Elinor Caplan

[Balanced Budget Act, November 24th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, health care is clearly a priority of this government.

The very first thing this Liberal government did, once our fiscal house was in order, was to increase the cash floor in the Canada health and social transfer from $11 billion to $12.5 billion. This $1.5 billion increase marked the end of cuts and signalled the important priority this government places on medicare.

The Prime Minister has said clearly: “The government will invest more of our resources in the years ahead to reinforce our public health care”. In the government's recent economic statement the finance minister said that concerns related to strengthening medicare will be addressed.

Money matters but it must be said that the complex problems that confront health care in Canada will not be solved by dollars alone. The point is not simply to spend more but to spend more in a way that will produce a better result. The fundamental challenge Canada faces is to create a real system that is more responsible and more responsive to Canadians. Meeting that challenge will require focused action.

First, we need integrated health care delivery that meets the needs of people. Although strides are being made, we are still far from providing a seamless web of efficient and effective care, whether in terms of organizing services or providing public funding for them.

Second, a quality health care system is one that can be measured, where performance can be assessed, where all partners are accountable and have a responsibility to report to Canadians. A quality health care system would enable Canadians to determine if their health dollars are being wisely spent. Clearly whatever steps we take have to be in collaboration and in full partnership with the provinces. The size and method of the federal reinvestment are subject to discussions with the provinces.

Let us be clear. While money matters, improving the quality of health care means also ensuring confidence that when Canadians need care it will be there for them.

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

Mr. Speaker, I did respond appropriately to the member's colleague when I informed him that the matter before the House at this time is Bill C-53. There are other appropriate times for members to ask other questions. As I look at the clock I note that in about 20 minutes that time will arrive.

At this time my question for Reform members is, why are they not addressing themselves to the issues in Bill C-53 which are very important to small business? We on this side of the House know how important it is for the federal government to do its part and for this bill to be passed as expeditiously as possible to help small business in Canada.

Small businesses know where we stand. We want to know where the Reform Party stands.

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

Mr. Speaker, as I said before in this House, some 30,000 businesses across the country have access to this program. We know that businesses in New Brunswick have access to this program. Without this program businesses in New Brunswick, British Columbia and provinces from coast to coast to coast would not have the same access to capital that they need to start and to flourish. Whether it be in New Brunswick or anywhere else, without this program we would not have the same strong, viable small business community.

Bill C-53 is very important to the people of New Brunswick. It is also very important to entrepreneurs across the country. There are many issues facing businesses across this great country and access to capital is one of the most important.

She must be aware that in the province of New Brunswick young entrepreneurs and small businesses need help and assistance, and Bill C-53 is designed to do just that. I know she will support it.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would point out to the member opposite that we are in this House today discussing a bill that is going to, I believe, improve the climate for small businesses and entrepreneurs in this country.

This government cares about small businesses and does everything it can to support them. I want the member to know that Canada has low inflation and that our unemployment rates are coming down. We know they are still too high and the way to deal with that is by encouraging small business development. We have low interest rates. We have payroll taxes that are amongst the lowest in the western world.

Because we have balanced our budget and have a good international reputation, small businesses are flourishing and will continue to flourish. If the member would put his mind to the bill that is before the House today and support it we could resolve many of the problems that are before us. Instead, what I have heard is too much rhetoric and not enough support for important, good government programs.

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

I hear my colleague. I still feel young although a little older and wiser.

As I was saying, I had a car that was worth about $4,000 as security. The bank said to me “You will need your husband to guarantee this loan for you”. I think things have changed since those days in the early 1970s. However, I am not so sure they have changed enough to help young entrepreneurs or older workers who are starting businesses later in life and may not have a pile of money either to put into their business or put up as security. Or, they may be people like I who resented being asked to have my spouse as a co-signator. I felt I had the stature and the ability not only to look after my own business but to have a relationship as an individual with a lending institution.

While I admit that times have changed, it took me two years before I was able to secure a loan from a lending institution. By that time I was very grateful for my tenacity. I was sorry I did not know about this program. I now know it was in place then. I was so busy growing my business that I did not have the energy to keep fighting lending institutions.

Therefore I ended up financing my business out of my household accounts. I was fortunate to be able to do that. Many people starting businesses today should not have to juggle worrying about putting food on the table for their families and financing their businesses. Businesses with timely and appropriate access to capital are set up in a way that creates jobs for Canadians and contributes to their communities.

The story I told relates directly to why I am supportive of Bill C-53 which results from a comprehensive program and policy review conducted over the past year in private as well as with public consultations with stakeholders. It took into account the recommendations of the auditor general and the work of the Standing Committee on Public Accounts of which I was a member last year.

