Steve Mahoney

[Status Of Women, December 3rd, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Secretary of State for the Status of Women.

Even as we sit in this House, somewhere in Canada women are being scalded with boiling water, burned, strangled, bludgeoned or beaten, often to death. In the nine years since the brutal murders of 14 young women in Montreal galvanized this nation, can the minister honestly tell this House that there has been any progress at all in the fight to stop violence against women?

[Division No. 298, December 3rd, 1998]

Members can laugh if they want, but that is clearly the intent of the minister. The minister of revenue will continue to have control over that.

I want to deal with an issue that we voted on earlier today in relation to this bill, time allocation or what the members opposite would call closure.

The Bloc has put 188 motions to the bill. There happen to be 188 clauses in the bill. So every single one of its motions reads the same, that clause 1 be rejected, that clause 2 be rejected, that clause 3 be rejected. There are no suggestions for positive change coming from the opposition. It is just trying to stall. If we had good ideas, if any came from time to time from that neighbourhood, we would be interested.

What is most astounding in all this is that the Bloc knows that Quebec is the only province that collects its own taxes. We do not even collect its taxes.

I know this day will never come but if I were ever sitting as the Chair in this place and had the opportunity to rule, I would have to rule that those amendments are contrary to the bill and are therefore out of order. Therefore we should not need to put in time allocation.

Members talk about time allocation as if it is some kind of terrible thing. But the reality is that when we have opposition members simply being obstreperous, simply putting forth amendments with no thought whatsoever that are completely contrary to the legislation, then any government worth its salt with any—

[Division No. 298, December 3rd, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I was just seeing if you were paying attention. Thank you for correcting me in that instance. I could not remember the hon. member's riding.

Getting back to the point of taxation, with all these taxes that are there for legitimate reasons, that have been put in place by successive governments and regimes in various parts of the municipal sector, the provincial sector and the federal government, they are there to deliver programs to Canadians. It is a burden, I do not deny that. We hear people talk on the other side that we should just cut taxes, but what they do not talk about is what we do with that tax revenue. What they do not talk about is the fact that I think it is high time that a huge organization like Revenue Canada is reviewed and changed.

This is not about privatization, as the member opposite says. It is about more accountability. Members opposite, particularly in the New Democratic Party, say is it not awful, because they would purport to represent the union involved in this which is frightened for jobs. I do not blame them for being concerned about jobs, but the members opposite should know that there are a number of points that will ensure this place continues to have strong oversight over this agency.

Parliament will review the agency's corporate business plan, just as it now reviews Revenue Canada's plans.

We will also review the agency's annual report regarding its performance during the preceding year. I serve on the public accounts committee and we hope we will see it come to that committee. We will be able to have witnesses come before us from the agency. We will be able to investigate to find out if they are doing their job and serving Canadians well. We will have opportunities for members of parliament to address us at the public accounts committee or speak in this place if constituents have concerns about the efficacy or how they are being dealt with in any way whatsoever.

Before the agency is allowed to spend dime one, parliament will have to approve its appropriations, just as we do now for Revenue Canada. This sky is falling mentality that we are hearing is nonsense.

There is an additional opportunity in this legislation for parliament to review the agency. The legislation requires, for the first time, a full scale review of this legislation five years after it comes into force, and that is not an option. So we know that once this bill is enacted and the agency is set up, it comes before our public accounts committee every year. If we call people we can review their budgets every year. They cannot spend money without the approval of parliament. But we know there is a mandatory five year review of the agency. It is a five year mandatory review but it does not prevent us from reviewing the agency on an ongoing basis if that is what we so desire.

It is interesting to me to hear members talk about less accountability to parliament when in fact this is a bill that will establish an agency that will be more accountable to Canadians, that will be more business friendly to Canadians.

[Division No. 298, December 3rd, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, it is interesting to listen to the opposition talk about the fact that not one province has signed on to this bill.

There is a reason for that. The provinces, with the exception of Quebec, enjoy the fact that the government collects the taxes and the provinces do not have to take the heat for it. When filing income tax in Ontario there is a section which gives the formula for calculating provincial tax. If the tax is being done by the taxpayer or an accountant, when they get to that page they are still in the mindset that they are filing their federal income tax and they are not thinking about the fact that there is a totally separate regime of tax collection at every provincial level. Why would the provinces want to kick up a fuss about this? The provinces want the federal government to have a system of tax collection that lets them off the hook and simply allows us to transfer the money. It is not a surprise at all.

