Steve Mahoney

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

The member says it is taxes. It is to a degree. I do not disagree with that. They are concerned about taxes, but they also want to pay their fair share of taxes. They want to know that they have a government willing to back programs like the SBLA and not simply throw it out amidst a bunch of Reform Party rhetoric as some kind of subsidy.

They want to ensure that the tax money they pay to the government is used properly to generate growth, create jobs and help them succeed.

Anyone in business today in this country would tell us they are doing reasonably well. Can they do better? Absolutely. Can we have lower taxes? We have already heard the Minister of Finance make a commitment that indeed once we have eliminated the deficit we will start to pay down the horrendous debt which the country has been saddled with and at the same time look at selective tax reduction. It would be my hope that it will be directed in some way toward business.

I often tell the story of the mobile sign that I saw in the province of Ontario when I was the small business advocate which was outside Paul's garage. It said “Our price includes the PST, the GST, the EHT, the MBT, the MPT, the UIC, the WCB and the CPP”. At the bottom it said “We would have included profit but we ran out of room”. I have some sympathy for Paul's garage and for small business.

We have to recognize as a government, as a body politic at all levels of government, that it is our responsibility to make sure the taxes we charge or the fees we charge for workers compensation or for employment insurance are used to the benefit of all Canadians. I believe this government is striving to do that.

I would hope that through programs such as the SBLA, which is being extended by one year with this bill, we will see more new businesses being created which will share the tax burden and provide for the safety net that we have, for our health care system, for the quality of education that we enjoy in this country and for the many benefits that we are so blessed with, which we take for granted.

Members opposite rise in the House every day to tear down those particular programs and institutions. It is their own personal ideology. I understand they are in opposition and they feel they simply must oppose for the sake of opposing. However, I find it amazingly strange that members of a party which considers itself on the right wing of the political spectrum would oppose helping small business. What is the matter with them? There are small businesses in western Canada which would benefit from this very positive program.

This program shows the way governments should operate. Indeed it is not a subsidy. It is a program which says to small business if you are prepared to invest, if you are prepared to work hard, we are prepared to make access to capital a reality in this country. We are prepared to work with the banks and the private sector to allow you, the small business person, to create the jobs, to buy the products and to generate the tax revenue which we all need as Canadians to keep this country going and growing.

I support this bill. I am pleased that many members of the House support it. However, I am saddened that some see it as a political opportunity to make hay and simply oppose what indeed is a financially sound and very important program for all Canadians.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to talk about this issue because I have some background in the area of small business. For a year during the late eighties when the Peterson government was in power in Ontario, I had the privilege of being the small business advocate. I travelled around the province and met with small business people. They were men and women starting new small ventures, men and women working on family businesses that had been around for many years but still retained the category and the true definition of small business.

It is interesting that the Reform Party can speak against a small business loan program. This program has existed for 37 years. All parties that have formed a government in this place have supported it. They recognize the importance of the small business sector to real growth and job creation.

When you think about what happens when a loan is arranged under this program, there is truly a snowball effect that sees tremendous benefits not only in the private sector but also for governments at all levels because of the taxes that would be generated from a small business.

What happens when a small business makes an application under this act for a $200,000 loan? That loan cannot be for purposes of debt consolidation. It cannot be for anything where there is no security. It must be for items like real estate or equipment, leasehold improvements, things that are tied directly to the business and that have some asset value.

At the same time, the business person involved in applying for this loan must go through a business plan with the bank. This is not a slam dunk by any stretch of the imagination. The bank will take your business plan into account when it decides whether to approve the loan. The process of filing the business plan alone will help to ensure your business is a success.

With the $200,000 loan the small business will acquire assets. Those assets are in many cases manufactured by other small businesses. There is a snowball effect when a purchase is made for equipment or whatever is needed to assist the small business. This gives business to the producing companies which allows for job creation and the people who work for the producing companies pay taxes.

It is interesting that Reform would try to paint this as a subsidy. If we add up the benefits that the various levels of government would receive for one transaction, it would be quite enormous. Government would benefit from the income tax paid by employees of the producing companies that supply the small business. It would also benefit from the income tax paid by employees of those small businesses. That does not sound like a subsidy to me, especially when we consider that the default level is under 5% for a very strong program with a lot of uptake across Canada.

Think about the benefits to women entrepreneurs. Historically, women, young people and others just starting out get caught in the catch-22 that they do not have the necessary personal assets to qualify for bank loans. We all know how the banks operate. They will lend you money only when you do not need it. This bill says to the banks that we will put in place a business plan that will help the small business entrepreneur, be it a young person, a woman starting a new business or a family starting a new business. We will make sure they have all the data they need.

