Yves Rocheleau

[Employment Insurance Act, May 6th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I am very happy to have once again the opportunity to speak to Bill C-12, more specifically to Motion No. 4, which would delete clause 2 in this bill in its entirety. This clause contains a number of definitions that shed new light on the intentions and the hidden face of this government.

As the small-minded manager it is, this government intends to resort to drastic measures to put its fiscal house in order. This bill shows all the prejudices stirred up by this government against those in financial trouble, those who have just lost their jobs. They want to use affidavits as defined in the bill: "`Affidavit' means an affidavit sworn or affirmed before a commissioner of oaths or any other person authorized to take affidavits".

This shows the kind of attitude behind this eminently dreadful bill. It also tells us about the means this government intends to use to discourage those who want to prevail themselves of something they paid for, unemployment insurance. Clause 2(3) shows its intention to use modern means of communications, and I quote:

(3) A document or other communication under this act or the regulations may be in electronic form and a reference in this act or the regulations to a form, record, book, notice, request, demand, decision or any other document includes a document in electronic form.

Those who watched oral question period saw what can happen with electronic means. We can see it today in the problems with guaranteed income supplement. We know that this government is set to install computer terminals across the country. We know that the government is about to introduce infocentres. We in the Mauricie region and all of Quebec know something about this.

In his great wisdom, the Prime Minister has decided to establish in his own riding-what a coincidence-an infocentre, thereby taking these services-if one can speak of services-away from regions already receiving them so they could be consolidated in his riding. This brings us, as you will have figured out, to discuss the

implied administrative restructuring within the Department of Human Resources Development.

Let us not forget that this technology is to be used by the Department of Human Resources Development. We all know how impersonal contacts are between a machine and a human being. Such a system leaves something to be desired. Based on first-hand information received from the department, the use of such computerized systems is not giving good results. Still, the government wants to impose such systems on people who are vulnerable, workers who lost their jobs and who may be emotionally affected.

This brings us to discuss the decision to move the employment centre from Trois-Rivières to Shawinigan. The city of Trois-Rivières is the capital of the Mauricie region. Until now, as logic would have it, the regional centre serving the whole region was located there. However, the Prime Minister, in a display of smart thinking and wise leadership, decided to change all that. The questions I put to the minister regarding this issue are on the Order Paper. I am still waiting for answers. There are four of them. I will summarize them quickly.

Was there any recommendation to the minister by public servants or public officials, who can think for themselves and who are not biased, regarding the location of the new regional centre? Yes or no? This is what we want to know.

If a recommendation was made, did the Prime Minister's office or the Privy Council intervene to change that recommendation, along with the decision that should normally have been made by the department following such recommendation?

Were comparative studies made on the advisability of establishing this regional management centre in Shawinigan instead of Trois-Rivières? Was some sort of impact or cost-benefit study done regarding the decision to move from Trois-Rivières to Shawinigan? Were the costs of the move, including relocation costs, to Shawinigan-Sud, taken into account, given that there are no public transportation services between Shawinigan and Shawinigan-Sud, and given the impact of vacating facilities for which, according to sources, the government has a lease running until 1999, and which will remain empty until further notice, again according to sources, particularly in the context of streamlining government operations? This is the sort of measure being applied by this monstrous Department of Human Resources Development, in its attempt to modernize its structure.

Personally, the more I look at this bill, the worse it seems. It is a dreadful bill because it makes culprits out of victims. Let me quote the following sentence we find in the summary of the bill: "This creates a system that better accommodates the variety of work arrangements in today's labour market".

Instead of referring to the variety of work arrangements, it should speak about the insecurity of the labour market these days. The true reality of work is unemployment. They pretend they are improving the situation with a bill making victims the guilty ones. A bill whose climate unfortunately stems from an ideological trend-we must not hide the fact; on the contrary, we must recognize it-a trend called neo-liberalism, a school of thought whereby people are increasingly blamed for their own situation, under the pretence of individual accountability.