It is also not a surprise to me that not one province has signed on to this. And I have not received one phone call in my constituency office in Mississauga about this issue. And yet, as members I am sure will admit privately at least if not in this place, this is a bill that has had extensive work in this place and in committee. It has been kicked around, dragged around in every one of our caucuses. It has had presentations made. It has been analysed from one end of the legislation to the other and yet there is not a public outcry or concern being expressed that we should, as the member says, scrap this piece of legislation. I believe there is a reason for that as well.

We all talk at times in this place about there being only one taxpayer. I use the example often of the ad I saw in a newspaper that had a mobile sign outside of a private garage called Paul's garage. The sign said “Our price includes the PST, the GST, the EHT, the MBT, the MPT, the UIC, the WCP and the CPP”. On the bottom it said “We would have included profit but we ran out of room”. The point I make is that we have a lot of taxes. Mr. Sekora, nice to see you. We have those taxes simply because—

[Supply, December 1st, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I on behalf of my constituents in Mississauga West, a primarily anglophone community but officially bilingual and we try our best even though I am not quite there yet, I want to say to the people of Quebec thank you for sending a clear message to the separatists both in this place and in Quebec City. I thank the people for giving the clear strong message that we want to get on with the next four years of governing.

Yes, we want to negotiate a social union contract. Yes, we need to deal with transfer payments that impact on health care in the province of Quebec, in the province of Ontario and right across the land. Yes, the government has a clear responsibility to ensure that we redistribute the income and wealth in Canada so the provinces which have traditionally been called have not provinces will not suffer.

With the economic strength in provinces like Quebec, Ontario, Alberta and B.C. we can help our brothers and sisters everywhere else in Canada which also has its own individual economic strengths and benefits.

It is all about building a team, a team called Canada. I believe we can do it. After last night I believe we can do it with Quebec as part of Canada.

[Supply, December 1st, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, that is a very good question and a responsible position to take. I would hope there is a commitment that our government is negotiating. I know the Prime Minister is interested in seeing a deal done. The House has heard the quotes I shared from Premier Romanow and from Premier Tobin. I know there is a serious desire to see a social union contract put in place which protects medicare, which ensures that proper transfer payments flow and at the same time protects a strong position for the federal government to have a role in leading policy.

We will not be neutered the way the Reform Party would see us neutered. We will stand strong as nationally elected politicians in this place and for all Canadians.

[Supply, December 1st, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Waterloo—Wellington.

I am pleased to rise on this very important issue but puzzled as to how we have arrived at this moment in our history where we are debating a motion that would arbitrarily and artificially impose a deadline on negotiations that are currently going on across the country.

I listened to the previous speaker and I have listened to him on many occasions and heard thoughtful comments in this place from that member of the Reform Party. I see the member for Calgary East who I know does not always agree with his party's positions, particularly some of the more extreme ones. I heard the member for Macleod, the health critic, talk in terms of his party's not wanting two tier health care and various other things he was denouncing.

It has occurred to me as I listen to this debate that this whole thing is about double standards. I want to share with the House a couple of comments, and this is a direct quote, which would seem to run in the face of the comments by the member for Macleod when he said the Reform Party is not advocating a two tier health system. This relates very clearly to the social union negotiations that were going on.

The leader of the Reform Party to the Saskatoon Business Association on April 2, 1995 said: “We want to amend those sections of the act”, the Canada Health Act, “that deny the provinces the flexibility to require some Canadians to pay at least a portion of their own health care costs”.

How would members interpret that in any way other than two tier health care? I find it a complete contradiction in terms, a denial of his own leader's recorded statements, when the health critic for the Reform Party stands here urging the government to move ahead unilaterally on an issue that would clearly impact the delivery of health care and he is denying his leader actually said this by claiming that the Reform Party is not in support of dismantling the Canada Health Act and establishing a two tier health system.

On February 23, 1998 the member for Vancouver North said: “I had to go into a hospital in Florida. It really put a shame to what happens in my riding in North Vancouver with socialist medicine. I do not think there is any harm in having some competition”.

Once again it is a matter quite clearly of the words not matching the music, of saying one thing and believing another. I see that the health critic is here and I want him to know that I believe he cares about Canadians' health. He is a medical doctor. I believe he has serious concerns. But I do not understand how he reconciles the difference between the statements made.