It is interesting to hear the Conservative Party talk about reducing the size of the loan. Currently the level is $250,000. The average loan is $65,000. In starting a new business with any kind of substantive investment I suggest that $250,000 as a capital investment in the infrastructure of that new business is not a substantial amount of money.

If someone wants to start a business they have to buy equipment. Perhaps it is a trucking business. Perhaps it is a restaurant which requires refrigeration equipment. They do not buy this kind of equipment for $20,000, $30,000 or $50,000. It is highly capital intensive.

In my role as the small business advocate, when I travelled around the province, we asked business people what some of their biggest problems and concerns were. The first one—

[Copyright Act, February 16th, 1998]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-358, an act to amend the Copyright Act.

Mr. Speaker, the purpose of the bill is to amend the Copyright Act to allow educators in Canadian school boards to photocopy works for classroom purposes free of charge.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)

[Infrastructure, February 16th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the President of Treasury Board.

The Canada infrastructure works program was a very successful federal initiative that created thousands of jobs across the country and provided much needed funding for infrastructure development. Many people in our communities are anxious to know if we are going to extend this program again.

Can the minister make a commitment today that he is prepared to extend this highly successful program?

[Division No. 72, February 12th, 1998]

It is not rubbish. The gentleman opposite says it is. I would like him to defend why he would be against local autonomy, why he would be against grain farmers having the authority and the responsibility to run the wheat board, which has not happened under a crown corporation.

Without these changes we will leave farmers in western Canada working with an antiquated system that will restrict their cash flow, will restrict their ability to do business in the modern world and will restrict their flexibility to adjust to changing conditions.

I am sure it will be no surprise to members opposite that the government will not be supporting these amendments. It is not because we did not hear them. We heard them but we categorically reject them because we think they are bad for the farmers of western Canada.

[Division No. 72, February 12th, 1998]

This is not rubbish at all. I have experienced the kinds of delays and filibustering that can occur with members standing in their place in a democratic legislature reading a telephone book or some other kind of nonsense simply to stall the government's program.

I want to share and put on the record some of the time, when we talk about time allocation, that Bill C-4 has enjoyed. Its predecessor was Bill C-72. At second reading there were over two hours of debate in this place.

There were over 39 hours in committee. There was more time at report stage and an additional three and a half hours in the House. That was the predecessor to the bill which we are debating today. There was quite a bit of discussion on essentially the same bill and the same issue.

This bill was debated for over three hours at second reading. We should bear in mind that the predecessor to this bill was debated for 19 and three-quarter hours in committee in addition to the 39 hours. It was debated for several hours at report stage. There were over 11 and a half hours of debate in the House.

This bill is not about rocket science. This bill is fundamentally about democracy and the governance of special purpose bodies. I think the number of hours of debate in this place alone have been sufficient.

I categorically reject the comments by members opposite that there is heavy handedness or closure intended. Indeed we are allowing the opposition parties to put forth amendments. There has been substantial debate. Public hearings were held right across Canada, notably in western Canada where this legislation will have the greatest impact. The farmers will benefit dramatically from the changes which are being made to the governance of this body.

The changes which are being made to the governance will turn what is a cumbersome, old crown corporation, which we know has had some difficulty, into a mixed, modern type of system which will allow the farmers to appoint two-thirds of the directors to the board. How could it be more democratic?

If members opposite do not want western farmers to have that kind of democratic participation, maybe they should say so. I have some difficulty understanding how they could justify that position.

Indeed the government has listened to the farmers in western Canada. This has been an extremely democratic process. A lot of time has been spent on this issue both in the communities and in the House of Commons.

The amendments in Group No. 6 would lead to a reduction in the operating flexibility of the Canadian Wheat Board. That is exactly what this bill attempts to do. It will create flexibility in a new board. It will be able to elect its own chair, who will be elected by the farmers. It allows for democratic votes to take place in the farming community when certain products are being deleted or added. This is one of the most democratic processes I have ever seen in government.

Two of the proposed amendments would remove flexibility tools, namely shorter pool periods and cash buying authority. I cannot imagine why the Reform Party would want that to happen.

Other amendments would deny the wheat board the power to make adjustments to initial payments on its own authority. That is extremely important. It would reduce the ability of the wheat board to use funds from uncashed cheques for the benefit of all producers and to engage in cash trading.

Again I would ask members opposite why in the world they would want to restrict the wheat board. As many of them represent farmers in those communities, why would they not embrace this legislation? They should see it as an opportunity for democracy to occur in a special purpose body.

