servants are in fact caring and responsible hard working people who work diligently in the best interests of Canadians. Sustained salary freezes and a moratorium on hiring has created despondency in the ranks of the civil service. The concept of upward mobility seems to have been roadblocked.

Now is the time for new and innovative changes which not only reduce the cost of government operations but most important deliver services more efficiently and more responsibly to the public. Often people are treated to telephone answering machines with messages never returned, or overworked line people who after their 90th unemployment insurance case seem uncaring and unsympathetic.

We must do better. We must rethink our whole attitude toward public sector employment. We must involve employees and the public in the evolution of a new system which will still meet the demands of all Canadians.

We must be prepared to experiment in the public sector in order to achieve a more efficient system. When we say experiment, we mean just that, being prepared to start on a test basis certain pilot projects which will then in turn be monitored to see how they can be extended to the public at large.

I know members would like me to give an example of such a system. We have all been dealing with trying to struggle with a harmonized consumption tax system. The duplication between the provinces and the federal government along with the burden to small and medium sized business has been mentioned many times in this House. In addition, two collection authorities duplicate the work of the government side on this transaction. Indeed in the case of the federal government, it results in over 7 per cent of the funds collected. Currently the harmonization of these taxes has eluded both jurisdictions.

Here is the start of a solution: Why not form an agency for consumption tax collection? This agency would have transferred to it the necessary staff and equipment to collect existing federal tax. The agency would then be set free from the government. The federal government would then become its client.

We could work out a formula for the receipt of tax based on the quantum of moneys collected as well as a bonus for the satisfaction of the general public. The agency would then sell its collection services to the provincial governments, offering to collect their taxes as well. Members will note that there will be no change in tax authorities or who gets what money. It seems to me this would eliminate some of the distress which now exists between jurisdictions. At the same time it would afford for a more efficient collection system.

From this initiative it would not take long for such an agency to suggest to the provinces and the federal government an effective way to only collect the tax once rather than requiring the duplication which now exists.

This is just one illustration of how government could change in order to meet the objectives of Canadians which is for an efficient and effective government, working better and smarter.

Bill C-54 follows this vein by consolidating certain departments of public works and creating a new procurement policy. What is in it for the taxpayers? A reduction of $180 million after five years in operation. A reduction in jobs from 18,000 to 14,000. In addition, due to the last budget, a further reduction of $30 million. These are no small accomplishments, even though members in the opposition would have us believe otherwise.

I would now like to turn my attention to an important new aspect of the procurement policy as outlined in the bill. It relates to contingency fees.

Before coming to the House today I looked up the definition of contingency fees: A future event or circumstance regarded as likely or as influence on present action. This means someone profiting by the success of securing government business. This is a concept of reward not consistent with the public's demand to move toward more integrity in our system. This is the sort of thing that should be abolished and should also be abolished in general lobbying with the federal government.

Since last May all the department's contracts contain a clause requiring bidders to certify they have not hired a lobbyist to solicit award of the contract, where any part of the lobbyist's payment depends directly or indirectly on a client obtaining the contract, or a contingency fee. This is a very good thing.

The minister has also moved quickly to make major improvements in the way contracting for advertising and public opinion research had been handled by the previous government. Previously, there were no effective guidelines for the purchase of these important and sensitive services which left the door open for widespread abuse and political patronage.

For the first time ever, new guidelines have been developed and promulgated with the approval and backing of cabinet. They have brought the procurement of advertising and public opinion research into line with the thrust and policies governing all procurements, namely fairness, openness and transparency.

These guidelines ensure that all contracts awarded for these services advance the policy interests of the government. They ensure that they reflect the government's determination to restore public confidence in the system and the way it conducts the public's business.

By increasing the use of the open bidding system, by introducing the lobbyist clause and by developing new strict guidelines dealing with advertising and public opinion research, the minister has demonstrated his commitment to building a fair and open approach to government procurement.