How he reconciles these double standards is a problem that the Reform Party in my view must wrestle with in its caucus meetings. It must be fascinating to be a fly on the wall to listen to “on the one hand we want to do it this way, but on the other hand we think we can sell it better if we announce it another way”.

Frankly, that is what we are seeing here with the issue of putting some kind of arbitrary deadline. All members in this place want to see a deal done on behalf of all Canadians that makes Canada work.

I believe even members of the Reform Party believe that all members who were sent here as federal politicians, anyone who comes here with a federal interest in making this federation work, want to see some kind of a deal structure. There may be exceptions with Bloc Quebecois members obviously who were sent here more as regional or provincial politicians.

I recall very clearly that I was unable to go to Montreal when the big rally took place at the last minute during the referendum. My wife, a member of council, and a number of her colleagues went on a bus and a number of people from my riding went.

They told me what an incredibly moving experience that was. Yet the Reform Party, instead of joining hands with Canadians in Montreal, worked against not only us but against this entire nation. It ran a deficit in its own budget. It went over its own budget. It spent money it did not have which again points out a double standard to try to destroy the Charlottetown accord. I think it succeeded in doing that.

During one of the parliamentary recesses, when we are getting messages from around the world about the financial stability of this country, we saw the leader of the Reform Party at a speech somewhere in Asia totally tearing down the social and economic fabric of Canada. This is someone who would purport to be a prime minister. This is outrageous.

I want to share with members a couple of quotes that came about as a result of the events last evening in the province of Quebec. We all know what we saw in the province of Quebec last night was a clear message. It was a message from the people of Quebec to the separatists that they do not want a referendum.

I say that to my colleagues in the Bloc. It is a clear message. They do not want a referendum. I did not see anybody strutting around. I watched the news. I did not see great yelling and cheering at the supposed victory parties.

In fact, what I saw was puzzlement from the separatists who said “We thought Quebecers really wanted a referendum and they really wanted to separate. Maybe the don't”. What they really want is government to get on with the job. In a vast majority, if someone looks at the numbers, 55% of the people in the province of Quebec last evening voted against the PQ. That is a pretty clear message.

I want to share a couple of quotes. The first one I want to share is a quote from the provincial premier who happens to be the chair of the provincial premiers as they meet this year. It is interesting that next year's chair will be newly elected, re-elected Premier Bouchard.

This year's chair, Premier Roy Romanow, said in talking about the election:

I think what it means is that the task ahead of us is to, if I may use a little bit of play on Premier Bouchard's campaign slogan, winning conditions for referendum, for me the focus now is winning conditions for Canada. And the first order of business is the social union, negotiating it as quickly as we can. Not under any artificial deadlines or timetables. Doing it with dispatch, doing it with determination. The Prime Minister wants to do it, his ministers want to do it. The premiers want to do it. Premier Bouchard signed on, here in Saskatoon in August, to the bargaining position. I underline those words, the bargaining position of the provinces and the territorial governments.

What we've had here is the people of the province of Quebec engage in election and elect their government for the next four years. We haven't had tonight, based on this result, in my mind, something more than that. On the question of social union, and the negotiation that's ongoing, I think that's something that we'll get back to early in the new year without artificial deadlines.

Why would we wind up today in the House of Commons with a resolution? The opposition is continually hammering the government for, in its words, being heavy handed. Should we ignore the negotiations that are going on very well at the table as we speak and impose some artificial deadline whether it is a Reform one or, as the member for Macleod says, a Liberal one? That is absolute nonsense and it is not the way to negotiate a social union contract for the betterment of the country.

[Canada Small Business Financing Act, November 24th, 1998]

I am not sure but the member used to be a Conservative, Social Credit and now Reform. The member would know from his vast experience in British Columbia that a program such as employment insurance is extremely important to all Canadians. It is important to the workers but it is also important to the employers. How could a small business survive if it did not have the insurance policy like employment insurance? How could its employees survive if it did not have that insurance policy?

I notice puzzled looks opposite. It has astounded to me to no end that from day one the Reform Party has been unable to support this bill. What does it have against small businesses? It is a puzzle. The words do not match the actions in this case. I do not want to get into a rant. I promised myself that I am going to start leaving Reformers alone as much as I can. It is difficult but I am going to suck it up, try to be a good boy and not pick on them. We know what happens. Every time I talk in this place and give Reformers a hard time there is some guy in British Columbia who phones my office and rants and raves that I am such a meanspirited person. I really am not. I have this inability to put up with nonsense that comes from across.