We have several of those bodies. We recently had a debate about changes to the ports legislation. Once again it is the same concept. It allows more local democracy. The principle is that the government which is closest to the people is the most efficient and best government. That is exactly what this bill will accomplish.

For those reasons we clearly cannot support these amendments.

The new flexibility tools are important provisions which must remain in the bill. These tools would allow the wheat board to offer producers alternative means of receiving payment. Again, why would we not want to offer those alternative means?

They would speed up cash flows, which is extremely important in any business, while retaining the benefits to producers of the CWB being a single desk seller. They would also allow the board to better manage its own risk. That is where we have seen the government trying to go in many areas to get better risk management in the hands of the operators on the ground and actually doing the work. We believe that would do exactly that.

The initiatives we are talking about are all enabling initiatives. They will or will not be used at the sole discretion of the board of directors. I remind members opposite once again that two-thirds of the board of directors will be appointed by farmers locally and five out of the fifteen will be established by the government.

It is important that the board be able to adjust initial payments quickly when market conditions make it appropriate to do so. That is one of the reasons flexibility is so important. It will help to get money in the hands of the producers as quickly as possible to attract deliveries of grain in a rising market.

It is a bit of the just in time mentality we see in business today. These modern changes will help them respond to those issues. If we were to adopt those amendments it will result in a slower process for getting money into the pockets of western Canadian grain producers.

What we are talking about and what they are trying to change is modernization of a system that will see—

[Division No. 72, February 12th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I live in a great farming community, as I am sure you know.

I am pleased to share some of the comments from the government side with regard to particularly the amendments in group 6 but some other comments as well.

First, I find it interesting that members opposite would stand and complain about what they referred to as closure. They know full well that time allocation is a necessary tool that any government uses.

[Supply, February 10th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I am quite sure that if the hon. member's brother lives in my riding there is probably a fairly good chance that he voted for me. If he did I thank him.

The member made reference to some of the history in Ontario. What he failed to do was recognize some of the gains which have been made, particularly in recent years.

I was part of the David Peterson government in the province of Ontario. We made several changes in our province to recognize the importance and the significance of the francophone community.

That was not easily done. There were a lot of people who were saying why do we need bilingual signs on our highways in the province of Ontario. We would not find bilingual signs on the highways in the province of Quebec. That is an interesting double standard.

We have ignored that particular problem. We have done that because we believe in Canada and we believe in Quebec as being part of Canada.

I also point out there are a number of French schools and French immersion courses in Ontario. Many people in my riding insist on having their children go through their entire elementary education in the French system. That is tremendous. I wish I had done that. Then my attempts at French in this place would be dramatically better than they are today. The reality is Ontario recognizes the importance.

The bottom line which the member and other members of his party refuse to admit is that they have clearly spoken out today against the democratic principles of Quebec, of Ontario and of Canada. They have spoken against the rule of law of Quebec, of Ontario and of Canada. For that reason we will not be supporting the motion. However, we do support the people of the province of Quebec's remaining in Canada.

[Supply, February 10th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to share my time today with the member for Beauce.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to convey a message to Quebeckers on the part of the people of my riding: we want you to remain within Canada. We believe that you make a contribution to our country by your uniqueness.

The future of Quebec is very important to the residents of my province and my riding. After all, the people of Ontario and Quebec have a long and significant history as partners and friends. Historically we were the twin engines of growth in Canada. Today our two provinces are bound together by a complex web of ties, families, friendships, professional partnerships and trading links.

Many francophone Quebeckers have played an important role in the life of my province, and among them are Richard Monette, artistic director of the Festival of Stratford, and Yves Landry, chairman of the board and chief executive officer of Chrysler Canada. On the other hand, Quebec has benefited from the talents of Franco-Ontarians, namely Paul Desmarais of Power Corporation. The magnificent synergy of our two provinces is embodied in such people.

The presence of Quebec within Canada is also of particular importance to the franco-Ontarian community that enriches my province of Ontario.

Let me just mention a few of their achievements. Both writer François Paré and playwright Jean-Marc Dalpé have won governor general's awards for their work. Ottawa's Franco-Ontarian festival, LeFranco, has grown to be the premier francophone cultural event of its kind in North America. The Ontario economy is bolstered by over 7,500 francophone owned businesses, companies and corporations. In economic terms the provinces of Ontario and Quebec are among the most closely linked of all Canada's provinces.

According to the most recent figures available from StatsCan, which are for 1996, almost 60% of Quebec's interprovincial exports were to Ontario and over 70% of its interprovincial imports came from my province. Meanwhile some 40% of Ontario's exports were indeed to Quebec and some 50% of its imports came from that province. Quebec is indeed Ontario's largest trading partner within Canada and vice versa.