The Prime Minister has made it clear that restoring public confidence in the integrity of government is a matter of high priority. Dealing fairly and honestly with the thousands of Canadian individuals and companies who do business with the government can go a long way toward achieving that goal.

Passage of the Department of Public Works and Government Services Act will ensure there is a central point of responsibility within government to ensure that the principles and policies governing government procurement are enforced, monitored and adhered to.

[Firearms, October 25th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Justice.

Port Perry, my home town, was the sight of a gruesome bank robbery this last Thursday. Three police officers and two civilians were shot.

Port Perry and Durham want to know if the minister is going to require mandatory sentencing for the possession of illegal firearms.

[Department Of Agriculture Act, October 19th, 1994]

Thank you very much for the question. I think the thrust of that question is whether there is still a need for a Farm Credit Corporation in this country. I am going to say yes, very much, in the affirmative. On some of the things that you are talking about concerning confidence in our economy, we are doing those things in a positive way as well.

The problem with financing in agriculture is the thing that I talked about which is the necessity for long term capital. Generally speaking, our capital markets have not addressed that, even in the residential mortgage business today. I can remember when everybody had a five year mortgage. Today it is down to two years or three years and people are playing around with that. That is another problem with residential mortgages.

The United States has 30-year mortgages. Canada cannot come up with anything better than a five-year mortgage. It seems to be a dilemma of our capital markets. They are not large enough and strong enough to be able to address that concern.

We have a parallel situation in industry with the industrial development bank. In spite of what we might say-they have had a lot of management as all other banks have had-generally speaking the industrial development bank has been successful at addressing the issue of the need for long term capital. If private industry would come along and take that over we would all be very happy about it. The reality is that they are not prepared to take the risk.

In answer to the member's specific question, we still need something like the Farm Credit Corporation. Perhaps we should open up its doors. The hon. member talked about farmers who are investing overseas. In my area we would not have such a luxury. Perhaps too many subsidies are being directed to the member's area so these people have that kind of luxury.

They might invest in something like a farm credit corporation. That is a possibility. Perhaps we can cross the line and partially privatize it. Everybody wants to address the concerns of farmers for long term capital.

[Department Of Agriculture Act, October 19th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his question.

First, the Farm Credit Corporation does have a program of what is called variable rate mortgages. The reality is that Farm Credit usually takes its credit by way of a mortgage on fixed property so it is usually the mortgage on the farm.

I think what the hon. member is really addressing is more of a demand for what we would call working capital. The reality is that there is a great void between our banking sector and how it operates and how farms operate. As the hon. member has mentioned, it is because there is always a degree of uncertainty on the farm. There is always the possibility that hailstones will wipe out your crop. There are countless problems.

In my brief encounter with farming it seemed that the equipment would always break down on a Sunday when nothing was open. It goes on and on and on. These are the problems of farming.

To address the specific intent of the question, I think it goes back to some of the things that I was saying. Our financial sector genuinely is not set up to really deal with farmers. The banking sector, which has always been a short term lender, is becoming more and more of a short term lender and wants its money back every year. It wants to be able to be flexible. It wants to be fluid. Farms are just the reverse of that. Farms are long term commitments to capital. In other words, there is a breakdown in the financial structure of that system.

We have realized through the Industrial Development Bank that in the business sector there is this problem of obtaining long term capital. I think it is an apropos question to ask how we can reform the credit lending system for agriculture. Maybe this goes back to my first comment. Maybe we should think about things like schedule 3 banks, regional banks, a farm bank where farmers will understand as creditors of that bank and as lenders and depositors the problems of banking. I think that is possibly one way we could address that issue.

[Department Of Agriculture Act, October 19th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I am very happy to participate in the debate on third reading of Bill C-49, an act to establish the Department of Agriculture and Agri-Food.

Our farm community has many concerns today. I used to farm. I was not a full time farmer. I was a part time farmer but I certainly realized very shortly that farming is a lot of hard work and not a lot of money.

