Steve Mahoney

[Supply, February 18th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I was speaking in the past tense so I thought I could do that.

In the Brian Mulroney government the leader of the fifth party in this place was clearly a member of that cabinet. He was a driving force in that government. I presume he would sit at the cabinet table and talk to Mr. Mulroney. He would talk to his colleagues around that cabinet table and they would make a decision.

Their decision would be whether to increase the deficit or not. Bob Rae did it for five years and incredibly damaged the finances of that province and so did this government led by Brian Mulroney and strongly supported by the leader of the Conservative Party today.

I will admit that many of the people in that party here today, in fact all but the leader, were not there. So they are new to this place. They went from 160 down to 2. Some would call that a brain drain. I think I would call it a brain strain. In any event, it was a dramatic impact and obviously a reduction in the size of that caucus and there was a reason. The people were fed up.

What do they do now? They come back and say “we can solve the problem, we will just cut your taxes and this is the model”. Mike Harris said in 1995 “I'll cut your income tax by 30%”. He has delivered 22.5%. He has absolutely done that. That is what he and Mr. Eves said they would do. They have cut the taxes. How have they done it? They have cut funding to health care. They have cut funding to education dramatically.

We do not mean to pick on him, but the member for Markham continues to talk in support of Mike Harris but he is not really sure. He has terrific ideas. I will give the House one of his ideas. This is a quote from the member for Markham: “The Liberals should use surplus funds from employment insurance to help save the CPP”. Is that robbing from Peter to pay Paul? This is from the same party that increased employment insurance premiums by 77 cents. It has no credibility, none whatsoever on this issue.

We will be strongly speaking and voting against this motion.

[Supply, February 18th, 1998]

I will admit to the member chirping why we cut them. We cut them because after nine years of Brian Mulroney and Jean Charest we wound up with an unmanageable—

[Supply, February 18th, 1998]

And he is a good Liberal at that, I say to the member.

The reality is that even the members would have to look at it and say that Ontario is not an island unto itself. It relies on the policies of the federal government. Indeed it relies on international policies and international relations.

The province of Ontario, were it a sovereign country, which I do not advocate, would be the ninth or tenth largest economy in the world. It is quite remarkable. It was also strong in the 1980s when I had the pleasure to serve under David Peterson, who balanced the budget I would add. It was the first time in 40 years that any provincial government eliminated the deficit and balanced the budget. That was the legacy of David Peterson.

Bob Rae took over and we all recall why. We can all recall the battles around national unity and how David Peterson stood strong and paid a horrendous political price because he stood up for Canada. I remember that day. I remember with pride being a member of that caucus and a member of that government. Tragically, I admit, it cost David Peterson the job as premier.

However, the economic realities were that we were booming under the David Peterson government. It was then that Bob Rae came to power and he did almost verbatim what the Conservatives did here in Ottawa. He intentionally ran $10 billion deficits, overdrafts each and every year. Remember what I said, a deficit is an overdraft. When government pays off its overdraft it piles it on to the mortgage which becomes the debt.

When we left office in 1990 in the province of Ontario the total debt for the province was $39 billion. In five years under the NDP, whose members stand here and talk with pride about their ability to govern, that debt in the greatest province in this country went from $39 billion to over $100 billion. It continues to grow because today the Mike Harris government is continuing to run a $6 billion deficit.

Why have they not cut? There is no question that they have cut dramatically and yet we hear members in the Reform Party saying how revenue has increased in the province of Ontario. Please help me with this. We have people lined up in emergency wards. Just read any newspaper. We have replaced the level of transfer payments to the provinces. Why were they cut in the first place?

[Supply, February 18th, 1998]

Sure you can talk about the free trade that you brought in. You can talk about the GST, which was brought in by the Mulroney government.

However, each and every year, the Conservatives ran a deficit and a deficit is an overdraft. If they want to talk about sound, long term economic policy, they do not run an overdraft every year and then at the end of the year pile it on top of the mortgage and then run another one and do that every year for nine years. In the last year when the Canadian people finally had had enough, the overdraft was $42 billion. Each year that you pile that overdraft on to the mortgage of this country, you wind up increasing the debt. Figure it out.

