Antoine Dubé

[Shipbuilding, December 8th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, although shipbuilding is a high-tech industry that creates thousands of well-paid jobs, the federal government has no shipbuilding policy, nothing comparable with that of the United States, for example.

Why does the federal government still have no shipbuilding policy that would encourage Canadian shipowners to have their vessels built here and to create jobs here instead of having them built in China or Korea, as Canada Steamship Lines does?

[Supply, December 1st, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member's compilation of yesterday's election results is a rather odd one.

In discussing social union, he referred to the Meech Lake Accord. As a Quebecker, I remember that the present Prime Minister, then leader of the Liberal Party but without a seat in the House, played a very specific role in the failure of Meech, with the complicity of then Newfoundland Premier Clyde Wells. Today he gets all worked up about those who were responsible for the failure of Meech. He ought to look back at that.

Returning to social union, these are demands that go back 50 years, in Quebec and in the other provinces as well. It is also in part the outcome of the federal government's cuts to transfer payments to the provinces, of its brutal cuts to health care. They are what has triggered this discussion, since the other provinces were forced to make cuts to health care, to the hospitals. That is what they have been pushed to.

I hope the federal government understands the urgency for remedying the situation by restoring transfer payments as promptly as possible, in the next budget, for health care in particular, but also for education and social assistance.

I would like to know my hon. colleague's opinion on this matter, that is on the money the federal government has cut from the provinces in these areas.

[Supply, December 1st, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, we are relatively favourable to today's Reform Party motion. It is similar, if not identical, in purpose to the motion we moved in October, urging the federal government to speed up negotiations on social union, given that the premiers had come out with a statement in August in this regard.

What we get out of the Reform Party motion is that more haste is required. As our leader reiterated this morning, this is an issue that has been around for a long time. Reformers have rarely mentioned it. For 50 years now, Quebec has been calling on the federal government to respect the areas of provincial jurisdiction set out in the Constitution, such as health and the social sector, but to no avail. The federal government has used its spending authority to interfere in provincial jurisdictions and, in recent years, in order to eliminate its own deficit, it has slashed transfer payments to the provinces, with the results mentioned by the member.

Would the Reform Party member agree with Quebec's demand that there should be a right to opt out of new programs in this sector with full financial compensation?

[Marine Conservation Areas Act, November 26th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, having been involved in recreation in Quebec for a number of years, I have always been interested in any project involving nature conservation.

I also spent seven years as an assistant to former Quebec fisheries minister Garon, and I have clear memories of his battles with his counterparts, including Mr. De Bané, who has since been appointed to the Senate. At that same time, someone who subsequently became Governor General was involved in epic struggles while discussing ownership and jurisdiction issues in relation to the ocean floor, river bed and waterways.

The member for Ottawa—Vanier did not seem to understand the opposition expressed by the member for Rimouski—Mitis with regard to Bill C-48. I will just say to him that we have good reason to get cold feet, and it is not even a play on words when we are talking about the St. Lawrence and the Atlantic because the water there has always been and will continue to be cold. The federal government has forced us to become more and more distrustful in these areas.

Just consider the fact that three different departments are involved in marine areas. In this bill, the Minister of Canadian Heritage talks about marine conservation areas. We also have marine protected areas that fall under the jurisdiction of the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, and marine reserves that fall under the jurisdiction of the Department of the Environment.

Marine areas, marine protected areas and marine reserves, which come under three different federal departments. They all have lofty goals, but it all depends on the attitude and the intent. The member for Ottawa—Vanier said a few moments ago that the Liberals brought forward this legislation to give the federal government some authority over marine areas, but they do not intend to intervene as they did in Mirabel and Forillon Park, for example. We know where that lead to in some cases in Quebec and elsewhere, particularly in the maritimes.