The rich get richer, the poor poorer, the middle class is challenged through this type of highly modern, highly generous measure we used to call unemployment insurance. Slowly but surely, we are questioning the fundamental concepts of the collective workings of our society.

The recent comments of the Minister of Industry, with which I agree wholeheartedly, should be proof enough of the seriousness of the situation. I can easily comment on this point because, during my career, I worked with businesses going through such hard times that they had to contemplate massive layoffs. At the time, I would step in on behalf of the Quebec government, and in cooperation with an employee committee, I would try to identify the root causes of the problem and develop a recovery plan, with a view to saving jobs.

What is happening these days? Something quite new, something outrageous and quite immoral in my opinion; imagine a major corporation-in a sector such as banking, the oil industry, forestry or the automobile industry-posting record profits, huge profits, and the same month shamelessly announcing the layoff of thousands of workers due to streamlining and foreign competition. These reasons make sense internally, but in social and collective terms they are indefensible and must be condemned. If the situation is left unchecked, it might eventually trigger social and economic upheaval. It is high time for this country to hold a debate to put public morality back in its rightful place.

[Bell Science Super-Expo, May 6th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, recently Trois-Rivières hosted the Quebec finals of the Bell science super-expo. Nearly 150 young scientists from all over Quebec were sent by their local regional scientific recreation councils to this event, with a total of 95 exhibits, either experiments or explanations of some phenomenon in layman's language.

Today we would like to pay tribute to the Conseil de développement du loisir scientifique du Québec and the Conseil du loisir scientifique de la Mauricie-Bois-Francs-Drummond. They, in conjunction with the Trois-Rivières campus of l'Université du Québec, were responsible for the great success of this event.

Our congratulations go to Bell, the main sponsors, the Bell employee volunteers, the many other partners and sponsors, the members of the organizing committee, the many volunteers from all regions of Quebec and, of course, all the budding scientists who took part in this prelude to the Canadian finals, which in turn lead up to the international finals, which will be held in South Africa in 1997.

[Employment Insurance Act, May 2nd, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to take part in this debate on the amendments to the former Unemployment Insurance Act which, ironically, as everyone knows, will now be called the Employment Insurance Act. This in itself is indicative of the government's cynicism, a government with a long experience in that area. This is a textbook illustration of how supposedly serious and responsible commitments made by this government during the 1993 election campaign were never fulfilled. Indeed, this is another perfect example of the Liberals modus operandi.

Before going any further, I want to congratulate my fellow Bloc colleagues who worked very hard on this issue, particularly the hon. member for Mercier, the hon. member for Kamouraska-Rivière-du-Loup, as well as my friend and colleague, the hon. member for Lévis, who worked literally day and night to fight this cynical bill, which goes against public interest.

Several members have already said, and so will others, that this is an unfair, regressive and anti-employment measure. It has

nothing to do with employment insurance. It does not promote job creation: it promotes poverty.

This measure is quite simply patterned on what the Conservatives intended to do, had they remained in office. It is based on the most petty neo-Liberal movement, a movement that targets the poor and excludes an increasing number of people, not only in Quebec, in Canada and in America, but all over the world, a movement that must be scrutinized, analyzed and criticized, because a measure such as this one, given what is involved, will be followed by others, even though it goes against public interest, or the interest of humankind, as Victor Hugo said.

We can never overemphasize the fact that this is a cynical change. My comments will deal more specifically with one aspect of this major overhaul that is not only of local interest, in fact it is more of a technical nature. I am referring to the restructuring of the employment centres network, more specifically the UI and employment offices in my own region of Mauricie. My speech is for my constituents in the riding of Trois-Rivières who are the victims of an arbitrary, irresponsible and indefensible measure, all this because of the fluke election of the Liberal candidate in the riding of Saint-Maurice, who is now the Prime Minister of Canada and who was before the member for Beauséjour.

The member for Beauséjour, who was Leader of the Opposition at the time, back in March 1993, wrote to a movement for the defence of the poor in the Montreal region, regarding the attitude of the Conservative government, whose example he now follows. The letter, dated March 26, 1993, had the official letterhead of the office of the Leader of the Official Opposition:

Liberals are dismayed by these measures. By reducing benefits and penalizing even more those who voluntarily quit their job, it is obvious that the government cares little about the victims of the economic crisis. Instead of going to the root of the problem, it targets the unemployed. Moreover these measures will have disturbing consequences.

