Yves Rocheleau

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

Mr. Speaker, it is with pleasure that I rise to participate in the debate at third reading on Bill C-99, an act to amend the Small Business Loans Act.

Before going any further, I would like to make a few comments about what our colleague, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Industry, said. If I understand correctly, our colleague told us that he was leaving at least-unless I misunderstood-the Standing Committee on Industry, if not the House itself.

In any event, if he is indeed planning to leave the industry committee, I would like to tell him again-I say again because I already had the opportunity to tell him through the Speaker-how much I appreciated working with him and what a distinguished parliamentarian the hon. member for Broadview-Greenwood is. I was in a position to appreciate his many fine qualities and his great contribution to the work of the committee. As a man, I have always considered the hon. member to be a liberal in the noblest sense of the word and a humanist as well. I hope to have the pleasure of continuing to work with him.

[Constitutional Amendments Act, December 12th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, it is a great pleasure to participate as a member of the official opposition

in this debate on Bill C-110, an act respecting constitutional amendments, and more specifically implementing what must be referred to as a symbolic veto.

I am very happy to participate in the debate on this bill, because I was immediately struck by both its form and its content. Its form is a beauty.

This bill is being touted as a historic response to the Quebec people's democratic impulse, because, as you know, Quebec is mostly responsible for Canada's constitutional problem.

This bill has six pages, including three blank ones. Including the front page, we end up with the equivalent of about a page and a quarter of text as a response or a semblance of response to the constitutional debate that, as you know, has been hurting Canada for some 30 years.

The content of this bill is also a beauty. As for a symbolic veto, I am reminded of one of our greatest hockey stars, Guy Lafleur, who when questioned about his reasons for supporting the no side said in 1992-if I remember correctly-that he had interpreted the right of veto as meaning the right to vote. That is about the extent of it. Talking about symbolic, this veto will allow Quebecers to vote, and very soon, in favour of sovereignty.

This bill and this exercise seem totally improvised, like the spontaneous show of love-albeit at bargain prices-made to Quebecers in the last weeks and days of the referendum campaign, and they also lack depth. More importantly, it seems to me that this is a pitiful non-event from an historical perspective.

Let us not forget that this process by the Liberal government is meant to be the answer to the historical claims of the Quebec government and people within the Canadian confederation. As a Quebec voter and citizen who has had an interest in this issue for a number of years, I try to get a better understanding of what is going on by going back to 1954, when premier Duplessis led the fight against the federal government's unconstitutional interference in fields of provincial jurisdiction, eventually winning a hard fought battle to have the province collect a direct personal income tax.

This is truly an historical event, following which Quebecers became more proud, more assertive and more determined to gain full dignity as a sovereign people.

Then came the Tremblay royal inquiry commission on federal-provincial relations in Quebec and Canada. Then, in 1960, just after Duplessis died, we had the advent of a Liberal government, the quiet revolution, with all the good things it brought about, and Quebecers taking their future in their own hands through the government takeover of the hydro sector, the set up of the Caisse de dépôt, the Quebec pension plan, and so on.

In 1964, an eye-opening event took place: the Queen's visit. I was there. The police force deployed was larger than the crowd. That day was later described as the day of the visit of shame, in the city of shame, Quebec City, because the people had remained indifferent to this visit, which, unfortunately, led to what came to be known as the samedi de la matraque, or "Billy-club Saturday", of 1964.

In 1966, still in that historical perspective-and that is what we on this side of the House, let alone the hon. members on the other side, cannot understand-there was this collective surge. As early as 1956, the sovereignist movement, which then became established in 1959, came into play. In 1966, it was represented by Pierre Bourgault in the riding of Duplessis. Few people know that 39 per cent of the voters of this riding voted for Mr. Bourgault, who was the leader of the Rassemblement pour l'indépendance nationale , the RIN, at the time.

In 1967, a prominent figure dropped by on the occasion of the centennial of Confederation. General de Gaulle sent out the message, for the whole world to hear, that the people of Quebec did exist when he declared: "Vive le Québec libre".