For all these reasons, social, cultural and economic, it is very important to Ontarians that Quebec remain within Canada. As friends, it is natural that we should not wish Quebeckers to leave Canada in an atmosphere of confusion without a mutually acceptable process and a framework to ensure fairness and clarity.

However, I remain confident that Quebeckers will continue to choose to enjoy the fruits of Canadian citizenship. I feel confident that they will continue to build the federation alongside Ontarians and their other fellow citizens from British Columbia, the prairies, eastern Canada and the north, for there is no doubt that together Canadians are indeed a winning combination.

Former New Brunswick premier Frank McKenna said in his very emotional farewell address Canada is a country that has the civility to be able to deal with the most difficult issues in the most peaceful way imaginable, a country that has been able to fulfil the dreams and aspirations of hundreds of thousands and millions of people and it is a country that people want to come and live in.

One reason why Canada is so attractive for people around the globe is that we have found ways to accommodate and indeed to celebrate our tremendous diversity. In a world where so many countries are torn apart by ethnic and regional grievances, this is no mean feat. In a country such as ours with its great distances and a citizenry drawn from the four corners of the globe, respect for diversity is essential.

Few Canadians would deny that the First Nations, Inuit and Métis, together with the new and not so new generations of immigrants, all contribute an important though by no means identical way to our country.

I was pleased to see this aspect of Canadian reality reflected in the statement of principles drawn up by nine of Canada's premiers in Calgary, together with a commitment to individual and provincial equality. That commitment to equality, however, was by no means a call for uniformity. The premiers indeed signalled their recognition of Quebec's uniqueness within Canada in this context. It appears to be a signal to which Quebeckers can respond.

An Environics poll taken some time after the text of the Calgary declaration was released showed that over one-quarter of Quebeckers who currently support secession would change their minds if all nine other provinces passed resolutions recognizing the unique character of Quebec.

This clearly illustrates the ability of the Calgary principles to bring Canadians together from coast to coast to coast. That is what we in the government of Canada wish to do. We wish to bring Canadians together to continue building this remarkable country so that all Canadians can benefit from our combined strength in facing the challenges of the new millennium.

Advanced communication technologies are increasingly turning the world into the global village envisaged by Canada's Marshall McLuhan.

With our two official languages and our multicultural citizenry, Canada is increasingly well placed to compete in this new global reality.

Of course, the reasons for staying together as one country go way beyond our economic strength. Together we have built a strong social union which reflects our commitment to sharing and our sense of a national community. Together we are a stronger presence in the world and on the world stage.

As I mentioned earlier, there is a wealth of ties which bind Canadians together on a wide range of different levels. Our economic achievements are by no means negligible and it is clear that divided, our economy would be weaker than it is today.

There is no question that at present Canada is a success as plenty of international organizations and experts agree. According to OECD, Canada's economy and employment growth are set to outperform those of all other G-7 countries in 1998.

The investment bank Credit Suisse First Boston has indicated that it anticipates the Government of Canada will receive a credit upgrading in the near future. The world economic forum rates Canada as the fourth most competitive economy in the world based on such factors as the shape of the country's finances, our infrastructure and our technology base.

The economist intelligence unit of London predicts that we will have the third best business environment in the world over the next five years. As the president of the Toronto-Dominion Bank, Charles Baillie, observed, Quebeckers can survive economically without the other provinces and vice versa. But, he said, “since when is our standard and our aspiration simple survival? Canada has meant more than simple survival, much more than that to all its citizens, including Quebeckers”.

I know Quebeckers are interested indeed in more than survival. I know they want to continue to flourish as the only majority francophone society on this continent.

In the motion today Bloc members say they are against the democratic principles and rule of law of their own province of Quebec, my province of Ontario and indeed our country of Canada. It is for those reasons that I cannot support this motion.

[Middle East, February 9th, 1998]

Madam Speaker, first of all let me say that unlike other times in my brief stay in this place, this is not an issue that I rise with any sense of joy to debate or discuss. Frankly, I see it as less of a debate and perhaps more putting on the record our feelings as parliamentarians and living up to our responsibilities. I am sure there is no one in this place who is particularly enjoying this evening's discussion.

As our Prime Minister said, we are at least debating this issue in advance of a decision. There are some who might cast aspersions on that, but I believe that to be the case. I believe that is truly one of the many principles that make us uniquely Canadian.