When the federal government interferes in a particular area, it does so forcefully as if it were the superior government in Canada, whereas in the initial spirit of Confederation, the federal government was supposed to harmonize its policies with those of the provinces. At that time, it was not seen as a superior government that gave orders to other governments, but rather as a government that wanted to work with them.

I spoke earlier with the member for Chicoutimi about how we recently witnessed a good example of partnership. Two levels of government worked together toward the same goal, namely the conservation and protection of marine wildlife and of the shores, since one has to go by land to get to a marine area. That partnership led to the creation of the Saguenay—St. Lawrence marine park in 1997.

The mistrust on this side is based on the federal government's past behaviour. Give them a foot, they will take a yard. That is part of the problem.

The hon. member for Ottawa—Vanier said earlier “We will usually focus on land owned by the federal government or squarely under federal jurisdiction”. It would be hard to prevent it from doing so. However, jurisdiction over several areas is being disputed, mostly by the federal government, but also by provinces that wish to protect their territory from invasion. Section 92 of the Constitution clearly stipulates that the bottom of the river and other waterways are a provincial area of jurisdiction.

All the governments in Quebec, whether they were led by federalists or sovereignists, took the same position and said “We will not let our jurisdiction be infringed upon unchallenged”. Although, in this case, the goal is laudable, and we do support conservation, too often the federal government has taken this kind of opportunity to infringe upon provincial areas of jurisdiction, especially those of Quebec.

What good is a statement of good intentions from a member who is not yet a minister, who represents a minister at some committee, and tells the House that they have no intention of doing that. Really. It is so easy for the government to make such statements and then try to pull a fast one on us. In Quebec we are very sceptical about this.

I believe the government should start its consultations all over again. I was not a member of the committee. The member for Rimouski—Mitis is more familiar with this issue since she is the Bloc critic in this area. She told us about the kind of consultations that took place. When only 5% of those invited to the consultation show up, when only 60 out of the 300 pages in the report are handed out, one has to wonder. From what we could see, there were very few witnesses from Quebec. There are very few submissions in French.

The bill is premature, improvised or badly put together. It leaves too much room for interpretation and legal challenge.

Nothing in this bill tells us the federal government is going to abide by the good intentions mentioned by the member for Ottawa—Vanier. This is simply not enough for us, in the House. Words are quick and vain, we will need to get that in writing. Laws remain and we know they are followed by regulations that clarify them. This is often how we can be had.

At second reading stage, I too would like to say that we oppose the bill. We believe it is one more federal threat against Quebec. It is aimed at encroaching on Quebec's territory. As Quebeckers, we cannot allow it.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am not outraged by the fact that the hon. parliamentary secretary is taking this opportunity to brag about the program. He is right.

As we say in Quebec, we do not turn up our noses on a good program. As my hon. colleague just indicated, many Quebeckers are using the program and want to be able to keep on using it, because it is a fundamental multipurpose program.

However, the program is not a cure-all. The statistics used by the hon. member do not invalidate the argument we made. What I was suggesting earlier is that the government guarantees on loans made by the banks to small business should be for businesses that otherwise would not have access to them through any other program. We would probably get the same statistics, but with the following difference. Instead of having banks use the program with all the guarantees currently provided by the government, help would be given to businesses who otherwise would not get assistance from any other program.

Yes, there are some shortcomings. The parliamentary secretary knows that these issues were discussed at length in committee. For existing businesses, there is the whole issue of working capital to consider. Several businesses have mentioned it. However, it is not addressed in this bill, because, since the government has decided not to support our amendment, working capital is not eligible under this program, and that is unfortunate. It is very unfortunate indeed, because working capital is very helpful during tough times, as the parliamentary secretary knows. It is crucial to be able to face tough times.

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

Mr. Speaker, I will answer yes to my colleague, there are possibilities.

He mentioned one amendment we moved, but which was defeated by the government side. I will explain what it was about, because it is not obvious at first sight.