The next year saw the foundation of the Parti Quebecois by René Lévesque. This was a turning point in our modern history. Two years later, with 23 per cent of popular support, the PQ won seven seats in the National Assembly. Three years later, in 1973, he got 30 per cent of the votes and 6 members, because of the well-known incongruities of our British parliamentary system. Three years later, in 1976, a sovereignist party was officially and democratically elected in Quebec for the first time in the history of the province and of the country. The 1980 referendum followed, with, even then, 41 per cent of Quebecers giving a mandate to the Government of Quebec to negotiate. The majority, unfortunately, decided otherwise.

At the same time, on the Canadian side, people were becoming aware that something was wrong. In 1963, the Laurendeau-Dunton commission was talking about two solitudes. We could have taken big chunks of the Laurendeau-Dunton report and read it here. It would have been extraordinarily relevant.

So we had the Laurendeau-Dunton commission, then we had the Macdonald commission at the end of the 1980s and then the Pepin-Robarts commission, an event in constitutional terms, but a dead end, because Mr. Trudeau, the Prime Minister of the time, did not believe in their view of things. Then there was the constitutional bog of the 1990s with the Spicer commission and the Castonguay-Beaudoin-Dobbie-Edwards commission.

As Mr. Castonguay will remember, these people were upset-which should give Quebec federalists food for thought-at the degree of willingness to recognize a Quebec people within Canada that they saw. Mr. Castonguay even withdrew from the commission at that point, and, as you saw in the recent campaign, he remained true to himself and logical, warning everyone that he

could not try to convince his Quebecers that Quebec should remain in confederation, so shaken was he in his deep convictions.

Continuing with the major landmarks in the history of Quebec, we arrive at the aftermath to the no vote in the referendum, the great initiatives of Mr. Trudeau, the unilateral initiatives which were condemned by the Supreme Court. Trudeau had to call in the provinces. Quebecers will all remember the Night of the long knives, when the Constitution was patriated. One of the instigators of this was the Minister of Justice at the time, then and still the hon. member for Saint-Maurice. He cannot plead ignorance of the harm that has been done historically to the people of Quebec by such actions, yet he does not recognize-it cannot be repeated in this House too many times, a place where the existence of the Quebec people is not recognized-that Quebec as a people and a culture does exist, whether the Prime Minister likes it or not. The Quebecois culture does exist, and this must be said.

All of the efforts now being expended represent one of the three little promises made by the Prime Minister, as he himself qualifies them, to Quebecers and to Canada in the referendum campaign. One of these was recognition of the distinct society, an empty shell; the second was a token right of veto; the third was the Minister of Human Resources Development's nice little present which will make the poor poorer and the rich richer.

A fine country indeed to invite Quebecers to remain part of. Everyone in Quebec is aware, whether our federalist friends like it or not, that they are a people making democratic advances, a people marching toward collective pride, a people prepared to say yes to their very existence.

[Judge Jean Bienvenue, December 11th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, last Thursday, judge Jean Bienvenue of the Quebec superior court made unacceptable and revolting comments regarding the victims of the Holocaust and women in general. The judge said that women were capable of committing acts more despicable than those of the vilest man.

I ask the Minister of Justice to order without delay an inquiry by the Canadian Judicial Council. Unfortunately, the council rarely reprimands a federal judge. In fact, the whole disciplinary process concerning federal judges must be reviewed, and a detailed code of ethics must be implemented.

The real scandal regarding this incident is the federal process of judicial appointments, which is based on partisanship. I still wonder how a Liberal federal government could ever appoint Jean Bienvenue as a judge.

[Supply, December 5th, 1995]

Madam Speaker, I thank the member for his question. It gives me the opportunity to pursue my line of thought and show the arbitrariness and illogic of the decision or proposal, because we hope it is still a proposal, to locate the centre in Shawinigan rather than in Trois-Rivières. It is a matter of good common sense. It is clear. Trois-Rivières is the regional capital of the Mauricie region; this is a fact.