I will refer to the basic parameters of Bill C-53. It is important for business people or Canadians watching this debate to understand the types of things the government is doing to assist small business. Under the provisions of the act loans may be made by approved lenders for up to a 10 year term. Businesses will be able to borrow up to $250,000. We also know that there will be a one time up front 2% registration fee for lenders which can be charged to borrowers. In addition, lenders must pay an annual administration fee of 1.25%.

Bill C-53 is also a step forward in streamlining, improving and stabilizing the existing Small Business Loans Act. The key provision I wanted to point out is that the bill will provide authority for the Department of Industry to conduct audits to ensure compliance with the act and regulations. That is part of the accountability mechanisms I spoke about earlier.

For the first time it provides the authority to create limited pilot programs on a cost recovery basis on capital leasing and lending to the voluntary sector. That is a very important part of the bill. Organizations in the voluntary sector sometimes have difficulty in accessing the capital they need.

Today with computerization there is a need to upgrade systems, especially as we face the year 2000. As has come to be known, the Y2K problem is putting many public and private sector organizations in the situation where it is in everyone's interest for them to ensure they are Y2K compliant, that their computer systems are compatible, and that they have dealt with the problem posed by the year 2000 for all of us.

I believe that Bill C-53 will provide an opportunity that is extremely important for small business and entrepreneurs, as well as voluntary, not for profit agencies.

A very important provision of this bill is that there will be a program performance review tabled in parliament every five years which will be available for committee consultation. Rather than the sunset provision of the past, where automatically a program is sunsetted unless we keep it alive, this provision allows us to say that this is a good program. It has proved itself. It has been in place for 37 years. We have had it in place since 1961. It is now 1998. What we want to know now is, will this program on a continuing basis remain effective and relevant? If we can look at it every five years we will be able to make recommendations for change. This gives security to the business community. It gives stability.

Canada's small business financing act will provide an even more effective mechanism for government and financial institutions to share the risk of lending to small businesses. That shared risk is really what the essence of this program is all about. The federal government says to the major lending institutions in this country “We want you to do your part. We want you to support small, growing businesses like the ones in Markham, Vaughan, Concord and others in the great riding of Thornhill”. The federal government is saying “We want you to support those businesses. That is the way we grow jobs”.

Yes, it is important to have low inflation rates. Yes, it is important to have unemployment coming down. Yes, it is important to have low interest rates. Yes, it is very important to have strong fiscal management, a balanced budget and the kind of climate in which business can grow and flourish. But it is also very important for those small and emerging new businesses to have access to the capital they need.

While we are saying to the lending institutions that we want them to do their part, this Liberal government with Bill C-53 is saying that we are committed to doing our part. We are prepared to share the risk. That is what this bill is about. I support it on behalf of the riding of Thornhill and the many people who will benefit from this bill. I hope that all members of the House will join me in supporting this important and worthwhile initiative.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to rise in the debate today to discuss Bill C-53, the Canada Small Business Financing Act.

I speak today on behalf of my constituents in the riding of Thornhill, the businesses of Markham, Vaughan and Concord, the many small and medium size businesses that have taken advantage of the long history of small business loans in Canada and those that will be looking in the future to this kind of assistance.

I also speak today on behalf of the residents of Thornhill who, over the next numbers of years, will want to start businesses of their own and who will need a helping hand.

Bill C-53 deserves, and I expect to see, the unanimous support of the House because it is a bill to help small business.

When we talk about the climate in Canada in which small business can and should flourish, we have to look at what exists today. We have heard a lot about the climate that is needed for small business and business development.

I am proud to say that as a result of the policies of the government we have low inflation. Inflation in Canada is among the lowest in the world. We have low interest rates. As a result of prudent fiscal management and the balanced budget, we have not only low interest rates and low inflation. We also have the lowest payroll taxes in the western world.

As well we have a very high quality workforce. People in Canada are well educated. The work they perform is considered among the best in the world. We know Canada is a good place in which to start a business and to invest.

What is missing? Too often small entrepreneurs who are just getting started and may not have anyone to support and finance them may not know how to go about getting the support and capital they need. Access to capital, particularly for small and medium size businesses, and particularly for new businesses, is still a key component of creating jobs in Canada and creating the kind of climate where young entrepreneurs will flourish and succeed.

Often it is the young entrepreneur who is the individual with a good idea, the individual with expertise in one area. However there may be a number of areas where the person needs help and support.