Why not limit this program to businesses which otherwise would not have access to loans from financial institutions? I stress this point because it could be tempting for a bank or a credit union, seeing the possibility of using this program, to use it to benefit businesses that provide guarantees. There is an annual $1.5 billion limit for Canada as a whole, that is a limit on the total amount of the loans, not on what this program is costing the government. This is not what the program costs.

If banks and financial institutions were to finance businesses which could otherwise have access to financing, they would not have enough money left to finance those business people my colleague mentioned, who want to set up their own business and who might pose a greater risk.

In my opinion, this guaranteed loans program should be aimed at those who are in a certain risk category, who might have a cash flow problem for instance, but who show potential for innovation, who have just completed some kind of training, who have ideas, energy and youth. Such a loan could give them a start in life, in business and help them succeed.

We presented this argument and although our amendment was rejected, I believe that by debating it today we might convince the people opposite, the minister and his officials to look at it some time in the future. They could adopt it and see that it is implemented through the regulations.

This is the reason why we, in the Bloc Quebecois, are in favour of this legislation. Although the bill's objectives are worthwhile, it is often the regulations themselves that make it possible to realize them.

If we take things seriously, and I want to take them seriously, it means that, when we propose an amendment, we are assuming that somebody who is listening to the debate or who will read Hansard tomorrow will say “this is a good idea that is worth considering”. That is what we hope when we speak in the House. We are not only trying to pass the time.

This bill deals with a fundamental program that provides access to financing for a large number of businesses in Canada and in Quebec. I may be a sovereignist, but I still think this bill is a positive measure. As long as we Quebecers remain within the federal system and send part of our taxes to Ottawa, we have the right to benefit from that system.

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

Mr. Speaker, as a member of the Standing Committee on Industry and as regional development critic for the Bloc Quebecois, I am pleased to speak at third reading of Bill C-53, which deals with small business financing.

This bill is not perfect and we think it should have been improved through, among other things, the main amendments proposed by my colleague from Mercier and myself, on behalf of the Bloc Quebecois, in committee and in the House at report stage. Our amendments dealt mostly with access to working capital and greater access to capital for borrowers in the voluntary sector, which is more and more referred to in Quebec as the social economy sector, and not only, as the government proposes, in the form of pilot projects that are yet to be established in accordance with the minister's wishes.

Of course, we are not opposed to the idea of pilot projects, but we think it would have been preferable to include directly in this bill provisions that would have made this type of financing or loan guarantees available to borrowers in the voluntary sector, or social economy sector.

The main reason we support this bill is that the small business owners we consulted do want this loan guarantee program even though, as I said earlier, it should have been improved.

The hon. member for Mercier, myself and the other Bloc Quebecois members would have appreciated it if the industry committee, on which we both sit as full members, had conducted a more thorough assessment of the issue of financing for small businesses, if it had evaluated all the programs provided by the various stakeholders. According to the people I consulted, there are some 100 assistance programs—not just lending programs, but all sorts of programs—and entrepreneurs do not always have time to get familiar—so to speak—with each of these programs.

Sometimes, when a program is described in a booklet or some other type of brochure, we realize that the funds are no longer available, that the structures have changed or that the programs themselves have changed. It is difficult to face that situation.

We also think that the Standing Committee on Industry, or the Department of Industry itself, should conduct a macroeconomic impact study. This means it should not merely do an audit as suggested by the auditor general, but also a financial audit of lending institutions, as the government intends to do. Given the various programs that are in place everywhere, it would be appropriate to see their actual impact, for example on a region's economy.

We would have liked to know the impact on competition. It is all well and good to grant a loan to a small business, but under what conditions and what about its impact on the business across the street?

We must also look at the impact on the region's economy. Will there be an impact or not? Right now, we are under the impression that the department does not have the tools to properly evaluate the impact of these projects.

When we agree to provide help in the form of a guaranteed loan, we must consider the multiplying effects. Do these effects go beyond the business itself? It is often said that the effects are more significant in certain areas.