Certainly, if we undermine its character like this, take the stuffing out of the regional capital, maybe we will no longer have one. Shawinigan may not be a desirable choice, because it is not as well situated.

We have to bear in mind that this decision is not only arbitrary, it is political. It has all the earmarks, at least according to our information. We can see that the Prime Minister is looking after his own political interest to show he is working for his constituents, while leaving far behind the collective interest of the Mauricie region.

There are two types of people. The people of Shawinigan, and they have a lot of good common sense, are very aware of the outlandishness of the situation. They are also increasingly uncomfortable, like the federalists in Trois-Rivières, who are well aware that, in logical terms, the decision is untenable, because, historically, economic activity has been focussed in Trois-Rivières primarily. They know a major centre has to be maintained. Everyone knows that the decision, with its obvious political overtones, is untenable.

I reiterate the three options open to the government. It could maintain the status quo, keeping Trois-Rivières as the main centre of activity for the entire region; it could set up a centre in Shawinigan to satisfy the Prime Minister's fancy while retaining Trois-Rivière's regional nature, incorporating Bécancour; or it could implement its plan, which should not be done, especially as regards Shawinigan becoming the regional capital. Shawinigan lacks the attributes of a regional capital-although the people there are very nice-but it lacks a pool of employers and of people and claimants, who do benefit arbitrarily although highly politically, at the expense of individuals, employers, seniors and community organizations. We will never agree with a decision that means we have to go all the way to Shawinigan.

[Supply, December 5th, 1995]

Madam Speaker, first, I want to say that I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for Champlain.

I am very pleased to participate in the debate on the motion tabled by the hon. member for Mercier, which reads:

That this House condemn the government for choosing to reform unemployment insurance in a way that maintains overlap and duplication in the manpower sector and thus prevents the government of Quebec from adopting a true manpower development policy of its own.

You will understand the relevance of that motion, following an almost historical event yesterday, in that a resolution was unanimously approved. Indeed, it is rare that western parliaments unanimously approve such resolutions. Yet, that was the case yesterday in Quebec City, where the three parties at the National Assembly, namely the Parti Quebecois, the Liberal Party and the Action démocratique, unanimously agreed on a resolution which provides, in part, that:

Quebec must have sole responsibility for policies pertaining to manpower adjustment and occupational training within its borders and patriate accordingly the funding allocated by the federal government for these programs in Quebec;

Within the current constitutional framework and in order to improve services to customers, Quebec must take over the control and management of various services pertaining to employment and manpower development and all programs that may be funded through the Unemployment Insurance Fund within Quebec's borders, and must therefore receive the funding appropriate to such responsibilities;

The Government of Quebec and representatives of business, labour and the co-operative sector agree to oppose any initiative by the federal government that would constitute an invasion of Quebec's prerogatives.

This is a resolution that was unanimously approved, by a vote of 96 to nil, by the three parties sitting in Quebec's National Assembly. The timing of this resolution is all the more appropriate, given a particular aspect of that reform mentioned on page 3 of the release. I am referring to the national employment service. It is said that "a modernized employment service will help out of work Canadians organize and conduct job searches. The computerized information network on the labour market will be more powerful and will tell people where they can find work in every region of the country. To that end, the implementation of an improved and universalized version of the service delivery system in Canada's human resource centres was announced in August 1995".

People in Trois-Rivières know all about the implications of that announcement. This is the other reason why I am pleased to speak today and to discuss, for the third time in the last two or three weeks, issues that plague Trois-Rivières.

These are linked to one of the aspects of the minister's reform and relate to the creation of a new national placement system. It will be centred on the Department of Human Resources Development employment centres, and in our area it has been decided that the regional administrative centre, the focal point of departmental activities in our region, will be located, not where it would normally and naturally be at Trois-Rivières, the regional capital which I have the honour to represent, but at Shawinigan instead.