This is what the former member for Beauséjour and Leader of the Opposition, who has since become the member for Saint-Maurice, the riding next to mine, wrote in March 1993. This is totally beneath contempt. The proposed measure is unfair to residents of the Mauricie, since it targets people who are already in trouble. Those who are unemployed, who are on welfare and who want to improve their lot must work at it, they must go the employment centre. However, in the case of the Mauricie region, it was decided that the regional centre, which was formerly in Trois-Rivières, would be moved to Shawinigan. This is unacceptable.

If you look at the Notice Paper, you will see that I asked four questions on this issue. I will read these questions, regarding which I hope to get an answer soon.

The first one is: "Can the Minister of Human Resources Development indicate what recommendations were made, by the

committee analysing the restructuring of service points in Quebec, on the advisability of locating the regional Canada Human Resources Centre in Shawinigan or in Trois-Rivières?"

Here is the second, No. 21 in the Order Paper of March 12, 1996: "Can the Minister of Human Resources Development tell me whether representations or interventions were made by officers, employees or other persons from the Privy Council or the Office of the Prime Minister to officers, employees or officials from Human Resources Development Canada, in order to ensure that the regional Canada Human Resources Centre would be located in a municipality in the constituency of Saint-Maurice rather than in Trois-Rivières?"

Question No. 22: "Can the Minister of Human Resources Development tell me whether, as part of its restructuring of service points in Quebec, Human Resources Development Canada carried out comparative studies on the advisability of locating the regional Canada Human Resources Centre in Shawinigan or in Trois-Rivières and, if so, what where the findings of those studies?"

And fourth and last, Question No. 23: "Can the Minister of Public Works and the Minister of Human Resources Development tell me the rent and rent-related costs of the Human Resources Development Canada premises in the Bourg-du-Fleuve building on rue des Forges in Trois-Rivières, as compared with the anticipated costs of the Department's moving to, arranging, and settling into new premises to be located in the Shawinigan area according to the government's plan?"

According to what I have been told, the government will be answering these questions in the next few days. We would hope that, upon receiving these questions, both political and administrative staff understood that the government's proposal to locate the human resources centre in Shawinigan rather than in Trois-Rivières is contrary to the public interest, that this decision is unfair and shameful, and that this project is cynical and shameful.

Not only was it made without consultation, but also it is contrary to the opinion of every group that reacted to it in our area. The mayor of Trois-Rivières has fought a good fight, followed by the Chamber of Commerce, the Federation of Senior Citizens and the regional federation of caisses populaires. Moreover, some 25,000 citizens indicated their disapproval of that project in writing. Based on the information at its disposal, the public service union also decried this project. It does not make any sense, it goes against the best interests of the public, it is a disgrace, and we will continue to condemn this project.

Particularly as the hon. member for Saint-Maurice was kind enough to tell his voters last week, in his latest householder, that

the new regional centre will open its doors in his riding, but more precisely in Shawinigan-Sud. Those of you who are familiar with the area will know that it will also serve residents of the Saint-Maurice riding. Because the focal point in that riding is Shawinigan and not Shawinigan-Sud, constituents of the hon. member for Saint-Maurice will have to go from Shawinigan to Shawinigan-Sud without adequate public services to get them there.

We believe, and the minister responsible for regional development in Quebec also knows it full well, that this decision is unjustifiable. The minister also knows this is a totally arbitrary decision that does not take into consideration the history of the area or the travel pattern of residents. We will never stop decrying what we believe is still only a project, because we still hope the final decision has not be taken yet.

According to the information we have, officials are not aware that a decision has been taken. Everyone believes this is still only at the planning stage and we hope the government, and the Prime Minister who is behind all of this, it is pointless to try to deny it, will see reason and make a sensible and wise decision. Given his age and his vast experience, he should be able to set things straight and see to it that the people of the Mauricie region have access to all the services they are entitled to.