For example, it is said that, for every dollar invested in the tourism industry, the benefits are multiplied by four. The same goes for the export sector. Nowhere in the bill is this taken into account.

We must also consider the number of jobs and not only the number of new jobs. Maintaining existing jobs may be quite a feat for a small business that has to modernize its equipment to remain competitive. If it does not go through this modernization process, it may have to reduce the number of jobs or even to close down. Therefore, maintaining jobs is often very important.

We must look at the number of jobs, and I think that should be the first criterion, but we must also look at the kind of jobs. Are they quality jobs? Are we helping a business that, in the short or medium term, would only provide minimum wage jobs? If working conditions are not very good, maybe we should take a closer look at it.

Not only do we have to think about the number of jobs, but we must also realize that well paid jobs with good working conditions are good for the workers and their families. When there are quality jobs in a region, jobs that have an impact on the economy, people have more money in their pocket. They spend more and they invest in the local economy. That is the kind of indicator we must look at, the impact on the community.

When all regional economies are doing well, so is the economy in Quebec and Canada. For some Quebec regions, this would mean losing fewer of their young people. The hon. member for Lac-Saint-Jean often raises the issue of young people moving to major centres. Members from eastern Quebec also raised it, as did those from the Atlantic provinces. This is insane. Something has to be done to keep our young people in our regions.

I personally come from eastern Quebec. I later moved to the Quebec City-Lévis region, a very beautiful region, and I do not regret this decision. However, had there been job opportunities in my native region 30 years ago, I would probably have stayed. I would have chosen to stay home, if only because I knew the place well and felt I belonged there and because of my family ties. Yet I had no choice but to leave.

The eastern Quebec phenomenon had been looked into under the ARDA initiative and by the QPDB at the time. When business owners see young people leave, they wonder whether it is a good idea to keep investing in developing their business while this exodus is taking place. It is no longer the case, but I am trying to show that small businesses are important to rural regions. Unfortunately, they are few and far between. In the Lac-Saint-Jean region, they have big businesses, such as Alcan, but in regions like the Beauce or the Chaudière-Appalaches region, which is my new home, small businesses are the engine driving job creation. In fact, they account for nearly all new regional jobs created, hence the need to make financing available.

The less unemployment there is, the less social spending there is. This may seem obvious, but it is good to point it out. The more employment there is, the more collective wealth there is. The more collective wealth increases, the more property values increase, and the happier business people are. This is called development and it goes without saying that we, in the Bloc Quebecois, who defend the interests of Quebec and its regions, support any program that helps small businesses develop the regional economy.

When I first heard about the review of the Canada Small Business Financing Act, my initial reaction was to consult the local development board, a permanent body in my riding, to get its opinion on the small business loans program, the SBLP. It told me it supported that program. Why? Because, according to the development board, this is one of the best known programs, if not the best known. It has remained stable and it is the simplest one to administer. It is a basic program that allows any business in any sector to have access to financing.

Consequently, it is often the program most used. It is a multipurpose program and it is known by banks and caisses populaires in the regions. I do not want to get involved today in a debate over bank mergers, but we are all aware that there are concerns in remote or rural areas that major bank mergers may decrease the number of financial institutions and thus the access to financing in their communities.

Businesses are, therefore, greatly attached to this program. It must be pointed out, however, that it is more costly than other loan programs, 3% higher than regular loans. Nevertheless, it is an extremely popular program, and one that is in demand. Despite its popularity, I have been told by the LDB in my riding that people would like access to this program improved.

Is this program as accessible as it seems to be? The banks tell us that it is. Bank representatives who appeared before the industry committee told us that it was an accessible program and that it was working well.

I invite hon. members to consult the statistics the banks compiled, but an examination will show that they apply only to completed applications. When businesses are consulted, however, we learn that in certain communities many people wanting to set up new businesses do not complete their application. They get discouraged, or are discouraged by certain financial institutions who tell them that their business is not all that viable.