This is, of course, a worthy city as well, one which knew glory in the days of natural resource development by the Shawinigan Water and Power, and is now represented as best he can by the hon. member for Saint-Maurice, the Prime Minister of Canada. The decision was made at the Department of Human Resources Development to have Shawinigan be the one to benefit from the regional administrative centre, rather than Trois-Rivières.

The question remains-since we are totally in the dark as to the reasons for this decision-was this a technocratic decision or a political one? If technocratic, it is confirmation of all of the public's prejudices against the judgment of technocrats in their ivory towers, away from life's realities, away from the grassroots, making decisions among themselves in comfort and behind closed doors. They hold meeting after meeting at which they convince each other of how justified their decisions are, without ever really worrying about whether those decisions are in the least bit rational.

If this is a technocratic decision, then we must condemn it out of hand, because it is based on absolutely nothing rational. I will offer you proof very shortly that it even contradicts the parameters set by the department itself.

The other explanation, perhaps a more plausible one, is that all-mighty, all-rational, all-giving politics were involved. That the Prime Minister might have let it be known that common sense and interest ought to prevail, including the self-interest of the member for Saint-Maurice, to ensure that the residents of his riding, with all logic, all rationality thrown to the winds, would reap the benefit of the creation of this new centre, rather than the region of Trois-Rivières, the city of Trois-Rivières, where workers are merely shuffled around, and never a job created. In fact, if memory serves, there was more than shuffling, there were cuts, with 58 positions lost due to office closures.

Whether technocracy or politics were involved, the decision is indisputably illogical and arbitrary. As I have said, it contradicts the parameters the department has set for itself with respect to creating these regional centres. The parliamentary secretary will agree there was some kind of rationale. It is never easy to make these decisions, and that is why you need certain criteria.

The main criteria when making these decisions include the population affected, the number of unemployment insurance recipients affected, the number of welfare recipients and the number of businesses and employers likely to hire people on unemployment insurance and welfare.

In each case, Trois-Rivières represents more or less twice the activity, population, number of employers and number of unemployment and welfare recipients. That is why Trois-Rivières is the regional capital. It is the largest urban area and the most important one in terms of economic activity and population in the whole region. That is why it made good sense to have and keep this kind of service in Trois-Rivières.

The department, for reasons that remain obscure, decided to locate the service in Shawinigan. The decision was not only arbitrary and illogical but also very unpopular. Since September, a petition has been circulating, signed by more than 25,000 people, condemning this decision by the federal government. Seventy agencies took the trouble to draft resolutions condemning this decision, including 40 municipalities as well as community agencies.

This case has attracted the support of the Fédération des caisses populaires and the Fédération de l'âge d'or, because the elderly become anxious when they see changes coming, while the regional federation got involved as well.

We are seeing a chorus of protests in the riding of Trois-Rivières and in the region, including Cap-de-la-Madeleine, a riding represented by my colleague from Champlain, Trois-Rivières-Ouest, in my riding, and even on the other side of the river in Bécancour, which historically has always done business with Trois-Rivières because of its location.

So this illogical and unpopular decision will have certain practical consequences. This is not about protest for its own sake. The fact is that the paperwork, under the new system, will be done by the regional management centre in Shawinigan. People will register in Trois-Rivières where the facts will be noted, without further processing. And any intervention subsequent to registration with the manpower centre, which happens in three out of four cases, according to our statistics, which always require additional processing, will be originated from Shawinigan instead of being processed in Trois-Rivières as is now the case.

The minister claims it will make no difference and will not in any way change the quality of the services now enjoyed by the people of Trois-Rivières and surrounding area. Nevertheless, we should realize that departmental investigations following registration and all appeals to the UI board of referees, for instance, will from now on, according to our information, be done in Shawinigan instead of Trois-Rivières.

Do not tell us there will be no drop in the quality of service for the Trois-Rivières area. That is just not true.

This decision is arbitrary, illogical, technocratic and political, and above all, it was made without any consultation with regional partners.

As I said before, the government has three alternatives, one being the status quo, leaving Trois-Rivières as is and setting up a centre in Shawinigan for the northern Saint-Maurice area, but the government should not locate a regional management centre in Shawinigan for the whole region, as it is about to do.