[Chavigny Jazz V Band, April 22nd, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, as the member for Trois-Rivières, I would like to pay tribute to the Chavigny Jazz V band, from École secondaire Chavigny of Trois-Rivières-Ouest, which won many awards last March at the All American Music Festival, a North American competition which was held in Orlando, Florida, and in which approximately 20 bands took part.

Chavigny Jazz V won first prize in the jazz band category and also won first prize overall. The band's musical director, Michelle Bourassa, was awarded the title of best musical director.

This success is the result of five years of efforts, during which Chavigny Jazz V consistently beat the competition in Quebec.

Congratulations to the 20 member band, to Mrs. Bourassa and to the parents without whose dedication this great accomplishment, which is an honour to all Quebecers, would not have been possible.

[The Budget, April 16th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I shall continue in the same vein as my hon. colleague from Rosemont, on just how seriously our colleagues over there and next to us here are taking this budget, whether they are showing any real interest in criticizing it. This is a very serious matter, since it is so insidious and involves long term measures that will commit future governments, while not dealing well with the short term.

I shall continue, nevertheless, keeping those subtleties in mind.

The angles of attack-That, Mr. Speaker, may be the reaction of a man of the people to the silence from government members and Reform members.

It is certainly not for want of things to criticize about this budget. We could talk about old age pensions, as has already been done; about the government's intentions concerning the revenue commission-where not only is the federal government intervening in an area of jurisdiction which is provincial under the Constitution, but where it also wants to push aside the only province that stood its ground in this matter and respected the Constitution, namely Quebec. Now it wants to shove Quebec aside and take over everything in a Canadian context.

We could also criticize the way this government is dealing with the deficit. It is doing so at the expense of the least well-off members of society, that is the unemployed, by blithely dipping into the unemployment insurance fund to the tune of $6 billion yearly, a fund financed by workers' contributions. This is something that must not be lost sight of, something that must be mentioned again and again. Contributions come from employers and from employees. The cuts are being made at the expense of the provinces. They are blithely cutting transfer payments which ought normally to go to the provinces.

But my intervention will deal mainly with the systematic attacks against worker funds. Two important worker funds appealed directly to Quebec. The first one, the CSN fund, was created recently and has known an almost resounding success, if we consider that they had a rather short timeframe to set it up. The second one, the largest, is the Fonds de solidarité des travailleurs du Québec, the flag ship of Canadian worker funds. The latter represents a third of all worker fund assets in Canada.

The federal government is going after those worker funds on two levels: first by reducing the tax credit granted to taxpayers and funds from 20 per cent to 15 per cent, and secondly by lowering the maximum contribution allowed from $5,000 to $3,500 per person.

The Fonds de solidarité is a huge success on both the financial and business levels. Since it was established in 1983, it has succeeded in creating or preserving 38,000 jobs. This is not peanuts. The fund did much better than previous Canadian governments.

It funds various projets. In the riding of Trois-Rivières, which I represent, the Tripap mill has closed its doors, the old CPFC, Canadian Pacific Forest Products Limited, had closed down. It was revived thanks to the energetic efforts of the Fonds de solidarité and provides 450 jobs today.

The Fonds has taken action at Novabus; Biochem Pharma, a pharmaceutical company particularly active in AIDS research, and Shermag, in Sherbrooke. In the Laurentians, it has been involved with the Château Mont-Tremblant and its ski resort. In the Mauricie region, in the Prime Minister's riding of Saint-Maurice, the Fonds provided financial assistance last year to a factory known as Desavenn Sac Inc., which had taken over part of the market left by the former Twinpac factory, in Cap-de-la-Madeleine, which had manufactured industrial paper bags for sugar, flour and chemicals that were exported throughout North America.

