Antoine Dubé

[Small Business Loans Act, March 18th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member said he agreed with what I said. It is hard to say anything more, except perhaps to add that, while sovereignists, the members of the Bloc Quebecois make a full contribution to parliamentary committees, including the Standing Committee on Industry.

In that particular case, we make as positive a contribution as possible because, as long as Quebec remains part of the federal system and Quebeckers pay their share of taxes to the federal government, we are perfectly justified in taking advantage of this process, since it benefits Quebec businesses.

Of course we feel the Quebec government and every region in Quebec should be involved. There are 16 economic regions in Quebec and each has a separate strategic plan. Realities vary from one region to the next, be it geographical realities, distance or what not. Some natural resources may also be found in one region but not in others. Hence the need for regional microeconomics.

This bill dealing with small business loans of up to $250,000 directly concerns the type of businesses we find in all regions of Canada. This is a basic program but it should be pointed out that similar programs already exist in Quebec. Take the FTQ workers' fund for example. This is a Quebec initiative, which the CNTU recently imitated. Funds are generated to help small and medium size businesses and promote their sustainability. This also allows for the establishment of new businesses.

Consideration in committee of this bill should focus on assessing existing programs at other levels to make sure they are complementary and useful. Other programs will need to be created.

Entrepreneurs often come to see me at my office. They tell me there is not always enough time to compare the benefits of all the programs available. I was told—and did not get a chance to check—that credit and loans are available from at least 50 sources. Checking them all is a time-consuming process. I think it should be simplified.

This is a time when the federal government should work in co-operation with provincial governments to prevent duplication and competition. This would allow us to develop business assistance programs that meet the particular needs of businesses in a given region.

[Small Business Loans Act, March 18th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, it is my turn to take part in the debate at third reading on Bill C-21, an act to amend the Small Business Loans Act. This is the final debate before the vote that will allow us to dispose of this bill.

This is a relatively brief bill, containing only two clauses. What do these two clauses say? First, that the existing legislation, which would normally cease to apply on March 31 of this year, should be extended for one year. Second, that an additional $1 billion should be made available for other loans.

The auditor general reported on this and we read his remarks very carefully. He suggests changes, and I will come back to this a bit later on.

An in-depth review of the program is required. The Minister of Industry undertook to have one carried out, so that it would not be necessary, as in other years, including last year, to come back to the House each time in order to add another $1 billion and to extend the existing program for another year. The Minister of Industry agreed to allow the Standing Committee on Industry and experts from the department to review the program.

I hope that the business community, people representing SMBs in all sectors of Canada, will be consulted, and that people from Quebec and elsewhere will be able to come and testify.

We have already heard from the Canadian Bankers Association and the Canadian Federation of Independent Business. These organizations recommend a formal review of this program. It will soon be the year 2000. As everyone knows, the economy is in full transition and, unfortunately, the transitions are occurring with greater frequency.

In the past, we saw transitions perhaps every 25 years. Now, economic cycles are much shorter in length, seven years they say. In the era of globalization, high tech equipment, and so on, people are realizing that SMBs are undergoing transitions even more frequently.

The questions asked by the auditor general are extremely important ones. Of course he wants to see more control over what it costs the government to compensate lenders, because a certain number of borrowers, approximately 5% when it comes to small and medium-sized businesses, do not pay back their loans. The auditor general feels that the auditing procedures for these requests for compensation must be tightened up.

He also says that the interest the government would have to pay on compensation must be reduced to a minimum. This needs to be reviewed. I would point out that, with respect to student loans, the Quebec Minister of Education tried to avoid taking anything for granted and decided to renew annually all procedures and mechanisms relating to loans from the caisses populaires and the banks. He succeeded in the end in saving money.

I believe there is always a way for governments to save money, and this money of course belongs to the taxpayers.

In my opinion, the most important element in what the auditor general says is that there must be a more stringent assessment of the program's impact on job creation.

Those who have spoken before me have addressed this point a little, but I would like to take a different tack than the Reform member. I feel this review is worth a serious effort. In the final analysis, if we want small businesses to have access to guaranteed loans, we must remember that what everyone really wants is to see as many jobs created as possible.

The jobs created must be quality jobs. It is all very fine to create jobs, but the statistics are often misleading or incomplete. The type of jobs created, the salary, and whether these are permanent or part time jobs must all be looked into.