I will get back to Bill C-53. I want to talk about the arguments the members opposite make all the time about our being a big nasty government and we invoke something that the Canadian people know as closure. Let me give those members the history of this bill and how we arrived here. Pay attention and take some notes Get your crayons out.

In November 1997 the Minister of Industry introduced Bill C-21 to extend the lending period of the Small Business Loans Act to one year until March 31 to allow sufficient time to conduct a comprehensive review. It would take into account three considerations paramount for its continuation.

Because we were here when that happened, I was very confident that this did not spell the end of the Small Business Loans Act but more likely the modernization of it, the cleaning up of it. Any program that has been in place as long as this one, which I believe is 37 years, should be looked at and reviewed not only by the auditor, which has happened, but also by this parliament.

The points I made earlier is that it must be relevant to the needs of small business, financially self-sustaining and it must have an adequate accountability framework. Those are the three sorts of legs of the stool that I pointed out earlier that are very important.

In December 1997, to follow the bouncing ball, the auditor general issued his report on the first audit of the SBLA in a decade. That is a long time. Frankly, I hope the auditor general does not wait 10 years to do it again. I think it is extremely important for Canadians to have confidence that it is working, that it makes sense, that it is accountable, that the cost recovery is there and that it is a successful program to help small business.

In that report he expressed concerns about the lack of a clear definition about expected results, areas for improvement in the management and delivery of the program and the adequate provision of information to parliament. These are again points that I have referred to in my dissertation this morning.

In February 1998 the Standing Committee on Public Accounts had the auditor general and Industry Canada appear before it. I was there and it was very enlightening and a good opportunity to have the auditor general hold us accountable, which needs to happen more often.

In March 1998 the program was extended, again through Bill C-21, by one year which allowed us to have the time to arrive at this stage, the third and final reading of the bill.

In May 1998 the Standing Committee on Public Accounts issued a report with 10 recommendations to focus on the issues the auditor general had expressed concern about.

I want to share with the House the consultation process. When closure comes in after a full year of debate, of committee work, of auditing by the auditor general, of debates in here, of introduction and first reading, second reading, referral to committee and back here for debate on third reading, if the government did not put an end to this we would simply be here forever in a gridlock and we would have no opportunity to put in place a bill that will help Canadians. No government, regardless of its political stripes, could tolerate that.

Who did we talk to? The Alberta treasury branch. How can the members of the Reform oppose this bill when I am absolutely confident that the members of the Alberta treasury branch had a lot to say about the formulation of this bill. We would have listened to them and taken into account their concerns and their advice.

The impact on small business in western Canada is painfully obvious to everybody except those members in the Reform Party who represent western Canada or parts of it.

We listened to the Alliance of Manufacturers and Exporters of Canada. This is extremely important because small business would rely on an alliance of manufacturers and exporters. They need the assistance of the provincial governments. They need programs like this to provide capital for them so they are able to export into the world marketplace.

There is no question that the Bank of Montreal is taking a lot of hits these days. Mr. Barrett and company are under a lot of pressure but he announced that they were prepared—the jury is still out obviously—to establish a new bank that would be dedicated to small business lending and funded with some $40 billion in capital that would be made available. That is an initiative we should pursue. It is not a done deal.

There is the decision on whether or not the mergers are allowed to go ahead. I come from a riding that has a very substantial number of bank employees who are afraid for their jobs if the mergers go ahead and are afraid for their jobs if the mergers do not go ahead. It is a double-edged sword and we have look at it calmly and rationally.

We talked to the bank. We talked to Boreal Assurances Incorporated. We talked to Canada Trust on the role of trust companies as a lender in this particular situation. We talked with the Canadian Advanced Technology Association on the potential impact and the possibility for small business to work in advanced technology, in IT and all of that which is extremely important. We talked with the Canadian Bankers Association.

There are the chambers of commerce and the boards of trade. The Mississauga Board of Trade represents thousands of small businesses. In fact it is predominantly small businesses that make up chambers of commerce and boards of trade. Sometimes they take a hit because they are accused of being too right wing. That is a somewhat myopic viewpoint. The board of trade in my community takes on social issues. It looks at issues of concern to the municipality, to the province and to the federal government. It has an extensive review process in place. It is mostly small business people who volunteer their time to serve on boards of trade and chambers of commerce.