We can see how vital the Fonds de solidarité is for Quebec's economy. I am all the more pleased as the opposition critic to see that the Fonds has adapted over the years. It is now setting up regional development funds. Sixteen will be set up shortly. One in the Mauricie region was set up last fall. These 16 regional funds will complement the main fund of the Fonds de solidarité. Some of them are called SOLIDE, that is local job development investment corporations; thirty had already been set up by the end of 1995, with the co-operation of the Union des municipalités régionales de comté throughout Quebec.

In addition, the Fonds de solidarité in fine tuning its activities set up specialty funds in the areas of health, biotechnology and high technology in order to meet borrowers' needs.

It is all the more upsetting to see attempts being made to undermine the actions of the Fonds de solidarité instead of further supporting them. The value of this fund was demonstrated by a study undertaken by Carleton University for the Canadian Labour Market and Productivity Centre. It was not done in Quebec, but by Carleton University, not far from here.

This study shows that the Canadian tax system recovers within three years its tax incentives for fund management. Therefore, there is no reason to try to undermine workers' funds, in particular the Fonds de solidarité. On the contrary there is every reason to encourage it. This is in contrast with the statements by our colleague, the member for Willowdale, and former chairman of the finance committee, as reported in an article published in the January 18 issue of the Soleil . It states that ``the chairman of the committee maintains that these funds are granted generous exemptions which warrant strict controls''.

This same attitude is observed in the industry committee, where it is claimed that what the workers funds "cost" the Canadian tax system-some ten millions dollars-should be reduced further, when everyone knows that this is a direct incentive for the economy of both Canada and Quebec.

It is also a direct social and economic commitment because we know their effect on job creation, tax revenues, unemployment insurance benefit reductions, as well as the importance of a job for a family in terms of consumption, quality of life, reduction of drug use, reduction of spousal abuse, and so on. We know what unemployment means, we know what a job means. People who are able to create or maintain jobs should be encouraged, not discouraged.

These measures are all the more alarming in the context where this kind of federal government's intervention is taking place, since the government was elected with the slogan "jobs, jobs, jobs". We will keep on reminding the government of it, this government that created 65,000 part-time jobs-that is for 6 to 12 months-since coming to office. It is still boasting about its infrastructure program, and it was elected with such a slogan.

In this budget there is no framework or incentive for private corporations to create jobs. It is a well-known fact that, these days, major corporations tend to make prohibitive, outrageous profits-it is particularly true for banks-while allowing mass layoffs. We must question the ethic of such a phenomenon.

I worked for the Quebec government, dealing with businesses in financial difficulty and I know they must consider the possibility of eventual mass layoffs. This is certainly quite logic. When a business is having a hard time, it must rationalize its operations and one possible solution is to layoff people. It is sad, but it is in the order of things.

But when profits reach such levels as they have recently in areas like the oil, telephone and banking industries, to name just a few, and when these industries still downsize and lay off people in numbers such as we have seen, for example at Bell Canada which plans to lay off 10,000 employees in Quebec, no doubt for very logical and justifiable corporate reasons, we must question such operations just as we must question the attitude of banks which make five billion dollar profits but, at the same time, do not hesitate to launch massive layoff plans.

In another context, while they say that solidarity funds and labour-sponsored funds are too expensive, they do tolerate unpaid income taxes amounting to $6 billion and seem to be totally insensitive to that. They should start with this type of operation, put investigators to the task if need be and collect all those unpaid taxes before they hit on good, competent people who are efficient at job creating, particularly those people from labour-sponsored funds such as the Fonds de solidarité des travailleurs du Québec.

As far as efforts are concerned, they require efforts on the part of the labour-sponsored funds, but they ask banks for a 65 million dollar effort over two years when these banks are reaping profits of $5 billion. Furthermore, according to present trends, it seems that these profits will be even higher next year. This $65 million contribution is almost equal to the total cost of labour-sponsored funds across Canada.

I must also add that this is happening in a context where the federal government's policies in the area of economic development, particularly regional economic development, are almost morally questionable. Consider the debate about the coast guard, the introduction of cost recovery measures in the coast guard without any impact studies. The government went ahead with only one thing in mind: to meet the goal it had set itself, that is to recover by March 31, 1997, the $20 million forecasted in its budget for aid to navigation.