We also have to consider whether these jobs are in sectors that will last, because, as you know, a lot of small businesses are failing. Most bankruptcies occur in the first year of business. However, in 75% or 80% of the cases, they happen within the first three years. This is where we must pay particular attention.

Given all the good that this bill can do for business, and I think we must not lose sight of this fact, we are obliged to support it. In the past fiscal year, 34,000 SMBs across Canada benefited from the program. This means that over $2 billion in loans were guaranteed by the government, including $732 million for businesses in Quebec.

How was this $732 million distributed? The caisses populaires loaned out $321 million of it, while the other banking institutions in Quebec provided $385 million. For Canada as a whole, the 34,000 SMBs created, according to the inadequate figures available, 73,000 jobs, of which an estimated 25,000, at least, were in Quebec.

So this is why we in the Bloc Quebecois feel obliged to support this measure. If the bill is not passed by April 1, we could not use it to help small and medium size businesses.

I will digress a bit further here. In 1995, the figures showed that SMBs contributed 43% of Canada's economic activity. That same year, in Quebec, 45% of all jobs, not just the new ones, depended on SMBs. So they account for nearly half of the jobs in business.

We often think that big business creates jobs, but we note—and this is true in all countries, all the OECD reports confirm it—that big business is no longer really creating jobs. It creates some, but others are lost. Often government efforts, and this is true for a business in my riding in Quebec, are aimed at maintaining jobs. Frito-Lay is one example, and there are many others.

On the subject of big business, the challenge is not to create jobs, but to maintain existing ones. The Lévis shipyards come to mind. Barely seven or eight years ago, when things were really booming, 2,500 people worked there. Now they have a hard time keeping 500 to 700 people employed. So SMBs are an area for the future and where most of the jobs are created.

They often represent the only option for someone without a job, who is unable to find one in the public service. We know that neither the federal nor the provincial public service creates jobs anymore. So SMBs are the only option for young people or those who have experience in the labour market, but find themselves unemployed.

I heard the Reform member criticize the Minister of Human Resources Development. But some good came out of the program, including the SEA initiative, the self-employment assistance program, which helped many jobless people, for a period of up to a year, set up their own businesses. Many of these businesses survived. If these people had not set up such businesses, they would have remained unemployed.

We must do our utmost to help them. I do not doubt that all the members here, from all parties, can work so that, in the end, the largest possible number of jobs will be created. The Liberals even made job creation their slogan in 1993, with their “jobs, jobs, jobs”. As we saw, their approach was based on macroeconomics, in that they concentrated on economic indicators and let things sort themselves out.

Contrary to that approach, I think governments still have a very specific role to play to help businesses create jobs. At the same time, we must be careful and make sure public funds are not wasted. The fact is that setting up a business is risky. This basic program allows thousands of businesses to take the necessary risks to create jobs. Members of this House can never make job creation too much of an obsession, too much of a daily concern.

I see that I have some time left. When we review the program, we will have to see which sectors are doing best, which ones are providing quality employment.

For example, in the Quebec City region, socio-economic stakeholders noticed that the number of jobs in the public service was the same, because of a freeze, if not diminishing. This led a number of them to try to devise a strategy geared to the new economy. I want to point out in particular the efforts of the technological park, in Sainte-Foy. There are also other sectors in the Quebec City region that are interested in developing projects that will create quality employment.

I can never repeat it too often: there are sectors where investing makes less and less sense. In the context of globalization, our businesses must be the best in the world, if they are to survive. They must also be in fields that have a promising future.

I will conclude by saying that Bloc Quebecois members will support the bill at third reading, because until a more comprehensive reform is done, it is the only way that other businesses can get a loan from banking institutions in the next fiscal year.

[Canada Economic Development, March 13th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, on March 4, it was reported in the Canada Gazette that the name of the Federal Office of Regional Development-Quebec had been changed to Canada Economic Development for Quebec Regions Agency.

This name change, which puts emphasis on the word “Canada”, is but one more way the federal government has found to increase its visibility in Quebec.

I also want to mention the recent change of the French designation of the Canada Post Corporation to “Postes Canada”, at a cost of $8 million, and the heritage minister's famous flag operation, which has cost more than $23 million so far.