Young executive boards of trade exist in many communities. Young people have an opportunity to get involved in aspects of business and can volunteer to assist business, particularly small business.

The Canadian Federation of Independent Business is a group which I worked very closely with when I was at Queen's Park. At times it puts out reports that would make one wonder if they were totally representative of the viewpoint of all members of that association. In fairness, I say to Catherine Swift and others involved in that organization, they serve a tremendous purpose. They serve a purpose of having a link to government, an opportunity to reach out and survey the federation's members and find out how important something like Bill C-53 is in terms of a small business loan to that community. Is it something that is just government fluff or is it something that the business community is taking advantage of? I would suggest businesses are doing that.

The Canadian Finance and Leasing Association is a new twist. Before this bill businesses could not access with the protection and the backing of the Canadian government finance capital from leasing companies. It is a big part of business. It can at times be a little expensive. I would caution all small businesses to take a serious and close look at the rates they pay for leasing. There are real advantages.

One of them is in terms of leasing computers. In two or three years the hardware may be obsolete and certainly in two or three months the software will be obsolete. A computer can be leased for two years and then returned and refurbished. There is a very active program in Canada to sell those refurbished computers and hardware abroad in markets that can use them. Then the small business can renew the lease and get up to date state of the art hardware. This is one of the few ways small businesses can ensure they are compatible with the marketplace in terms of competing with larger businesses.

Municipalities do that. The city of Brampton, for which I worked for some time as a consultant, has adopted a program through the Association of Municipalities of Ontario. It leases all of the computers. There are hundreds of them in a corporation the size of the city of Brampton. The city of Mississauga has a similar type of leasing arrangement. When the hardware is obsolete, it is turned back in. It gets brand new up to date state of the art equipment from the leasing company.

If for no other reason, this is a reason to support this bill, I say to members opposite. This is a reason to share with the small business community. This is a new window, a new frontier, a new opportunity where the government will give a guarantee that will back the leasing arrangement.

On the CIBC, once again we have talked to the banks and the Canadian Restaurant and Foodservices Association, which is extremely important. The cost of leasehold improvements for a restaurant can be very large. We could be talking hundreds of thousands of dollars. This bill will provide up to a quarter of a million dollars for such a project.

It is important to note that we are not talking about financing restaurants all over the country. We are talking about leasehold improvements that will add value. That is why we as a government wanted to hear from the Canadian Restaurant and Foodservices Association. We do not want to be the sole source of financing of leasehold improvements which include the cost of freezers, cookers, et cetera, but we want to be there to help.

The Canadian Taxpayers Federation should be near and dear to the hearts of Reformers so I will let them talk about those individuals.

I mentioned the great work done by the member for Parkdale—High Park in relation to her report on credit unions. Their role has expanded tremendously. Canadians should go to their credit unions. They are not customers. They are owners. They become shareholders and partners in credit unions. We should be using credit unions more.

GE Capital is one of the big leasing companies involved. The list goes on and on of the many financial institutions we have talked to.

This bill is a classic. It shows the government has consulted. We extended the old bill to ensure the program would be safe and that it would carry on. We have not modified the end result. There is still a quarter of a million dollars available in terms of a loan. We will still guarantee 85% repayment on behalf of the borrower to the lender. The bill gives confidence to the lending institutions, the credit unions and leasing companies, all the organizations in the financial sector, that they will be able to support small business.

Make no mistake. This bill is not there to help lending institutions. This bill is there to help small businesses. It is there to help ensure their future. It is there to help ensure they will be able to compete in the incredibly competitive global economy. They will be able to manufacture and export their goods, create jobs and continue to make this economy one of the most vibrant in the entire world.

[Canada Small Business Financing Act, November 24th, 1998]

Some will not take them my friend says.

But the fact is that at times the requirements are much too stringent and are simply not available. Generally speaking, people who start small businesses in many cases are also starting small families. In many cases they are young, energetic, full of enthusiasm and entrepreneurial spirit, but they have not built up an asset base. I think that is true in many different facets of small business.

It is a bit like the old accusation that is made against the banks, which I referred to earlier, that the minute it starts to rain they take away your umbrella. In a similar sense, to a small business applying for a loan, the bank might say that if they do not have enough collateral to ensure the bank can recover its money, if their ideas, efforts and hard work fail, then it will not lend the money. If the small business has enough, the banks will lend it to them, but if they do not have enough they probably do not need it. It is really a double-edged sword.