I would like to deal with two concerns that our farm community has today and possibly address how our government is dealing with them. They deal with general financing and also with intergenerational transfers and farm properties.

In my riding agriculture is a very significant enterprise where gross agricultural production is second only to General Motors. From Bowmanville to Orono to Port Perry and Uxbridge farming is a major way of life. It is a community that has developed over 100 years of agricultural background. One thing I have noticed is that our farm community is aging. The average age of the Canadian farmer is about 54 years.

I have spoken in this House and in committees about the need for small business to seek access to new forms of capital. Indeed, the industry committee which I sat on has just put out a report on access for growing small business. All too often we forget that farms are small businesses as well and they have significant problems in dealing with their banks. When I was farming every spare dollar I had went back into the farm, into equipment and new buildings. As a consequence, farmers have very little cash flow.

Over this last break I had the opportunity to talk with some of the local bank managers. Many of my constituents who are farmers have expressed the major concern that they are having a hard time dealing with their banking enterprises. These are not people who started farming overnight; they have had long term credit ratings with their banks, possibly 15 or 20 years. I talked to some of the managers. One of them commented that the banks no longer want to make evergreen loans. I had never heard that expression before so I asked him to explain. He told me that an evergreen loan is one the banks consider never gets repaid. I suppose the analogy is that evergreen trees never shed their needles; similarly the banks do not want to make loans they think will not be repaid.

Quite frankly, I thought that to be rather preposterous. I can remember not too many years ago that the last thing a bank wanted to do was have its loans repaid, because obviously once forming a good credit relationship with a farming enterprise it went on for decades and decades. A relationship was formed with these people.

Farmers need to finance numerous things on the farm. The two basic ones however are the financing of livestock inventory and the financing of next year's crops. Like any other small and medium sized business, as it grows it continually needs that degree of financing. By definition, it is not money that is paid off every year. In fact in a sense it becomes a fixed asset or liability of the farm. It becomes what we used to call a hard core loan, something that is there all the time; the farmer pays his interest on it and the banks make their profits on it and everybody is happy.

We have discovered that the banks have changed their attitude to all kinds of sectors of small and medium sized businesses. Farmers are feeling this very hard pinch as well. The banks are saying they want their loans paid off. They have also become a little different; they are now brokers of money as opposed to bankers. That means every time someone wants to borrow money the banks will charge a fee. They charge all kinds of setup fees.

Worse than that, I have clients in the farming business who have been with a bank for 15 or 20 years and they are now being asked to do all kinds of financial reporting. These are things the banks used to do internally and now they are telling the farmers to hire professionals to get all this work done. Of course the farmer is in a very precarious situation. He owes the bank $100,000. He may have a half million dollars worth of assets but he cannot pay the $100,000 back tomorrow without selling his cattle or getting rid of all his crops, or not planting next year's crops. In a sense the farmer is in a bad position so he has to comply.

I am a chartered accountant and my own profession would love to deal with the extra business from that source. But the reality is and the question is, is it necessary? Is this a necessary expense to farmers? I suggest that along with some of the studies that have been done in the industry committee that we also focus on small business loans to farmers.

I look at the banks and their pampered position in this country. There are special tax laws for banks. There are even laws that allow them to create money. What better operation can you have than that, when you can lend money that you do not even have? These are the rights of the banking sector. We have to look at those rights and privileges and reflect on what they are doing to our farm community.

One of the recommendations made by the industry committee was the possibility of regional banking. People can think back to the early 1900s when there were such things as farmers banks. The local people could form their own banking enterprises so that the smart alec MBAs from Bay Street are not telling them whether or not they can buy that new combine or manure spreader, even though they may have more of an affinity for the latter than the former. These are some of the aspects of capitalizing small business. I think our government is very interested and very concerned about moving in the area of improving access to capital for farmers.