It is the Canadian way in terms of one of the differences. In a story I was told the distance between the government benches and the opposition benches is the distance between two people standing on the edge with a sword extended in each hand, and the tips of the swords merely touch. It is a symbolism that we are not a warring people, that we tend to fight our battles in places like this, that our weapons are our minds, that our ammunition is words and that our victims often are simply ideas and not people. At the same time, our victories are also the result of those ideas and hopefully in some cases the implementation of them.

We are not by nature a warring people. Often we seek consensus first, we seek compromise and we always seek a negotiated settlement. In my view, we will continue to live by and large by those very basic Canadian principles. Diplomacy is job one in Canada and with our representatives around the world.

Reality, however, says that to maintain our principles and our way of life we may, from time to time, when our backs are to the wall, when consensus is not possible, when compromise has failed and when negotiations have ended, be forced to make a difficult decision. This, in our great democracy, is one of those times, sadly.

In determining what message I wanted to share with members in this place and with Canadians watching this evening, particularly those in my riding, I talked with and asked a good friend of mine, the member for Thornhill, about some of the issues. She talked about how seven years ago people from her riding watched on CNN as people were huddled in shelters, wearing gas masks, as Tel Aviv was being bombed by scud missiles.

We all know that certainly one of the major targets of Saddam Hussein happens to be Israel. She made the point to me that there are people in her riding, and in mine, Shaarei synagogue, who would be looking at that and seeing their friends and families in jeopardy and who would be worried about them from seven years ago. Today, seven years later, they see the very same situation, not quite there yet, but people lining up to get gas masks.

What an incredible sight in 1998, in this world that is fundamentally so small, to see civilians lining up to get gas masks in anticipation of chemical warfare. How can we tolerate that? When compromise, as I said, has failed, then we have to look at what else might take its place.

I also talked with a good friend, an Ottawa cab driver. He name is Mel. Mel is from Lebanon. He pointed out to me how Lebanon becomes the battleground of many of the wars that go on in the Middle East and the terrible travesty, the pain, the killing, the death and the suffering that goes on in his country. He pleaded with me to stand here and say please, everybody, just stop the killing. It is easy to say. In an ideal world we would all love to be able to do that, whether it was in the Middle East, Ireland or wherever it was in this world. I said to Mel I am not sure I know how to do that.

How will military action put an end to this? Only if it is united, only if it is strong and only if every other avenue of diplomacy, compromise and consensus building has failed and we go united to solve this problem once and for all.

We are in a partnership. We cannot have it both ways. We cannot be part of NATO and rely on the protection of NATO forces and the protection of our neighbour to the south, and our relationship with them, and then, when a moment of conflict arises say sorry, we are just simply not going to be part of that.

What President Clinton has apparently asked for, we are told, is support. He is not looking for frontline troops. I regret and I fear that day may come. I suppose in reality it is very possible.

The fact is there are men and women who have fought tyranny in this country, grandfathers, parents, aunts and uncles of many of us here, who have died for democracy, for the principles of consensus, of compromise and of negotiated settlements.

That is fine when we are talking about peacetime. We are not talking about a strike here or a labour negotiation. We are talking about an individual who simply refuses, having been given every reasonable opportunity, to comply not with a dictate from Bill Clinton, not with a dictate from the Prime Minister or from the United Kingdom, but with the United Nations resolution that clearly says that chemical weapons should be banned. He refuses to allow independent United Nations teams access to places where we fear he is storing these weapons.

Will he use them? I do not think there is a doubt in the world. If we are as a free society to back down from this tyranny, all other avenues having failed, I think we do a terrible disservice to our children who trust us to make these decisions. I hope and I pray that they are the right decisions.

But at the end of the day, in addition to the principles that I have talked about, I believe there is one fundamentally strong, clear and concise Canadian principle that we all must live with and that is that we back our friends and we support them, not in all things, not if we believe they are wrong. But in this case the evidence is irrefutable.

The worldwide stage is so small that anyone can see that Saddam Hussein is poised at whatever moment we know not to use whatever weapons we know not, with no compunction. It is very frightening to live in a world like that.

I would say to those who stand and speak in all sincerity that I do not doubt their sincerity, I do not doubt their passion, I do not doubt their desire for peace. I do not doubt that there is not one single person in this place who would ever want to see this country go to war. I do not think that there are war mongers in here. But I do believe that when we cut through all the passion we hear that we should simply keep taking, that there must come a point when we recognize Saddam Hussein is not listening and that we are jeopardizing the safety of not only the Middle East, Israel and Lebanon but indeed of Canada.

I for one will not sit and do nothing and pray that we will continue to have meetings and discussions. I for one believe that what our Prime Minister and our cabinet will be deciding tomorrow will be extremely important, and I support that decision wholeheartedly.