I am not a fan of government intervention on a large scale. I am not a person who believes that government can necessarily do it better. What we need to do is harness the creativity of Canadians to allow them to open doors that heretofore may not have been available to them.

I believe that by continuing to help small young business access capital, as point number one in this bill addresses, we will do that. We will say to Canadians that we are not here to give them a free ride. We are the government. They have to file their business plan for approval by the bank, the lending institution or the leasing company. It is not up to the federal government to approve these applications, it is up to the lender. The lender will have criteria that the business person must meet, and it is to their benefit to meet it.

If the business can qualify for the loan and the only problem is access to credit, access to collateral, then the government is willing to stand in and supply that credibility. However, the government is not willing to do that without any concern for the third point, and I will come back to the second one in a moment, which is cost recovery.

It is important that governments recognize that throwing money at a particular problem is not going to solve it. I have said in this place before, and I believe very strongly, that we should eliminate the word spending from government jargon and replace it with the word investing. The reason for that is that we are trying to tell people that we are here to invest in what they believe in. We are here to invest in their hard work and dedication as contributors to the overall economic good of the country, and to create jobs and all of those good things, but we are not just going to spend. We want to make sure we get that money back. It is a very reasonable approach to take.

Industry Canada has invested on a large business scale millions and millions of dollars in aerospace. In my riding we have AlliedSignal which is a multibillion dollar worldwide corporation. Why would a business like that need the help of government?

As an out and out grant, that is not available, and it should not be. But we will make an investment that is tied to a specific program. I will give the House an example that relates to small business in the sense of spinoffs with respect to the other businesses that would be created.

AlliedSignal has developed a new technology for de-icing that hopefully will take away from the environmentally damaging de-icing liquid that is currently used. If this is successful it will lead to safer aviation, particularly in this country where we live with eight months of winter and four months of bad skating. We know the importance of de-icing aircraft.

AlliedSignal has invented this and the government has invested $25 million to assist it in bringing the product to market, but we want it back. We want a share in the success of that program. Why should we not? The royal “we” in this case happens to be the shareholders of the corporation of the country of Canada, the taxpayers, and they deserve to see cost recovery in that instance.

The spinoffs from a company like AlliedSignal which developed this wonderful new technology, which received capital to invest on behalf of the Canadian taxpayer, will lead to jobs and greater safety in the aviation industry. It will also lead to smaller businesses which will provide products to AlliedSignal to develop the components that are necessary to put together this new technology.

Those small businesses, many of them with fewer than 50 employees, need assistance. They cannot rely on a fund from Industry Canada that talks in terms of investing $5 million, $10 million or $25 million. They could not possibly handle that kind of debt load, but they can access through the Small Business Loans Act credit or cash to allow them to grow their business and provide the products necessary to a company like AlliedSignal, General Motors, Ford or any of the larger businesses.

There is a direct correlation between government, big business and small business and it makes sense for us to have a mechanism in place that will ensure that small businesses, which are the real engine of our economy, which are the main creators of jobs in Canada, have the ability to grow and to function.

The second point is accountability.

It is extremely important, if we are providing capital funds, or guarantees as opposed to funds, through banks, credit unions, leasing companies or whatever the lender, that the accountability rest right here in this place. It is my view that Bill C-53 will indeed provide that accountability to parliament. There will be annual reports.

I serve on the public accounts committee with members from both sides of the House and they will know that the auditor general is a hawk. The auditor general is someone who will not allow a program to simply run along without any accountability. The auditor general will do an analysis of virtually every department, of every program, of every division, of every aspect of this Canadian government. In my view the auditor general functions as the guardian for the Canadian people to ensure that no government regardless of its political stripe gets carried away in simply handing out taxpayer dollars. The one thing that we have to do when we talk about accountability is come back to the fundamental premise that has been established by this government under the leadership of the Minister of Finance and the Prime Minister, that we have to pay our way.

I know members get tired of hearing this, but it is a fact, it is the truth. We have eliminated the overdraft. We have eliminated the deficit, yes with some pain, yes with tremendous help and assistance by the Canadian people. But the reality is it has been done.

We cannot take all the credit nor should we try, but clearly it is the Prime Minister and the finance minister who are at the controls of the good ship Canada to ensure that we follow that particular fiscal route, and that is being done. This bill frankly fits into that as well.