[Supply, December 5th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask my hon. colleague opposite a question.

Given that the opposition motion before us today deals with the perpetuation of duplication and overlap in the area of manpower, how does he react, as a Quebec member representing the interests of Quebec in this House, to the resolution unanimously carried yesterday in the Quebec National Assembly requesting that the federal government withdraw totally and completely from the whole area of occupational training and everything that pertains to it?

First, what is his reaction and, second, how can he reconcile not acceding to the unanimous request or wish expressed yesterday by the National Assembly with regard to this government's so-called good intentions in recognizing Quebec as a distinct society? If the federal government were not to comply with the resolution passed yesterday, how could he reconcile all that, as an elected representative supposedly here to represent the interests of the Quebec people?

[Small Business Loans Act, November 28th, 1995]

moved:

Motion No. 3

That Bill C-99, in Clause 4, be amended by replacing line 6, on page 4, with the following:

"ty taken".

Mr. Speaker, we welcome this opportunity to discuss the third and last group which deals with the above amendment and for which some background may be useful.

Clause 4(1) of the bill reads as follows:

4(1) Subsection 7(1) of the Act is amended by adding the following after paragraph (e): e .1) prescribing the terms and conditions on which a lender may release any security, including a personal guarantee, taken for the repayment of a business improvement loan;

That is a sore point with us, and that is what we want to change through this amendment. In fact, the proposed amendment is entirely in line with the message we got during the last federal election campaign, when the Liberal Party of Canada had already said in its famous red book that if it were elected, it would ensure that no personal guarantees were required for loans under the Small Business Loans Act.

However, whether it was divine or some other kind of intervention, whether it was a lack of political will or loss of memory-Alzheimer's not being restricted to humans, even institutions will forget, and I think this is very disturbing in the present case-I think the government forgot a promise that must have been welcomed by the business community, especially small business entrepreneurs who are directly affected by the Small Business Loans Act. The promise was that from now on, the Small Business Loans Act would no longer require personal guarantees.

The Liberals forgot, and it is our job to remind them of one of the few promises in the red book that made sense. Asking the borrower for a personal guarantee under the Small Business Loans Act is, like the hon. member for Champlain said earlier, like having a belt-the government guarantee-and asking for suspenders because you are afraid the belt will break and the loan will otherwise be a write-off.

With the 90 per cent guarantee the lender used to have and which will now be 85 per cent, the lender could still expect to avoid severe losses after agreeing to lend money to a small business. However, if the lender can also ask for a personal guarantee, in most cases a home, a bank account, a car or part of the assets of the entrepreur and business owner, we are seeing a kind of security that may be unnecessary and provides what may be excessive guarantees for the lender.

As the hon. member for Durham mentioned earlier, there is always an element of risk involved, and the lender should be prepared to share the risk. In this area, 15 per cent may be riskier than 10 per cent, especially in the case of new or high tech businesses, as we pointed out, but to ask for personal guarantees as well is something to which we object, and we hope the government considers and endorses this amendment.

Another direct advantage is that, if personal guarantees such as a house were not required as security under the Small Business Loans Act, because the government provides a guarantee to the bankers-these assets in the possession of the borrower, in the possession of the manager of the small business, particularly in the case of high tech or exporting companies, which make lenders feel insecure-if those assets were freed up and not used as security, they could be presented to lenders to facilitate obtaining a loan, as security in any negotiations or transactions other than those under the SBLA, the Small Business Loans Act.

The borrower could therefore use these personal assets not required as security to plan future business development, particularly in the case of small high tech or export businesses, where lenders might justifiably feel insecure about the operation or the very nature of the business' activities. Often lenders are not familiar with high tech and export businesses, whose accounts receivable are outside the country and not always easily checked.

The Export Development Corporation is involved as well, but here again with additional administrative costs and delays.