Add to that the Canada millennium scholarships and the grants that will be given out by the Canada Foundation for Innovation in the health sector.

The federal government is not fooling anyone in Quebec with its razzle-dazzle.

[Small Business Loans Act, March 13th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak to Bill C-21 at report stage, because I sit on the Standing Committee on Industry. I am a bit surprised because, at report stage, a report is made to the Chair and to other members of the House of Commons on what has gone on in committee. This is the stage at which one may speak of what is going on in committee.

In committee, all comments and questions on this topic were in favour of legislation allowing the federal government to guarantee bank loans. When we talk about banks, we include Quebec's caisses populaires as well, because the figures show that half the loans made to businesses in Quebec guaranteed under this legislation were made by that province's caisses populaires. This is therefore very important for small businesses.

But this morning I am astonished, because the purpose of the amendment is to cap loans at $14 billion. Not costs to the government, but the actual value of loans.

This is a rather surprising amendment, given that everyone seemed to be in agreement in committee, but it is all the more surprising considering that Bill C-21 is not a lengthy bill; it has only two clauses.

The first clause provides for a one-year extension of the legislation prior to its being amended, as the auditor general is suggesting in fact. We in the Bloc Quebecois agree that it should be completely overhauled, and that witnesses should obviously be heard, as the industry committee is proposing beginning in the fall, with a view to a complete overhaul of this legislation.

The second clause provides for increasing the amount from $14 billion to $15 billion in the interim. This would allow continued operation of the program for the duration of the extension.

What the Reform Party is saying is totally contradictory, because they talk of extending the act by a year but maintaining the present ceiling. Yet that ceiling has already been reached. What contradiction: they are in favour of financial guarantees to small business, but at the same time, they want the opposite—perhaps because they do not dare come right out and say it to businesses, their directors, or the people waiting for the jobs those businesses will create, and we know that 80% of new jobs are created by small and medium size businesses.

This morning we saw some pretty decent figures on employment, as well as a drop in the rate of unemployment in Canada and Quebec. There is some good news for Ontario and Quebec relating to job creation. Closer examination shows that those jobs are in small and medium size businesses.

One of the means—though not the only one—to create jobs is this act, which enables the Minister of Industry to guarantee small business loans. I find it a bit odd, which is why I wanted to point out the Reform Party's contradictions at the report stage. I wish to stay within the limits of parliamentary language, but let us say that they are, at the very least, inconsistent. Another term comes to mind, but I want to remain polite.

We will not join in on this delaying tactic, saying yes officially but really meaning no. We are not going to get into that. There are no surprises here. Yesterday during debate on our motion concerning federal interference in education, when we were voicing our desire to see no federal intrusion in education, the Reform Party kept saying that it agreed with the Bloc Quebecois, that it too thought jurisdictions should be respected, but that it would not be supporting our motion.

This morning, we have a similar situation in their approach to the Small Business Loans Act. It is inconsistent, but not surprising. This is not the first time we have seen them take this approach, because this is my second term in office and I remember the very early days when we were the official opposition and the Reform Party members and their leader said that the idea of an official residence for the leader of the opposition was a shocking one.

Four years later, with the shoe on the other foot, and the Reform Party now the official opposition, what do we have? The leader of the Reform Party is contradicting himself, saying that it is only a principle. Reality is another matter. Now that he is leader of the official opposition, he has agreed to live in the official residence. It was the same with the limousine and all sorts of other things.

I will make one final point, and then I will sit down. I do not want to go on and on about the flag business, but this week I saw people who wanted the right to display their flag but who were still unhappy. We saw one member throw his flag down in the House, and I also find that inconsistent.

[Supply, March 12th, 1998]

Madam Speaker, I will take a few seconds to remind the House that the motion proposed by the hon. member for Lac-Saint-Jean also deals with national testing.

When I fulfilled the responsibilities now held by my colleague, the hon. member for Lac-Saint-Jean, we fought very hard against national standards. I have a lot of respect for the New Democratic Party, but the NDP members then supported the national standards.

This is how the Bloc Quebecois differs from the other parties. These parties represent a majority from the other regions of Canada. People in this country must realize, and it is obvious when one travels a little, that there are two countries, two different cultures. There is one in Quebec, and one elsewhere in Canada.