When I looked over some of the research surrounding the bill I found interesting that in the last three years some 70% to 80% of all new jobs in Canada were created in the small business sector. It was not only the small business sector. It was in new job start-ups. It was entrepreneurs with good ideas, making it happen, creating jobs not only for themselves but often for others in the community. Small businesses have contributed enormously to prosperity and job creation.

Small and medium size businesses are a very important component. Some would say they are the anchor for our national economy. They make a crucial contribution to our collective economic well-being. This is one reason I expect to see overwhelming and unanimous support for this endeavour by the Liberal government. I believe everyone on all sides of the House recognizes that we must do our part as a national government in helping small business secure the dollars they need to succeed.

We know there are 2.5 million small businesses in Canada which include many self-employed individuals. If we were to do a scan of my riding we would find that in Markham, Vaughan and Concord many of the businesses that are working very hard to succeed would fall into the category of small and medium size businesses.

The Small Business Loans Act has been serving Canada's small business community since 1961. Bill C-53 that is before parliament today improves upon the existing Small Business Loans Act. The existing act has been an effective tool for small businesses accessing financing over the last 37 years. That is why I was surprised by some of the rhetoric I have heard from the other side of the House.

I stand in the House as an advocate of small business, as an advocate of job creation, as an advocate of a strong economy, and as an advocate of government playing its important and rightful role in ensuring that small business has all the tools it needs to succeed in this great country.

Bill C-53 was designed to meet three objectives to continue helping small businesses, young businesses, that need access to financing. Since this act is supported by taxpayers there is an important need for increased program accountability. Accountability, openness and transparency are values to which the government has committed itself. Bill C-53 is another important step in ensuring appropriate accountability of a government program designed to assist small businesses.

As well, this program is moving toward cost recovery, which is appropriate. As those businesses succeed, and we all hope they will, it is important that we have the resources and that they are available to help the next young generation of entrepreneurs trying to succeed in making their mark and helping Canada to maintain its leadership in the world when it comes to knowledge based and communication industries.

Bill C-53 contains no changes to the basic program parameters. However it meets the program long term viability and cost effectiveness requirements. It will provide greater stability, which I believe will better meet the needs of small business. Stability is a very important word for business. Recently we saw unexpected volatility in currency and in trading markets. We are all concerned and should be concerned about that.

That is why the bill is important. That is also why it is important to have sound and consistent public policy so that the business sector, and particularly the small business sector in this case which is so vital to Canada's economy, will have some sense of confidence in terms of what will be in place for the foreseeable future.

Last year Canada's small business loans program helped some 30,000 small businesses across the country to access nearly $2 billion in financing from Canadian lending institutions. Without this program many of the small businesses among those 30,000 may not have been able to secure financing without a guarantee from the Government of Canada. Too often major lenders do not respond as we all wish they would.

Back in the early 1970s I had my own small business which I was financing out of my household account. It seemed appropriate after having been in business for six months to go to the bank and say “I am quite successful. I do not need a big loan; $500 will do. I own my own car so I have some security, but that is all I have”. I also had a list of clients and thought any bank would judge me a good risk. I was young. I was an entrepreneur. I needed a little help.

[Health Care, November 20th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, specifically the government and the minister are very aware of Bill 37 before the Alberta legislature.

The position has been made very clear that this government supports absolutely and unequivocally the principles of the Canada Health Act and will not tolerate a move to two tier medicine in Canada.

[Health, November 20th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I am aware of the TV program that may have left a misimpression with some people. The fact this use of caffeine has not been approved by Health Canada and I can assure the member and everyone in the House that while we are conducting consultations we will not approve this unless we determine it is safe. Safety is always a priority for Health Canada.

[Supply, November 19th, 1998]

Madam Speaker, let me make it abundantly clear. The Prime Minister and the Minister of Health have said it repeatedly in the House that health care and medicare are a priority for this government. As funds are available we expect that in the future there will be investments in medicare for Canadians wherever they live in this country.

I say to the member opposite that I believe she is wrong to suggest it is not important to look at how medicare is evolving and changing and making sure that it is and in the future continues to be responsive to people whether they are in Quebec, Ontario, British Columbia, Newfoundland or any of the provinces and territories. We know that each province does it a little differently. That is appropriate in this great country, as long as we all adhere to those principles which have served us so well.

We on this side of the House know that it is important when future investments are made that they be done in a way which will give Canadians confidence that medicare will be there in the future and that they will have access to the health services when and where they need them. We also know that while we respect the right of each province to do it differently, we expect all provinces to adhere to the principles of the Canada Health Act which gives Canadians a sense of security and well-being. It also gives us a very significant competitive edge when dealing with our trading partners.