Thus, by eliminating the personal guarantees now required under the SBLA, they could be placed in another context for use by the borrower as security with a lender. This is what we hope the government will accept, and that is why we have presented this amendment.

[Small Business Loans Act, November 28th, 1995]

moved:

Motion No. 2

That Bill C-99, in Clause 1, be amended by replacing line 25, on page 2, with the following:

"Minister the annual administration fee fixed by the committee of the House of Commons that normally considers matters relating to industry,".

Motion No. 4

That Bill C-99, in Clause 4, be amended by replacing lines 25 and 28, on page 4, with the following:

"paragraphe 3(4)( c )(i), the time when the annual administration fee fixed by the committee referred to in section 7.1, is payable;''.

Motion No. 6

That Bill C-99 be amended by adding after line 32, on page 4, the following new Clause:

"4.1 The Act is amended by adding the following after section 7:

7.1 The committee of the House of Commons that normally considers matters relating to industry may, for the purposes of sub-paragraph 3(4)( c )( i ), fix the annual administration fee or the method of calculating the annual administration fee.''

-He said: Madam Speaker, I realize these amendments are rather technical and dry but they are nevertheless important, and they take the same approach as the amendment we introduced earlier when we condemned the use of the word prescribe and the whole regulatory process and mechanism that entails.

However, before I continue, I would like to thank the parliamentary secretary for his kind words, which I appreciated. I want to return the compliment, because I think we should realize the parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Industry is not only a very good parliamentarian but also an outstanding asset to our work in committee.

I would also like to comment on what he said about establishing a bloc canadien. In fact, in the forties there was a "bloc populaire" to defend the interests of Quebecers. In the nineties, and English Canada is not about to forget it, we saw the birth of a bloc québécois. To continue the musings of the parliamentary secretary, we might see the birth of a bloc canadien very shortly in Canada, after Quebec becomes sovereign, a bloc that would be foster the best possible relations with a sovereign Quebec, including an economic and political partnership, which we support because it is sensible, it is the way to mutual respect between good neighbours and recognition of the equality of the two peoples here in America who are different from the United States, who are different from Europe and who represent certain cultures on this planet, since Canada is also a distinct society. If there is enough good will on both sides in the months and years to come-and our contribution to the industry committee is a good example of that, we will be able to work together for the well-being and prosperity of our respective peoples.

I would like to comment on the remarks of my colleague opposite, who expresses surprise at the spirit of our amendment on the reduction of government coverage, claiming that we wanted to protect lenders rather than borrowers. I think we have to face the fact lenders are reluctant when it comes to small business. That is the reason for a small business loan act. We know there is a reluctance and that the government wants to keep the legislation but to distance itself from it by reducing its coverage. I think this will be to the detriment of what is increasingly the motor of economic development: the small and medium business, the SMBs. This is why we are being very careful in this. We want to ensure the continuation of the coverage currently offered to the more vulnerable small borrowers, the ones threatening to lenders.

So, getting back to the spirit of this second bloc, it is to reinforce, as mentioned earlier, the roles of parliamentarians. In any civilized society, as ours claims to be, where there is representation by election, I believe there has long been a certain malaise over the role of those elected to Parliament. The role of parliamentarians is becoming more increasingly insignificant. And I think this is one of those times when we are reminded that things could be done differently. Over the course of several decades, the public service has progressively become heavy, especially at the top. As was mentioned earlier, the executive branch assumed a great deal of power, and while Parliament is certainly a place for debate, it has very little power, and that is what we are condemning and want to change. There is also continuity.

I think that anyone who has seen the Bloc Quebecois at work in the various committees can appreciate the logic underlying our remarks and contribution, in ensuring, rather like I am doing this morning, that parliamentarians have greater power to influence the decision making process so that the public interest remains first and foremost, at the expense, if need be, of other interests, which, as you know full well, have other ways of making themselves heard.

Earlier, I heard the parliamentary secretary criticize our amendment proposal, saying that, should coverage be reduced, as we in the official opposition are concerned it will, the industry committee will make appropriate representations to the Minister of Industry to have this issue reviewed. That is not much, in terms of power.