Incomplete forms are not included in the statistics, so it is easy to say that there is a highly satisfactory success rate among those who go through the process and meet all conditions and criteria. But if those who do not follow the process through to the end were taken into consideration, we would end up with another kind of statistic.

The Canadian Federation of Independent Business made us aware of this problem by saying that, contrary to the view expressed by the banks, financing was not so accessible.

We, the members of the Bloc Quebecois, made aware of this problem, wanted to go a little further and so we conducted a poll in our ridings. In my own riding, I sent a questionnaire to all businesses I had an address for, and 84 of them returned it.

The first question was “In your experience and from what you see around you, would you say it is easy for a SMB to obtain credit at a reasonable cost easily?” Only three businesses or 3.6% said yes. Thirty-six businesses, or 42.9%, said it was difficult, and 45 businesses or 53.6%, said it was very difficult.

The next question was “Are you familiar with the Small Business Loans Act?” Only 34.5% of businesses indicated they were familiar with it, 65% were unfamiliar with it.

Then they were asked “Do you think that the federal government should guarantee loans only to SMBs that could not obtain them otherwise, even though they represent a reasonable risk?” The response was 70.2% in favour, 22.6% against, and 7.1% refusing to answer.

The next question was “Do you think loans should be given as well for working capital—and this was one of the amendments we proposed—and not only for equipment and assets and real property?” To this question, 92.9% responded yes, and only 6% were opposed.

Another question was “From your experience and what you see around you, do you think SMBs previously had greater access to credit at a reasonable cost and to management advice?” The response to this question was unanimously yes.

And, if that were still the case, “Would there be fewer bankruptcies?” We received an affirmative answer from 86.9% of respondents.

Overall, nearly 97% of those polled said it was either difficult or very difficult for small business to secure a loan at a reasonable rate; 43% believed it was difficult and 50% believed it was very difficult. Sixty-six per cent of those who responded were not familiar with the legislation. More than 70% agreed that the federal government should guarantee only loans made to small businesses that would not get one otherwise.

The bill also deals with access. It does not merely deal with small business financing but, as the title specifies, it is an act to increase the availability of financing to small businesses. Since the word “increase” is used, the purpose of the act is therefore not to reduce availability, as requested by members of the Reform Party. They want it reduced, and if they had it their own way, they would even have it eliminated; they would let the chips fall where they may, in order words let the stronger survive and the small and the weak die out.

We could not disagree more with the attitude and position of the Reform Party in this respect. While the bill is not perfect or ideal in any way, there is a need for such a small business financing program through guaranteed loans. It does meet a need. Tat is why, at third reading as before, we support this bill.

We figure that, if it agrees to some improvements today, the government may eventually agree to do more. That is our fondest hope.

I notice that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Industry, who sits on the same committee as I do, is listening. He has a background in industry. He supports economic development. I know that, by repeating certain arguments, we may succeed in convincing him, and let us hope he, in turn, will succeed in convincing his colleagues, particularly the Minister of Finance, that we need legislation to help small businesses, and businesses in general, create jobs.

I would like members to remember one key word from my speech. I know that the member for Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques, who will be speaking after me, will agree with that. He keeps talking about employment insurance and the problems facing the unemployed. We both know that one good solution—and in some cases the only solution for young people and for people with years of professional training—is starting up a business. It is often the only way to earn a living. I know my colleague will agree with me that helping small and medium size businesses is part of the fight against poverty. That is the purpose of this bill, and that is why we must support it. However, it must not be the only program available.

As regional development critic for the Bloc Quebecois, I would like people in each region to get together and use the best tools available and to adapt them to their particular situation.

Once again, this bill is not perfect, but it offers enough flexibility and versatility to meet many needs. That is why we support it.

[Canada Small Business Financing Act, November 23rd, 1998]

Madam Speaker, I will not be using all the time available to me. I would simply like to take a few minutes to speak against Motion No. 3 in particular.