[Supply, November 19th, 1998]

Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to have the opportunity today to rise in this debate. I think there are some very important facts that Canadians watching this debate should remember.

It was a Liberal government that originally brought in medicare in Canada. It was a Liberal government in 1984 that brought in the Canada Health Act under the leadership of Monique Bégin. That act was passed in the House in a rare vote of unanimity. All members supported that important and incredible act.

In 1993 it was this Liberal government that inherited a $42 billion deficit and a growing debt that was threatening the fiscal health and the economic prosperity of the country.

If it had not been for the prudent fiscal management and the important commitment to the health of Canadians, we would not be in the position today to be debating what we will be doing with the surpluses being generated because of that prudent and important fiscal management.

This Liberal government has seen the elimination of the deficit and a balanced budget emerge. We also know that as prudent and responsible fiscal managers, we cannot ever again put on blinders and not look at what is happening around the world and not ensure our policies are right for today and for tomorrow.

Ensuring the fiscal stability of our country through prudent economic policy must remain a priority, particularly in these times as we see crises around the world, sometimes referred to as the Asian flu, the desperate situation in Russia and the concerns in Latin America and South America.

I want to make it absolutely clear from my perspective that health and health care and sustaining medicare, which all Canadians cherish, are priorities of the government. The reason I gave that very short history lesson is that people on this side of the House are not newcomers to that position. We have been staunch supporters of Canadian medicare. In 1993 the Prime Minister, during very difficult economic and fiscal situations, that very difficult and challenging time, established the national forum. The first recommendation of the forum was that the floor for transfers to the provinces under the CHST be established at $12.5 billion. That is exactly what the government did. We listened to the national forum, we took its advice and we raised the floor, adding $1.5 billion to the transfers to the provinces.

Many people watching this debate may not understand how this works or what the federal role is, so I would like to take a minute to explain it. Medicare is a partnership and the federal government has a role not only in helping to fund it but to leave the debate in ensuring that medicare is strong and secure and accountable to the people of this country.

The health and social transfers in 1998-99 will amount to $26 billion to the provinces and territories in support of health care, post-secondary education, social assistance and social service programs. This block funding gives the provinces flexibility. However, what is often overlooked in the House is that the CHST is a combination of dollars, $12.5 billion, and tax points, which too often people overlook in their calculation of the federal contribution to medicare.

We know that as it stands today, the Canada health and social transfer, with a floor of $12.5 billion, will increase by some $7 billion additional to the provinces until 2002-03.

We all know that as a result of the important decisions taken by the government and the decisions taken by provinces across the country there is a need for further investment in health care, in medicare and in the health of Canadians.

The Minister of Health said it best in a speech in Whitehorse: “The complex problems that confront health care in Canada will not be solved by dollars alone. The point is not simply to spend more but to spend more in a way that will produce better results”.

That is why as we look to the future, as we ensure money is invested in the health care and the health of Canadians, we have a responsibility to work with the provinces to make sure there is greater accountability and greater transparency in the use of those dollars. I speak now from an understanding to focus the services we deliver at the provincial level on patient needs and that we take care of people through that whole continuum of care so they do not fall through the cracks as too often happens today.

Simply throwing money, as suggested today by the motion, is not the right approach. The right approach in my view is for the federal government, through discussions with the provinces, to talk about the need for greater integration and greater accountability, accountability in the way of report cards to Canadians, letting people know how this non-system of ours really works or does not work in some cases.

Simply throwing money at it is not going to fix it. As the minister said, we have to make sure that the dollars we invest give us the results we seek. We all know it is important that future investments restore the confidence Canadians have always had in our medicare.

I saw an article in the newspaper just this week that said that U.S. doctors, nurses and health care providers are at the Canadian embassy and are rallying around Canadian medicare. Their message to Canadians is very clear and that is not to be so quick to trash what we have. They say to look south of the border where there are 43 million people with no access to care and over 100 million people with inadequate coverage. They are spending 40% more than Canadians. They are spending almost 14% of their gross domestic product.

If ever there was a lesson to learn, it is to make sure that we invest properly and do not listen to the Reform Party which would take us down the road to the American style of medicare where people pay and do not have the coverage for the services they need. We know that is the Reform policy. That is not the policy of this government.

I know that the people of Thornhill, the people of this country believe that the federal government has an important role in ensuring that medicare is there for future generations. They also know that this has to be done in a thoughtful way, not to simply throw money into the air outside of the budgetary process because we think things are looking good, or to throw away any fiscal prudence and respond to the political whims and desires of members in the House who change their tune on a moment's notice.

We stand steadfast behind medicare. We always will. We will ensure it is there for Canadians.