Pierre De Savoye

[Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act, February 15th, 1999]

When the hon. member for Bourassa singles out the sovereignist movement as one of the causes of our economic problems, he is totally wrong. For several years—between 1985 and 1993 or 1994—Premier Robert Bourassa had control of Quebec's destiny. His was a federalist Liberal government. In the course of that period, Mr. Bourassa managed to cut jobs in Quebec by a net figure of 1,000 jobs. On the other hand, when the PQ government came to power, first under Mr. Parizeau and now with Mr. Bouchard, it created over 100,000 jobs in a shorter period of time.

The problem is structural. It arises from the fact that the Canadian federation is based on the impoverishment of the provinces surrounding Ontario, with Ontario getting the biggest slice of the pie. It has been that way for 130 years, it continues, and so long as we remain in this system, there is no way out.

So, it is time to stop telling us that transfer payments are charity. All we want is what we are entitled to, nothing more, nothing less. But the bottom line is that the only way to put an end to this dispute, this gross misunderstanding, is for Quebec to acquire its sovereignty and have full control over its entire economy.

[Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act, February 15th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I was not intending to speak this afternoon, but with the inanities—there is no other word for it—put forward by some of my colleagues, no doubt in good faith—I would not cast aspersions on their good faith—I must rise and correct a number of things. This debate could be very technical, but the remarks that have been made are not technical but demagoguery.

Among other things, they are saying that Quebec would not be in a situation of having to receive transfer or equalization payments if its economy were in a better state. And then, without further explanation, just like that, they say “Well, that will come later, once sovereignty has been gotten rid of”.

The Canadian Confederation was born in 1867, 132 years ago. Quebec was born 400 years ago. In the 132 years since Confederation, Quebec has never been as rich as Ontario. It is not alone in that. The maritimes, the Atlantic provinces were flourishing financially some 100 years ago.

Institutions in Halifax, New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island were doing well. But the decision making centres moved to Ontario, as if by magic, by some miracle, and Toronto started expanding. So, why is this?

Is it because the people of Toronto, the people of Ontario, are particularly smart and those in the Atlantic provinces and Quebec less so? Is it because we are not good at business? Is it because we have not been blessed with Ontarians' special know-how? Absolutely not.

It is because the federal system in which we live has deliberately and systematically made sure that the rules favour Ontario.

I will give a very simple example, one mentioned several times by the Prime Minister here in the House: calls for tender are designed to favour the lowest bidder. So, when the government does most of its buying here in Ottawa and Ontario, naturally the closest suppliers have a better chance of putting in the lowest bid.

How could someone from St. John's, Newfoundland, bid on supplying office furniture here in Ottawa? There are all the transportation costs to factor in. But the folks in St. John's, Newfoundland, pay taxes just like us. The federal government uses these taxes to give Ontario businesses a leg up in the manufacture of goods or the delivery of services. That is the fact of the matter.

The so-called poor provinces are not poor because the people who live there are less innovative, inventive, entrepreneurial, courageous or intelligent; they are poor because the system siphons off money to the centre of this nation, of this confederation, or in others words here to Ontario, and compensates for this by paying out, as a sort of apology, transfer payments and equalization payments. Our money has been stolen—stolen is a big word—our money has been made off with and taxed, and instead of getting it back in the form of goods and services purchased, we get it back in the form of kind generosity, charity, transfer payments.

Transfer payments are not charity, it is a return of the taxes we have paid, which ought to have come back to us in the form of job creation but instead take the form of payments to the government in order to provide services to the population.

There is something seriously wrong here. My colleague here pointed out that contracts are being awarded in Ontario without bidding, up to $150,000 a shot. This is a considerable amount of money, which would enable businesses in the Atlantic provinces, in Quebec and elsewhere—the prairie provinces for instance—to get people working with the tax money that they pay, instead of seeing it go to pay for federal propaganda.

[Social Union Agreement, February 10th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, the Canadian social union agreement is entitled “A Framework to Improve the Social Union for Canadians”.

As Sainte-Beuve put it, “Happy lovers adapt willingly to any framework”. This is the way I would describe the unhealthy atmosphere that led nine provinces concerned about us to sign an unconditional surrender, after being starved by the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs.

The agreement dwelled as well on the obligation to eliminate barriers to Canadians' mobility. “To eliminate” means “to reject“, “to remove”. This is a word that unfortunately goes well with the regrettable attitude of the nine provinces concerned about us, which dropped Quebec without a moment's hesitation.

One word, however, is missing from this agreement, inspired by the minister. It is the word “to eat away” as in “to eat away the powers of the provinces”.

[Supply, February 9th, 1999]

This is not narrow-mindedness, Mr. Speaker. The motion before us is very clear. It states that the government should place an immediate moratorium on the export of bulk water shipments. It goes on to say “in co-operation with the provinces”. Such co-operation ought to precede the motion. It ought to be verified with the provinces, and with Quebec, whether the moratorium is necessary and desirable.