There is another aspect that I think we tend to overlook at times and that is the volatility and the problems in Asia. Members will dismiss the crisis. I note this morning in the news that the Toronto stock exchange has shot up and everyone is excited. But we all know that tomorrow it can drop right down. Does that affect small businesses? They may not be publicly traded companies. In the case of companies that have lower than $5 million a year in revenue I would suggest they are not. But they can be impacted. Many of their customers are publicly traded companies and they rely on the overall health of the global economy and the overall strength of the Canadian economy for their success.

At times we dismiss it. We tend to pretend this is just in the news. What is happening in the far east, what is happening around the world, some of the instability, some of the violence, some of the problems, the potential for war, all of this has the ability to restrict our ability as humankind to grow and to prosper.

Back in 1989 I led a trade mission on behalf of the hon. David Peterson to Great Britain. It was at a time leading up to the formation of a united Europe and the possibility of a single currency in that part of the world and increased opportunities for freer trade around the globe. There were 10 people in the entourage. We arranged meetings with these folks. At the time I had the distinct pleasure of being the small business advocate for the province of Ontario. My job and the job of the officials who were with me on the trip was to try to make deals and try to put people together. I should correct myself. It was not to make those deals but to put the people together in the same room, in the same part of the country within the businesses to see if there was a possibility of a deal being made.

The reason this was so exciting was the opportunity to use Great Britain, with a common language, a common type of government, an understanding and a comfort level that Canadians could enjoy. To use Great Britain as the launching pad for these small companies to move into the European market was very exciting.

There was one business from Richmond Hill, a broom manufacturer. People would say “Exporting Canadian brooms? Surely they make those in other parts of the world”. The reality was that while they do, the quality of that product, the low cost of that product, the availability in terms of volume were such that the owner of that business was able to strike a deal to start exporting into the United Kingdom and ultimately into the rest of Europe. That was a small business, very much so. I think it was a two person operation. It would bring other people in to continue the manufacturing process as needed.

I say hello to the member from Parkdale this morning who also reminds me about the significance of women in small business. I know that member has worked diligently with women entrepreneurs. I believe it was the member from Parkdale who led a delegation of women to Washington, along with some members of our ministries, to talk about the potential for women in the area of entrepreneurship and the ability of women to come in with their energy and their new ideas to find ways to develop exportable markets.

The member knows better than I that the difficulty women have experienced is availability of capital. It has been a problem for many decades. Bill C-53 will help women entrepreneurs access capital through the mechanisms whether it be the banks or the credit unions. I note also that the member recently published a very extensive document on credit unions and their role in the small business market.

Credit unions really are an alternative to the banks if Canadians do not like the way they are being treated. Many do not. Many find the large banks are so bureaucratic. They are worse than government if that is possible. They create an atmosphere that is very frustrating. Their requirements are too stringent. There is little ability for someone who does not have the time because they are running a small business. They have employees to keep on track. They have payrolls to meet. They have sales to meet. They have equipment. They have EI to pay. Thank God they do. They pay EI for a good reason. It is to provide safety for their employees. It is to ensure that if there is a downturn and they have to lay those people off there is something there for them.

What is interesting is that members harp on what they call the EI surplus but they fail to go back to the Mulroney days when things were a little less stable. We ran a $42 billion dollar deficit.

[Canada Small Business Financing Act, November 24th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to lead off this debate on third reading of what we in the government believe is an extremely important piece of legislation which will help small businesses right across Canada, including farming operations and any business defined as a small business with revenues lower than $5 million a year. It is not really that small a business. From my perspective and in the community that I come from $5 million a year in productivity would be seen as a fairly successful business.

It is important that the government define small business. We recognize the significance of the small business community in terms of job creation, economic growth, exports, leading technology, new IT inventions and entrepreneurship. All of the aspects of life in this great democratic country that we live in are really encapsulated in the definition of small business.

If we think in terms of what our young people are going to do 10, 15 or 20 years down the road, many of them will have opportunities to start their own small business. Many of them will work within a small business atmosphere. It could be in the insurance industry, in real estate or in the automobile industry. Small business is like the river flowing downstream. It springs out of all of the major industries that exist in our country.