For nine years, we had overdraft financing by the Conservative government and the Conservatives are now trying to lecture this government. I would ask the members to look at a graph. If they looked at a graph of the nine years of Mulroney government, and the member for Sherbrooke was in that government I might add, the graph on the overdraft would go straight up I say to the former mayor of Halifax. It would go straight up and out of sight.

Since 1993, what has happened under the leadership of the present Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance is the graph has been turned on its ear. The graph has gone straight down to the point where finally we are not continuing to run overdrafts.

Now that, I would submit to the members opposite, is what one would call, to use their terminology, sound, long term economic policy.

With regard this motion, it is also rather incredulous. It reads:

That, in the opinion of this House, the government should lower the tax burden on Canadians and offer interest relief to student loan holders—.

The example they continue to use, as does the Reform Party, is the provincial Tories in the province of Ontario. They talk about how the economy has grown and jobs have grown. I would admit they have. In fact, revenue has increased in the province. There is no doubt about that. Why? Imagine that just by chance the policies of the federal government in ensuring that inflation is eliminated, ensuring that interest rates are at 20 year lows and ensuring that we have restored the funding in the transfer payments to the provinces might have something to do with the economic turnaround in the province of Ontario. I am sure members could.

[Supply, February 18th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I find it interesting to listen to members opposite in this debate. I just heard a comment which is absolutely incredulous. The comment was that it takes time for sound, long term economic policy to have an effect. I believe that is what the member opposite said.

In nine years of what the member opposite would like to call sound long term economic policy, each and every year—

[Small Business Loans Act, February 16th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate the member for his remarks and for his understanding of the small business loan process.

We heard comments in this place earlier today that the maximum amount of $250,000 for a small business loan should be reduced. I do not know that there was a suggested figure. It seemed somewhat arbitrary. I think it was the Progressive Conservative position that the act is okay but the amount is too much. I understand also that the average loan is in the neighbourhood of $65,000 which is obviously dramatically lower than the maximum.

I wonder if the member might have some comments about the importance of leaving a flexible level as high as $250,000 given that these loans can only be used for a capital acquisition such as property or equipment that has actual value. They cannot be for debt consolidation or things where there is no fixed value to the asset that is added to the business.

[Small Business Loans Act, February 16th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate the member on her speech.

I attended a function the member held in her riding in co-operation with the Royal Bank. Women entrepreneurs from her riding and in fact several from my riding were invited to come and talk about issues of mutual concern. I recall some of the comments made by the people who attended the prebudget consultation the member held. There were some very moving comments, discussions and shared experiences. The people from the Royal Bank who were hosting the event were most co-operative.

I wonder if the member has any experience in how the banks feel with regard to the small business loans program. Does it help women entrepreneurs like many who were in attendance that day to access capital? Is it a co-operative thing that is actually working between the banks and the small businesses?

[Small Business Loans Act, February 16th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, perhaps we could get instant

Hansard

and see where it is that I said that businesses want more big government subsidized programs. I do not think you will find that anywhere in my comments.

What I did say and do stand by is that this is a program that makes accessibility of capital available to the people who in other cases would simply not get it. It is a highly successful program. If the hon. member were to do the balance sheet, he would see that the revenue this government and all businesses gain from this program would be dramatically higher than the cost.

[Small Business Loans Act, February 16th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I am sure if you were to give a ruling, you would probably say that the questions have nothing to do with this particular bill, but let me just attempt to answer the hon. member.

I believe that the banking industry has not been co-operative with small business and particularly with women and young people attempting to start up a small business which in many cases in our new economy is the only avenue they have available to them.

It is incumbent upon the banking industry to work with small business to make sure that not only is capital accessible, but that the people the banks are making the loans to have done the business plan and understand what they are doing. Often the best loan that you will get is the one that you get turned down on. The banks have a responsibility to make sure that they are doing their homework on this to help people run successful businesses when they make those loans.

[Small Business Loans Act, February 16th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I think the myopic viewpoint just put across clearly indicates a lack of understanding. I can appreciate that the hon. member had ample security. My point very simply is that there are thousands of Canadians who do not. They have no opportunity to put up that ample security and this program ensures that they will have access to capital.

I take some exception to being referred to as an Ottawa politician. My roots go very deep in the community, very deep in the small business community and very deep at the municipal level in the city of Mississauga.

The member should speak about the little bit of what he knows and a little less of that nonsensical rhetoric.