They are putting the cart before the horse, and yet when we protest about this happening, we are told that we are being too narrow-minded. No, we are not, but we are capable of reading between the lines and capable of protecting Quebec.

[Supply, February 9th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, if, at some point in time—and I am talking about 40 years ago, not 11—the Government of Canada had taken appropriate measures to make sure our American neighbours did not dump their wastewater into the Great Lakes, thus polluting the St. Lawrence River, which is the backbone of Quebec's development, we would not have the pollution level that exists today.

But this is not what the federal government did 40 or 30 years ago. I am not surprised that the issue was raised 11 years ago in a question. I do not have the wording of the question or of the answer, but the crucial role that the federal government had to take in negotiating with the Americans to ensure the protection of the quality of our water was overlooked. In fact, the same question could be raised on acid rain. The federal government had, and still has, a duty to negotiate on a bilateral basis with the Americans regarding this issue.

Speaking of water in Quebec, the member said that it flows back and forth. I am sorry, with Quebec it is only forth. It comes from here. It goes down to our place.

Quebec has assumed its water management responsibilities for 400 years. The hon. member's claim that Canada has a major role to play in showing us how to do things right—something which it has never done, while we have been taking action and achieving good results—is just not valid. The water in Quebec belongs to Quebec.

[Supply, February 9th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to speak on the motion before the House today on the marketing of water.

Before getting into the commercial aspect, I would like to address the environmental aspect. We are all familiar with water, as we use it on a daily basis. We need it as part of our diet and for washing.

But that is not our only use of water. Water is found in the environment, in the form of rivers, lakes and oceans. By fresh water, we mean water that contains no salt, the water in streams, lakes and rivers, as opposed to that in oceans.

Where does this water come from? It comes from rain, which runs off hills and mountains to become streams, which flow into rivers, which become lakes, which in turn empty into streams, and then rivers to finally reach the ocean.

If these patterns are disturbed, we change the way in which the lands through which these waters pass are irrigated. If we change the way in which these waters reach the ocean, we will eventually alter the salinity of parts of the ocean.

Water, however, does not just irrigate land or quench our thirst. It also transports heat. And one of the by-products of differences in salinity is that ocean currents transfer heat from the south to the north, where waters cool, drop to the bottom of the ocean and return south.

This creates a thermal equilibrium on the planet and large-scale changes. Therefore, if quantities of soft water were to end up in a specific part of the ocean, its salinity would be affected, and this could have a significant impact on the climate of the planet. When reference is made to transfers between catchment areas, we are speaking specifically and definitely of measures which could affect the runoff of freshwater into an ocean or oceans. The consequences of such a transfer might be considerably greater than we were able to foresee.

The greatest caution is therefore necessary, on the engineering level alone, when contemplating changing the movement of water from one basin to another.

The Bloc Quebecois shares the concerns that have been expressed by a large number of members of this House since this debate began this morning. We must, however, touch on the aspect of commercialization. Here it is possible that the Bloc Quebecois has concerns that are not shared by all hon. members in this House, particularly if they do not come from Quebec.

Where the commercialization of water is concerned, we are looking at water as a natural resource to be exploited, and no longer as an element of our environment. I have already addressed the question of the environment, and it must not be lost sight of.

Let us look as the aspect of exploitation of a natural resource, nevertheless. Small quantities of water are readily moved from place to place to meet humanity's needs. For instance, a municipality can draw water from a lake to pipe it into our homes. In the country, people drill up to hundreds of feet below the ground to tap the groundwater table for their drinking and washing water. These are small transfers.

If, however, these small transfers multiply, the consequences can be dramatic. In the southwestern United States, for instance, farmers and municipalities have made heavy use of the groundwater table for agricultural irrigation as well as other needs.

The water table has been lowered and is drying up. We recognize that water, our natural resource, must be treated in a very circumspect manner.

Water does not renew itself quickly or readily. Today, as it rains, there is an abundance of water. Next year, maybe it will rain less, maybe there will be less snow. The level of the lakes will drop. We must be very careful therefore on matters involving water; still, it remains a renewable natural resource.

So the question arises: Whose responsibility is it to manage the use of this resource on a daily basis? I think that, in all the provinces and in Quebec, municipalities have regulated the careful use of drinking water. A number of municipalities already meter the quantity of water used, ensuring that consumers are aware of the quantity consumed, and keep the cost down, with consumption limited to what is needed.

Other municipalities have regulations on watering. Occupants of even-and odd-numbered houses water their lawns on alternate days. Why? To make careful use of a limited natural resource.

The municipalities are also treating the environment with respect by processing waste water. Waste water containing matter in suspension that could harm the environment is not released back into nature, either domestically or industrially. Who is responsible for making sure such measures are in place? To my knowledge, it is the provinces.

In short, water as a natural resource may be used commercially, industrially or municipally in compliance with regulations that are put in place and applied by the provinces and by Quebec.

Today, we have a motion indicating clearly that this government should adopt regulations and impose measures to make better use of our fresh and drinking water resources.