This means that, when a problem is reported, the industry committee will come to agreement and quietly make representations to the minister, asking him: "Would you please stop doing this, Sir; you are hurting our constituents". Parliamentarians certainly do not have much power, in such instances.

This is what we deplore and want to change by introducing an amendment which, as we can see, has unfortunately not garnered unanimous support in this House. Even the Reform Party is not very keen on our proposal. This is unfortunate because it discredits our role once again, given what that role should be. This is not only the case in the Parliament of Canada, but in all British legislatures where, over the decades, elected representatives were gradually stripped of certain powers because of the size of the bureaucracy, to the benefit of technocrats who want to work behind close doors. It goes without saying that it is easier to resort to regulations and orders in council.

I remember the debate on Bill C-88 dealing with internal trade. It provides that the federal government can, through orders in council, take action against the party deemed at fault. Using orders in council means that there is no public debate. It means that we cannot even discuss the issue on behalf of the province deemed to be unco-operative or at fault. The elected representatives of that province would not even be allowed to make public representations, because the issue would have been settled through an order in council. This, in my view, is rather ominous. This is why we moved these three amendments, which essentially seek to eliminate the use of regulations and replace it with a committee decision. More specifically, Motion No. 6 seeks to add a new clause 7.1 which reads:

7.1 The committee of the House of Commons that normally considers matters relating to industry may, for the purposes of sub-paragraph 3(4)( c )(i), fix the annual administration fee or the method of calculating the annual administration fee.

As things now stand, the minister is keeping this power for himself without too much consultation and is being very discreet about it. So much the better for those who will be aware of that, and too bad for the others.

Instead of that, it is possible to rely on the existing political structure, and to proceed in a manner which is more transparent and more public. This is what we hope to achieve with these amendments.

[Small Business Loans Act, November 28th, 1995]

moved:

Motion No. 1

That Bill C-99, in Clause 1, be amended: a ) by replacing lines 24 and 25, on page 1, with the following: d ) ninety per cent, or such other percentage as is fixed by the committee of the House of Commons that normally considers matters relating to industry, of any loss sus-''; and b ) by replacing line 1, on page 2, with the following: c ) or, where a percentage is fixed by the committee described in this paragraph,''.

Motion No. 5

That Bill C-99 be amended by adding after line 32, on page 4, the following new Clause:

"4.1 The Act is amended by adding the following after section 7:

7.1 The committee of the House of Commons that normally considers matters relating to industry may, for the purposes of paragraph 3(1)( d ), fix the percentage of any loss that the Minister is liable to pay.''

-He said: Madam Speaker, thank you for your co-operation. Our set of amendments consists of three groups. There are six amendments, and I will now speak to Group No. 1, as agreed.

In this first group, there are two elements that reflect the spirit of our amendments. One concerns the change in coverage now provided under the act. The government currently guarantees 90 per cent of loans made under the Small Business Loans Act, but that same government now wants to cap coverage at 85 per cent.

The other aspect concerns our role as legislators, in Parliament and in committee. In clause 1(1)( d ), and we will get back to this later on, the government's share will be prescribed, and we feel that is wrong. To get back to the loan guarantees provided under the Small Business Loans Act, which will be reduced from 90 per cent to 85 per cent, a difference of 5 per cent, this means the government is in a way backing out, is reducing its contribution to this legislation, and this increases the lender's liability by 5 per cent.

The implications of this measure, although not dramatic, are nevertheless very serious, because there is a message here for small lending institutions, especially in Quebec where there is a credit union in every town. Since the risk to the lender increases, small lending institutions that do not provide more than 10, 15 or 20 loans per year may think twice. We fear that this may cause bank managers to be more cautious, to be psychologically inclined to direct loans to less risky businesses, because the lender will, in theory, still run a greater risk.