The purpose of this motion is to reduce the maximum available capital from $250,000 to $100,000. My main argument can be found in the title of the bill, which reads “an act to increase the availability of financing for the establishment, expansion, modernization and improvement of small businesses”.

When the stated goal is to increase financing, I have difficulty going along with cutting back on what was previously available to small businesses.

I would like to take advantage of the presence in the House of the Secretary of State for Regional Development for Quebec to point out that this particular program of small business loans is important precisely because of the shortcomings in the programs under the secretary of state's responsibility. Because of the absence of good regional development measures, businesses need access to such a program.

There are the CFDCs, of course, but they are of no help to small businesses wishing to expand. The emphasis is often on new small businesses, which are very important, and capital funding.

The amendment moved by the Reform Party member would not create problems for those wishing to start up a business. However, existing businesses sometimes need loans to consolidate their activities, to expand, to develop and to create jobs.

I often criticize the government's prime interest in big business or high tech companies. I have nothing against them, they are extraordinary. However, these businesses set up primarily around big cities and centres. This is unfortunate for businesses in rural areas, in the regions that want to keep their young people and staunch the flow to the major centres. This program will help local businesses create jobs or keep them. Businesses sometimes modernize to keep jobs. If they do not, they could have to close.

This program then makes this possible, and we in the Bloc Quebecois support it. Though sovereignists we may be in the Bloc Quebecois, we are not always negative, we do not always oppose government measures, although this measure, in our opinion, should have been improved. This bill should have been improved. We would have hoped for a broader vision for all government programs, not only those of the federal government, and that they would have been compared to those of the provinces, especially Quebec, and the financial opportunities offered by such organizations as the CFDC.

Failing the best, we will have to be satisfied with what is not too bad. This is why the Bloc Quebecois supports this bill. Obviously, however, we oppose any attempt to limit the availability of funds to small businesses.

[Canada Small Business Financing Act, November 17th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to address Bill C-53, an act to increase the availability of financing for the establishment, expansion, modernization and improvement of small businesses.

Government members should support the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Mercier, since the title of the bill itself states that its purpose is to increase the availability of financing of small businesses.

The hon. member for Mercier proposes that this financing program apply to businesses that would not otherwise have access to such financing. This would allow increased financing to businesses that are in trouble. I do not understand why the Reformers seem to disagree with this amendment. They said repeatedly in this House that the act should apply only to businesses that would not otherwise have access to financing. This is precisely what the hon. member for Mercier is proposing in her motion.

Businesses that have access to the financial and banking institutions' regular program do not need this legislation to get financing. In fact, it would not be to their advantage to use this program, since the interest rate charged to businesses is 3% higher. Therefore, it seems that businesses should use the other types of loans offered by banking institutions. As a rule, the government should not take the place of banking institutions that play a role in the economy.

Reformers who support that view should realize that the banks would only be too happy if this were the case. For once we agree, to some extent, that we should leave it to banks and financial institutions to deal with regular loans, as they do a fine job of it. In my mind, banks include the caisses populaires, because half of the loans made in Quebec went through the caisses populaires.

I will let the Reform Party clarify their position. However, as far as I am concerned, they are contradicting themselves. They seem bent on an ideology where government should completely withdraw so that individuals have so few taxes to pay, if any—not no taxes whatsoever, as government would disappear—or play such a diluted role that its presence would be insignificant.

Not surprisingly the NDP believes that government should take action in a number of areas, including small business. In Canada, 98% of all businesses are small businesses with fewer than 100 employees—and the percentage may even be higher because the statistics are not necessarily up to date—yet they account for 45% of all job creation.

There is much talk about large corporations. That is fine, but large corporations do not need such a program. They have access to other financing sources. This program is suited to the small and medium size businesses that lost significantly fewer jobs than larger ones did during the recession, in the early 1990s, and created a significantly larger number of jobs in the following recovery.