It wants to recover $20 million out of $160 million by the year 2000, without considering the real profitability of it, the real impact on users of the St. Lawrence River, namely shipowners. What would happen if, after having done their calculations, they decided that, economically, the St. Lawrence River was no longer a good place to do business because costs outstripped profits? It would be catastrophic. This type of calculation should have been done by the federal government. Just imagine the impact on the ports of Montreal, of Quebec City and all the other harbours which I might call secondary along the St. Lawrence River, like those of Sorel, Trois-Rivières, Sept-Îles, Baie-Comeau and Chicoutimi on the Saguenay River.

This type of measure impacting directly on labour sponsored funds is part of another scheme which is just as much a dodging of responsibilities as the user fees for the coast guard are.

Personally, I am shocked by the government's attitude toward the Fonds de solidarité des travailleurs du Québec in particular because, for us, this fund demonstrates the ability of Quebecers to look after themselves, to be imaginative and capable of being creative. We will not let the federal government go in that direction for very long. And the Liberal Party of Canada will pay the price for it, especially in Quebec.

[Canadian Coast Guard, March 19th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, last week, the Commissioner of the Coast Guard announced the third change in eight weeks in the marine services rates. After each change, Quebec comes out a loser due to pressures from both Western Canada and the Maritimes.

Several representatives of the Saint Lawrence shipping industry criticize the lack of vision of the Coast Guard, which seems to view the Saint Lawrence as a mere regional terminal.

This latest decision is but one of the many irresponsible measures taken of late by the federal government against Saint Lawrence harbours. This reminds us of the imposition of the Borden line, in the 1960s, which contributed to the closure of several refineries in the eastern sector of Montreal and to the loss of thousands of jobs in the city.

Before making any decision on this issue, which might have a serious impact on many areas in Quebec, the fisheries minister must order a social and economic impact study.

[Supply, March 19th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin by thanking my colleague from La Prairie, and congratulating him on his excellent address to us this morning, and

particularly on the quality of his research. We can tell that he has made a special effort to seek out information that was not readily available, particularly all the different labels for tax shelters, which are supposedly in place to stimulate economic development-but we may well doubt that.

I would like to hear the comments of the hon. member for La Prairie concerning the reaction in various quarters, particularly within the Bloc Quebecois, to the setting up of the "expert committee" the Minister of Finance has seen fit to create for the purpose of evaluating the business taxation system.

One comment made was that, because of its membership, setting up a committee of this type is in some ways like setting the fox to guard the henhouse. I would like to hear the comments of my colleague for La Prairie in this connection since this appears rather strange even for some members who are tax shelter specialists, particularly at the international level.

[Petitions, March 6th, 1996]

Madam Speaker, on behalf of my colleague, the member for Champlain, I am pleased to present a petition signed by hundreds of petitioners praying the Parliament to recommend that Québec Téléphone be grandfathered under the Broadcasting Act to allow the company to join the world of convergence and competition.

[Speech From The Throne, March 5th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, first of all, I would like to commend and thank the hon. member for Churchill for his presentation.

I would like him to comment on the unfortunate statements recently made by the minister of Indian affairs, who dabbled as a futurist by speculating on the future of a sovereign Quebec and its relations with the native communities.

You may recall the inflammatory, aggressive and irresponsible comments made by this minister, which caused quite an uproar in Quebec. Fortunately, the great native leader Ovide Mercredi acted

more responsibly and rebuffed the minister of Indian affairs by telling him-if I remember correctly-that this was not the time, that he had no right to manipulate native communities in their relations with the government of a sovereign Quebec.

Given the role played by the hon. member for Churchill in the history of Canada and Quebec-remember Meech Lake-I would like to know what he thinks of these statements and this debate and where he stands on all this.

[Small Business Loans Act, December 12th, 1995]

A true liberal. The personification of distinct society.

I shall now turn to Bill C-99, and to make the most constructive criticism possible. We must bear in mind that Bill C-99 was introduced as a result of one the measures announced in the last budget speech, when the finance minister expressed hope that the Small Business Loans Act would become self-financing. As we know, in 1993, the administration of this act is said to have cost the public purse in terms of coverage-let us call it bad debt for the sake of discussion-nearly $32 million on a $4 billion small business envelope.