[Supply, March 12th, 1998]

I am sorry. Let us forget that, it has nothing to do with it.

Nevertheless, if he has not been, he should visit Quebec from time to time. He would understand that we are different. He would understand very quickly that we are different. It is true that medicine is science. In that regard, it is the same science.

He would also see that a good Quebec doctor recognizes Quebeckers' health problems are not the same as those of other people elsewhere. That is an everyday occurrence.

Culture is not about language and the civil code. He is right on that. I remember Guy Rocher, who said “Culture is a way of thinking, feeling and acting”. I watch my colleague from Repentigny, who speaks on foreign affairs and trade. Business is handled differently in Quebec.

We are not abnormal. The Japanese are like that. It is true for people in business, or other sectors. Our country and our culture make us different. We must honour that.

In Quebec, education is vital to us. It enables us to continue to be different because we want to be and not because we detest others. It is not that we do not want to get along with others. We simply want them to respect us as we are, just as we are ready to respect you as you are.

[Supply, March 12th, 1998]

Madam Speaker, I believe the speaker before me spent some time at McGill University. It is in Montreal.

His intentions are good, but that is not the case.

[Supply, March 12th, 1998]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to support the motion of my young colleague, the hon. member for Lac-Saint-Jean. It is all nice and dandy to have a debate, but we must deal with the issue. The motion reads as follows:

That this House censure any action by the federal government in the area of education, such as the introduction of the Millennium Scholarships program or national testing.

The motion is clear. That is what it says. Let me give you my reasons for supporting it. First, as everyone knows, the Millennium Scholarship Foundation, which will begin in the year 2000, is primarily designed to give visibility to the federal government in the year 2000. Federalists anticipate that a referendum could be held in Quebec that year, or the year after.

The federal government is trying to influence young Quebeckers, because it knows that the last time, polls conducted by the CEGEPs always showed that over 75% of young Quebeckers supported sovereignty. We are no fools: this is the real purpose of their millennium scholarship fund.

I take this opportunity to congratulate the hon. member for Lac-Saint-Jean for his motion, and the other young Bloc Quebecois members. Five of them are under 30, which is unlike what we find in any other political party here.

We have five young members who are doing a mighty fine job. All day long, they led the debate. Since other speakers were required, they had to call on some of us in our fifties. I feel comfortable participating in this debate because before the hon. member for Lac-Saint-Jean took over as the Bloc Quebecois critic on training and youth, it was my job.

I will remind the House that, in those days, 15,000 Quebec students had rallied on Parliament hill against the reform proposed by the then Minister of Human Resources Development. There were students from all parts of the country, but more than 10,000 were from Quebec. Why point this out? Because last night, on the news, I saw college students rallying in Quebec City because they are concerned about potential cuts—they have a budget to balance in Quebec too—in education.

I take this opportunity today to say that cuts were made in education and health because cuts are required in Quebec like in every other province. Ask our colleagues from New Brunswick and western Canada. All the provinces have had to make cuts in education and health. Why? Because the federal government, which tried to cut $48 billion just before the election, eventually cut $42 billion through the Canada social transfer.

What does this Canada social transfer include? It has three components: social assistance, health and education. In education, $10 billion was cut back. Quebec's share, on the basis of its student population, came to approximately $3 billion for that period. A $3 billion cut in education was imposed on Quebeckers. And this year, the Minister of Finance has the gall to establish a millennium scholarship fund and a foundation to administer it, spending $2.5 billion right now for this purpose. This amount is slightly lower than the cut made previously in Quebec in particular. And this is going on across Canada.

The objective is to provide assistance to 100,000 students starting in the year 2000. This will mean assistance for about 24,000 students in Quebec. But there are currently more than 300,000 full time students enroled in university. Add part-time students and the total number of students in college and university rises to 500,000. What should be do about all those who will not benefit from the scholarships?

I was listening earlier to the Minister of Human Resources Development. I know this is not one of the minister's idea, but rather a pipedream of the prime minister—who shall remain nameless—who woke up one night and wondered what he could do for students in the year 2000. He came up with this initiative, convinced that it would keep up his good image and reach the sovereignists among the students and manage to confuse them somewhat. It could work in some cases.