Small businesses ought to be encouraged, on account of the various sectors they are involved in within the global economy. I am thinking of the agri-food industry, for example, including fisheries and forestry; in Quebec, 90.1 % of this industry is controlled by small and medium size businesses. The forestry and agri-food sectors are active in the various regions.

As the Bloc Quebecois critic for regional development, this program to enable small businesses—especially in the regions, outside large urban areas—develop, have access to financing and create and maintain jobs for people in the regions, especially young people, is of great interest to me.

The Conservative member for Chicoutimi, whom I saw just now, knows what I am talking about, when I refer to the Saguenay—Lac-Saint-Jean region. We have all kinds of problems in keeping young people in the region. Who does most to keep them in the regions? Small business, the target of this program.

In the construction sector, 88.2% of jobs in Quebec are in small and medium size companies with fewer than 100 employees. In the real estate sector, 73.6% of businesses are small and medium size. In the wholesale sector, 66% of jobs in Quebec are in small and medium size businesses. In Quebec, in the retail sector, which is important in rural municipalities, in small municipalities or in big city neighbourhoods—small businesses are the ones closest to the population and provide more personalized services—59.7% of businesses are small and or medium size. Also, 53% of the companies providing services to other companies are small businesses.

For a bill to be a good one, it must meet several criteria. It must be recognizable by its title. We agree with the title I read earlier. This is a bill to increase the availability of financing for small businesses. A title is all very well, but a bill must be real, must go beyond a mere title. Its clauses, its content and its regulations, if possible, must go with the title.

Suprisingly, in this case, while the purpose of the bill is to increase financing, not a single clause—I have read and reread them, because I am a member of the Standing Committee on Industry, where we studied the bill clause by clause—is consistent with the purpose. That is why the member for Mercier and I are requesting greater access be provided for those really needing it, those who would not otherwise have access to the regular bank financing programs. The government must give them its endorsement, because the government is not doing the lending. People have to understand, this is about guarantees of financing. The government is a guarantor, with restrictions and with control.

That is the role of the executive. It may not be the role of the legislators, but it is the role of government, through the executive, specifically the minister and his officials, to ensure that the banks see to that.

So that is why this has to appear in the bill. We will talk more about it when we consider the other amendments, those proposed by the government and the Reform Party, which are intended to add controls and restrictions and which serve to cut the program that existed in the past. We in the Bloc Quebecois want a better law, one more appropriate to the objective. This law must make financing more available and not reduce it, limit it or make it unobtainable.

The act includes so many conditions that, in the end, financial institutions may decide to make financing available to businesses that present no risks, but that could have access to other sources of financing. I find it very contradictory that this would be done in the context of a bill. Our objective is a good one and we are acting in good faith. When the bill was introduced in the House, we agreed with its principle at second reading. We still do, but we are now a little suspicious and sceptical, because we realize that the amendments proposed by the Reform Party would in the end restrict the scope of the bill.

We oppose restricting access to financing for small businesses. Rather, we would like to see such access increased. I hope the government will listen to our representations and realize that our proposals are in line with the bill. Our amendment, which was accepted by the clerk and by the Chair, is consistent with the bill and this brings to a close—

[L'Islet Association Of Unemployed People, November 3rd, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, enough is enough.

On August 27, 1997, the Secretary of State for Agriculture asked the Minister of Human Resources Development to change the parent region of the L'Islet regional county municipality by integrating it into Quebec's eastern region, because of the difference in benefits for EI recipients.

At the time, the secretary of state said that the current unemployment rate in his riding was closer to the 17.9% rate for Quebec's eastern region than to the 8.1% global rate Statistics Canada assigned to the whole Chaudière—Appalaches region.

One year later, the L'Islet association of unemployed people is condemning the about-face of their member of Parliament and the human resources development minister's refusal to correct the injustice done to them.

The Bloc Quebecois feels that the unemployed in L'Islet deserve more respect and assures them of its support.