This $32 million in lost income for the government is expected to grow to approximately $100 million this year on an envelope now totalling $12 billion; that is how much can be loaned to small business through lending institutions.

We agree that this is a burden that must not be overlooked, a burden on the taxpayers. But at the same time, we believe that, before limiting in any way the scope of this bill, which is a good bill, the government should conduct-and this is one of the recommendations made by the official opposition that was almost approved by the industry committee-a cost-benefit analysis of administering the act. Because, if the $32 million or $100 million in question are considered as money injected by the government in the economy, then we have less trouble talking about this shortfall.

Talking not only of cost, whether it be $32 million or $100 million, but also of benefits, would give a better idea of the jobs created, the direct and indirect taxes collected by the government because of such job creation and the survival or expansion of companies as a result of incentives provided by this act.

We know the social and economic importance of jobs-there are consequences, we will never say it enough and this is a particularly good forum to do so-and of lower unemployment; it may be better education for children, less family violence, less violence against women, less violence against children. It may also lead to a lowering in drug consumption; it may be workers more inclined to do their bit to get the economy rolling, that is for sure.

Coming back to this act, before amending it in a significant way, we should bear in mind all the benefits. Unfortunately, the government did not accept the recommendation of the official opposition which had been approved by the industry committee.

Now for the particular provisions of the bill we do not agree with. There are three of them. The first one is the liability, whereby the government guarantees 90 per cent of the loan provided by a lending institution. This liability will be reduced from 90 per cent to 85 per cent. This is our first objection. The second one deals with the fact that we still require personal securities. Thirdly, administration fees will be offloaded onto borrowers through higher interest rates.

As I was saying, our first objection deals with the reduction in liability from 90 per cent to 85 per cent. We argue that it will have particular significance for smaller lending institutions. In Quebec, this means the caisses populaires you find in every village and which make only a few dozen loans per year and which, seeing their protection lowered, will be inclined to lower their risks, and therefore limit their loans to the most secure businesses. Therefore, the effect on smaller lending institutions will probably be felt rather quickly.

Our second objection is even more important, because this bill will have particular impact on high tech businesses, which are the future of our economic development. These businesses are based on the knowledge, the expertise and the skills of the employer, the owner-manager, who cannot offer tangibles guarantees to the credit institution. All he can offer is his skills, which are impalpable, intangible. Therefore, there is a higher risk for the credit institu-

tion; the same thing is true for businesses which are starting and have no background, who have nothing to offer.

Since they have no records to show, these businesses cannot reassure the bank. Consequently, the banker's risk being higher, it is expected that it will be the high tech businesses on which we are counting increasingly, as well as the new businesses that will be mostly affected by these new provisions.

Particularly if the government sees, in the coming years, that only 85 per cent coverage is still not sufficient, it may further reduce its risk. It will be able to reduce it to 80 or 75 or 70 per cent, and this, by way of regulation, without holding a debate in the House, without permitting us to talk about the borrowers' interests, without permitting us to face the executive branch and either applaud or condemn the government's policies. To act by way of regulation in such a matter is not very nice.

The second major objection, the one which maintains the personal guarantee that could be required by the lender, was a commitment made in the red book of the Liberal Party of Canada; it was conveniently forgotten. This makes us sad, because we believe that, because of the guarantee that the lender enjoys through the involvement of the federal government in the transaction, personal guarantees could have been applied instead to another transaction between the banker and the borrower, who could have offered his home, his car or part of his personal wealth as a guarantee to develop another type of project that would not be covered by the Small Business Loans Act.

Finally, we are concerned by the establishment of an administration fee the percentage of which could be set through regulation, again without any debate, surreptitiously, arbitrarily by the government, and also by the fact that the fee provided for in the legislation can be passed on to the borrower through interest rates, so that the lender can get even richer.

Therefore, for these three reasons, we will vote against this bill.