I would like to deal with the aspect of retiring farmers. As I mentioned in my opening remarks the average Canadian farmer is 54 years old. One of the exemptions that they have under the Income Tax Act today is a $500,000 lifetime exemption for capital gains. I would like to discuss capital gains in relation to farming.

The reality is that the capital gains tax, in spite of what the people in finance might tell us from time to time, generally speaking does not exist on the farm. In fact what it represents is inflation. In other words, what was the value of the farm in the 1950s and what is the value of the farm today. If we go back and extrapolate the real value of money we discover the farmer in fact has not gained anything.

He has however taken every spare cent he has and buried it in that farm property. That is his retirement income. He does not have a retirement savings plan. Maybe some do, but very few just by the nature of the business itself.

Finance from time to time talks about $2.2 million lost revenue from this deduction for farmers. The reality is that it is not lost money at all. It is money that does not exist. It is a tax on inflation.

I draw that to the attention of the House. Presumably the finance minister will also feel similarly impressed that this is something we have to maintain in order to assist our farmers to make orderly transfers of their farm property to another generation or even to retire completely from farming.

My second point is where Agriculture Canada and more specifically the Farm Credit Corporation have been active in assisting our farm community. Only recently Farm Credit Corporation introduced a new mortgage plan for farmers. Some of that will relate to farmers who are retiring and turning it over to their sons or daughters and some of it will involve farmers who are retiring from farming completely. Generally speaking this program will assist retiring farmers to transfer their properties to another generation.

All too often farmers stay with the farm away beyond the time they should turn it over to another generation. Usually the problems are financial. Farming is hard physical work. Obviously at 54 we should have thought about retiring or becoming a manager long before this.

Farm Credit Corporation has devised a mortgage instrument. It is a little complex but I will explain it briefly. If the farmer wants to sell his farm for say $100,000, his son will have to come up with 10 per cent of the proceeds, $10,000. Farm Credit Corporation will then advance $40,000, up to 40 per cent of the sale price to the retiring farmer. He will have $50,000 or half of the proceeds of the sale on the day of sale. The balance of the money is paid to the retiring farmer over a maximum five year period. It could be a shorter period than that.

The other side of that is the retiring farmer only receives the interest on the $40,000. The new farmer, his son or daughter, will pay full mortgage payments. More and more money is being applied against the principal and only a small portion is paid toward the interest on the $40,000.

This is another good idea that Farm Credit Corporation has which is going to assist the new farmer to build up equity in the farm and assists the retiring farmer to get his money out of the farm.

What is the catch? Generally speaking the retiring farmer is not going to receive interest on as much as $50,000 over that short period of fiscal time. However, most farmers I know realize and in fact I have heard it mentioned many, many times in the farm community that if we charge over 10 per cent interest we are going to get the farm back.

Most farmers are knowledgeable about the concept. They would be happy to reduce the amount of their real interest with the concept that they are going to get their cash flow out of the farm.

This is one area where the Government of Canada through Agriculture Canada and the Farm Credit Corporation has added a very specific and useful instrument to assist the farm community to make intergenerational transfers.

I conclude with the remark that these are some of the things we will have to take into account when dealing with our agricultural sectors, the problems they have with their banks, the fact that they must retain their $500,000 lifetime exemption. The Government of Canada has heard their concerns about intergenerational transfers and it is trying to do something very positive in assisting them.

[Department Of Industry Act, October 17th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I do not recall discussing subsidies in my dissertation. I talked about creating a new industrial climate in Canada. I did not talk about subsidizing industries that go out and compete in the international marketplace. It was just the reverse. I talked about government's role to steer, that it had to create an environment in which businesses would flourish. I did not talk about subsidies but I agree that in some instances subsidies do not work.

In some ways, our government is realizing some of those and has realized that in the past. That is a new orientation for our governmental system. I was not talking about any of these things as a matter of fact. I was talking very simply that we must create a new independent wave of how we are going to deal with business in the future and how we are going to build a new Canadian economy.