This, in our opinion, will cause banks to favour less risky businesses. This runs somewhat counter to the economic development needs of our society, which is increasingly focused on high-tech companies in preparing for the future. These companies represent a risk in themselves because, as we know, contrary to traditional businesses, high-tech companies often have nothing to reassure lending institutions because their operating strength is based on their owner-managers' knowledge and expertise, on intangible values, and not on the usual buildings or facilities.

Reducing government coverage indirectly penalizes high-tech companies, which represent an extra risk for the banks. This has already been clearly identified as a problem during the industry committee's proceedings, because we know that the banks are generally reluctant, perhaps with good reason, to finance these high-tech companies.

This, we also fear, will penalize new businesses without any experience or history that have not yet proven themselves. These businesses represent an extra risk for lenders. Reduced coverage will make it harder for them and for the banks to accurately assess the situation, since any banker knows that lending to a new, unproven business without annual statements for the previous years will make the matter even more difficult.

Perhaps I should have pointed out earlier that we should keep in mind that what this bill implies comes from the last speech of the finance minister, in which he suggested rather strongly that the Small Business Loans Act program should be self-financing.

This is the articulation of this political will. We members of the Bloc Quebecois realize that this is a legislation, a small business assistance program with a price. In 1993, bad debts that had to be absorbed by the federal government totalled $32 million and, with the envelop growing from $4 billion to $12 billion, losses could rise to $100 million.

There may be food for thought here, serious thought. That is what the official opposition has in mind when suggesting that,

before amending this act to limit its scope and introducing concepts such as self-financing, a cost-benefit analysis should be conducted to identify the benefits arising from this legislation. We at least need to know how many jobs are created, what the government's tax return on its investment is-since the loss incurred as a result of the implementation of this act could be likened to an investment-and what indirect taxes are indirectly created by the implementation of the act, taxes that otherwise would not have to be paid.

So, before the scope of this act is restricted, we in the committee would have liked, and that was part of our recommendations, to see a cost-benefit analysis. Unfortunately, the government did not follow our advice and is now going ahead by reducing, as we can see, coverage by five per cent.

The other aspect of Group No. 1, which is also found in Group No. 2, relates to clause 1( d ), which reads:

Subsection 3(1) of the Small Business Loans Act is amended by striking out the word "or" at the end of the paragraph (a) and by replacing paragraph ( b ) with the following: d ) eighty-five per cent, or such other percentage as is prescribed-

It is that "as is prescribed" provision that we object to and that we oppose. As you may have noticed, the official opposition-we all do-feels that the role of parliamentarians, including that of Parliament as legislator and that of the committees, is neglected and belittled. This bill should be a good opportunity to enhance the role of parliamentarians and committees, and this is why we condemn the fact that the government intends to resort to regulations.

All the polls show that we must enhance the role of elected representatives. We were elected through a democratic process, we have things to say, and we all represent our constituents. We are here to express their views. Yet, the system relies less and less on the expertise and sensitivity of parliamentarians. If we are not the ones who can influence decisions, then who can? It is the bureaucracy, the lobbies and those who have money, as the current Quebec premier so accurately pointed out in his review of the referendum results.

Given how much money circulates in our economic system, it is easy to see the power of money. That is confirmed once again. Indeed, if the government does not work openly with the institutions that we represent, than it works on the sly and resorts to its authority. With that provision, we will only find out after the fact that the government decided to change its coverage. By resorting to regulations, if the government wants to ensure self-financing and realizes that implementing the act is too costly, it can simply decide that its coverage will no longer be 85 per cent but, rather, 80, 75 or 70 per cent, without any discussion. All of us here will simply be put before a fait accompli, and that is not good for any self-respecting democracy.

[Air Transport, November 27th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport.

On November 3, American Airlines and Canadian International filed an application for antitrust immunity with the U.S. department of transport. Such immunity would allow the two companies to merge their operations and act as a single carrier for transborder flights.

Will the minister clearly tell the two carriers that merging their transborder operations is not acceptable to the Canadian government, because it violates the Open Skies Agreement by giving American Airlines privileged access to the three largest Canadian airports, thus jeopardizing the activities of Canadian carriers?