Last week, I went to visit the Sainte-Foy cegep in my riding, where I met students and realized that some of them are in fact confused. These young Quebeckers were wondering if, as sovereignists, they should turn down a grant if they were among the lucky ones to benefit from the millennium scholarship fund. I told them no, but do not let the federal government fool you and keep a critical mind. I know young Quebeckers have a critical mind. They know how to read, they are educated and intelligent. They will not be fooled by this razzle-dazzle federalists are using to fool them and get them on their side.

In his speech today, the minister of Human Resources Development said that Quebec stands to lose its current structures, even though they are the best in Canada, Quebec students carrying half the debt load of the students in the rest of the country. Quebec is the only province to provide grants to 70,000 students for an average of around $3,800. No other province does it. The debt level is lower and the Quebec system is recognized as offering good financial assistance.

But now, since only about 6 per cent of students across Canada will benefit from the program, they want to leave it to Quebec, and maybe to the other provinces as well, to decide who will get a scholarship and who will not, because the number of scholarships will be limited to 3,000. Millennium goodies. They want Quebec to get on board so it can get blamed by those who will not get a scholarship, while the federal government will enjoy greater visibility among those who do get one.

No, the people of Quebec will not be deceived by this new attempt. They will not respond to the fantasies of the present Prime Minister, who at the same time follows plan A by distributing millennium scholarships or, with regard to regional development, by continuing to issue grants or loans to Quebec small businesses without consulting regional councils or taking their strategic plans into account, always with a view to promoting the maple leaf among Quebec people and businesses in order to obtain their political support.

As long as Quebec remains a part of the Canadian system, we will ask for our fair share. Yes, we will accept financial aid coming from Ottawa because we pay for it. We pay our share of taxes, and as long as we continue to do so, we will demand programs, even those we criticize.

I remember criticizing Youth Service Canada at the time of the referendum, and the Minister of Human Resources Development then told me: “Yes, but why is the member for Lévis criticizing a program which benefited an agency in his riding”? Yes, we must accept this system, even though it creates duplication, even though it competes with the provincial systems and does not respect Quebec's people and their convictions.

Why are we so protective of our education system? It is a question of language. What do we teach in our schools? We teach the Civil Code and different traditions. In spite of the goodwill of some of the members across the way, they are not listening, they do not understand that we are different. We may not be unique, but we are different.

It is not only a question of provincial jurisdiction. It is about respect for Quebec's distinctiveness, which they never accepted and are now trying to submerge with little flags, with stunts such as the one that occurred on February 26, and by issuing checks to about 24,000 young students.

[Supply, March 12th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I would be tempted to contradict, to react strongly to the Reform member's words, but I am obliged to acknowledge two things first of all.

First of all, that in his desire to address the students and people of Quebec, he spoke in French, and I congratulate him on that.

Second, he shows some open-mindedness. He says he is in agreement with the motion because they too would like to see education a provincial matter. But, having said so in French and in English, he then says the Reform Party is demanding $4 billion more for the federal government's intervention in education. It is an art to be able to contradict oneself within less than ten minutes on an entire position, not just a detail. I would tell the hon. Reform member that, if they want to gain points in Quebec, they will have to be more consistent than this. A person cannot say two contrary things within one speech.>

The hon. member from the Reform Party describes our motion as too vague, too broad. I would like to remind him of the wording of our motion: “That this House censure any action by the federal government in the area of education, such as—and here it is very precise—the introduction of the Millennium Scholarships program—to which he has expressed opposition—or national testing”. This is the wording of our motion. It is very specific. I am therefore raising the matter of this contradiction.

I would like his help in understanding it better. If he does not see this as a contradiction, fine, but it is obvious that either one agrees that jurisdiction over education is a provincial matter, or one does not. I would then understand a position like the Liberal government's stand on education. It wants to interfere in education precisely in order to gain visibility with young Quebec students.

[Supply, March 12th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I realize time is running out but I would like my colleague to explain something to me.

Today's motion deals with the need to respect exclusive provincial jurisdiction over education. I would like him to tell us what his party's position on this issue is.

Does he agree with us in the Bloc Quebecois that education is a provincial jurisdiction? I appreciated every point he made and I agree with him when he says that transfer payments to the provinces must be maintained to support research grants in high technology and so on.

Simply put, what is the position of the Reform Party on the need to respect the provinces' jurisdiction over education?