There have been many concerns raised recently by members of the automobile dealers' association, for example, and we would class many of them in the small business category. Whether or not they could benefit directly from the Small Business Loans Act may be questionable since their main requirements are in the area of high ticket inventory. They need to have their own financial arrangements in many cases with either the banks or their in-house financial institution. If we think of the spinoffs from an automobile dealer as an example, they can be in parts, add-ons and after market products that are available in the community for people who want to upgrade.

The same can be said of the housing industry. We may think that a developer in a community like Mississauga may not be classed under this definition as a small business.

Granted, they deal in hundreds of millions, at least tens of millions of dollars in gross revenue. However, spinoffs occur every time there is a development approved, every time there is a subdivision approved and every time a single home is built.

It is this government's response to the spinoffs of those businesses to make capital available through new leasing arrangements, through capital lending, through various access points within the Small Business Loans Act. That is probably the number two concern of small business in this country.

The number one concern would be human capital and the lack of properly skilled individuals. For instance, if someone talks in terms of the construction industry, they would be concerned about the lack of human capital available in the trades.

People today tend to think their sons and daughters should all become doctors or lawyers, or maybe even parliamentarians one day.

I have a 23 year old at home who will be taking an apprenticeship job as an electrician. That is wonderful because he will probably save me from electrocuting myself somewhere down the road.

Being an electrician is a terrific opportunity for a young person. It could lead to the establishment of a small business or it could lead to that young person working within another small business with an entrepreneurial flare and an entrepreneurial spirit.

This bill, frankly, is designed to help those companies which will create those jobs.

We mouth platitudes ad nauseam in this place, particularly when it comes to our youth and our small businesses. However, no one can deny that the future of the workplace is very uncertain for a young person coming out of school, either leaving school before graduation or graduating from school.

If government has one responsibility, I would submit that it is to create an atmosphere that is positive for business to work in harmony with labour so that they can create the jobs and the value-added products that are needed to make this an even more successful economy.

We can do that in many ways. One way, I submit, is by providing an instrument such as a small business loan, a guarantee to the financial institutions.

We tend to indulge in the art of bank bashing with some regularity, but the reality is that 55% of the capital made available to small business comes from our main large banks. Why do they do it? They do it because it is an opportunity to put something back into the community and also because, in the case of the Small Business Loans Act, they have the guarantee of the Government of Canada.

The way it works is that somebody has a small business that they want to start up. There is criteria that must be met. There are business plans that must be filed and submitted.

Frankly, this is a process I find extremely helpful, having gone through it myself in the past. There are programs such as the former new ventures program that came out of the province of Ontario. Other provinces in Canada I am sure have had similar types of programs available to assist business.

In the case of the new ventures program, it was a top-up. It was a matching of $15,000. It was not a lot of money, but maybe enough to put that business over the top in terms of its financial requirements. That $15,000 had to be matched by the actual owner, or the applicant in this case.

The reason I bring this point up is that if someone was successful at completing the business plan required to qualify for a new ventures loan, if the person could actually get through it and still wanted to go ahead, chances were they had a reasonable chance of success.

The same thing is true with the Small Business Loans Act. Bill C-53 simply improves that situation by making access to capital somewhat easier. It is important, in my view, that the word easier be taken in the proper context. Sometimes the best loan a small business can receive is the one it does not receive. Sometimes the small business needs help in terms of mentoring, which it can get from our Federal Business Development Bank. It may need assistance in consulting. These businesses do not necessarily need an influx of cash and the added burden of additional debt. I think it is extremely important that we look at the impact of additional debt when we are talking about the success of small business.

Bill C-53 is not designed to increase the burden of debt on small businesses. Instead it is designed to meet three basic objectives: to continue helping small young businesses access financing, to increase program accountability and to move the program toward cost recovery.

I want to take a moment to talk about each of these objectives.

With respect to continuing to help small business access capital, the new rules for leasing recognize that there is a rather non-traditional way of financing the purchase of heavy equipment, perhaps trucks, tractors, trailers or perhaps leasehold improvements in a new operation to take that business into the forefront. Perhaps an entire revamp of the business premises is required.

Banks, without the support of the Small Business Loans Act, without the support of the Government of Canada, would be loath to lend money for things like these because of the quickness of the depreciation once the asset is in place. That is a very difficult problem for small business.

In reality what small businesses have to do in many cases is put up their first born male child or their first born female child as collateral before the banks will entertain the thought of lending them the money. Actually there might be an advantage to that in some instances.