I am very aware of the importance of caring for our natural resource, water. But I also have a dilemma: the federal government has never had to do anything to ensure communities' access to water resources. It was the provinces, and Quebec, which introduced water conservation, protection, filtration and purification measures. Quebec and the provinces have always shouldered their responsibilities in this sector. So why is the federal government butting in now?

I can understand the federal government, in consultation with the provinces, being given a mandate to make representations internationally, in order to negotiate international accords and amendments to agreements such as NAFTA. This was done in the past, and will no doubt be done again in the foreseeable future.

But if we are talking about authority for marketing the natural resource, I think the federal government is overstepping its bounds. Furthermore, this is an issue in which Quebec has taken an interest for many years and one which has already been in the news for several months in Quebec.

All of a sudden, the federal government wakes up and begins to make a fuss, without realizing that others have already taken the matter in hand, for the very reason that it was their responsibility to do so, not the federal government's.

While I share the concerns of our friends in the New Democratic Party, I differ with them on who has responsibility for marketing this natural resource. We in the Bloc Quebecois will therefore be voting against this motion, which would basically deprive Quebec of its historic rights to manage its water resources and turn those rights over to the federal government, which, to all intents and purposes, has never really concerned itself with them.

I would submit to the House that, if it were serious about playing a useful role in this respect, the federal government would have done so 50 or 60 years ago, by protecting the Great Lakes against the shameful pollution that travelled down the St. Lawrence River, turning it into a gigantic sewer for a number of years.

I can remember swimming in Wolfe's Cove, in Quebec City, in my youth. On a nice summer day, there were 5,000 people on the beaches at Wolfe's Cove. There were beautiful sandy beaches and the water was clean enough for swimming. Only 10 or 15 years later, the water had become a public sewer. And as members may suspect, the City of Quebec was not to blame for all this pollution; it was coming from down from the Great Lakes.

Today, with the international agreements on both the American side and Ontarian side, pollution has been controlled to a large extent. In another 10, 15 or 20 years maybe, we can look forward to having our river back, and swimming will be safe and will not pose a health risk.

As members can see, the federal government's record on protecting our environment and the issue of freshwater and drinking water is not great. I have a problem with a motion like this one being put forward today as if this government, here in Ottawa, were some kind of saviour for the planet, the country or Quebec. So far, the provinces have successfully taken their responsibilities. Arrangements are already in place in British Columbia, and steps are being taken in Quebec. What business does this House have debating a motion on a topic under provincial jurisdiction?

[Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act, February 8th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I am always very interested in what my Reform Party colleague has to say. She does her research well.

But I would like to draw to her attention a few of the concerns that sprang to mind as I was listening to her.

It is true that Quebec's share of equalization payments, aimed at evening out the ability of the various provinces to provide services for their people, has unfortunately dipped dramatically in recent years. But that is only one facet of the movement of money between Quebec and the other provinces and the central government here in Ottawa.

The other is the taxes paid to the central government and then used by it to purchase goods and services or to fund research and development.

It is a fact, and there are figures to prove it, that the government spends the lion's share of its dollars in Ontario, not in Quebec or in the prairies. It does not spend the lion's share of its dollars in the Atlantic provinces, but here in Ontario.

That leaves us with the paradoxical situation of Quebec sending approximately $30 billion every year to Ottawa and receiving $30 billion back. Unfortunately, while Quebec is forking over taxpayers' hard-earned dollars, its share of goods and services falls well short of its share of taxes, while Ontario's exceeds it by about 15%.

Then the transfer payments kick in to even things up. But now, and this is the question I put to my colleague, we have the sad situation where Quebec is not receiving job creation money, but transfer payments instead. The same is happening in the Atlantic provinces, and that is what is unfair. The only solution, obviously, is for Quebec to become a sovereign nation.

[Energy Efficiency Strategy, December 8th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, the motion before us focuses more on the economic impact than the environmental impact of an energy efficiency strategy.

You may have noticed that the motion deals for the most part with the economic benefits associated with such a strategy. Basically, it suggests that an energy efficiency strategy would promote job creation while at the same time boosting export opportunities.

In that sense, the motion put forward by the hon. member for Winnipeg Centre hits the mark. There are undeniable financial benefits to energy efficiency. In this respect, the experience of Quebec is a case in point. As the Quebec minister responsible for natural resources, Guy Chevrette, recently pointed out, Quebec has successfully developed a whole economic structure around energy efficiency.

The latest available statistics date back to 1994 but nevertheless speak volumes. The commercial activities associated with the manufacturing, distribution and installation of energy-efficient products brought in nearly $2 billion for Quebec businesses alone. And these activities created approximately 13,000 jobs for Quebeckers.

We are talking about a real industry here, a business that is not only booming on domestic markets but also very promising in terms of export potential. In fact, Quebec's new energy efficiency agency, about which I will say more in a moment, has taken a proactive approach to international relations. This openness to the rest of the world is designed to preserve and reinforce Quebec's expertise in this respect.

In short, the economic basis for Motion M-300 is absolutely sound. However, this motion fails to address the environmental impact, which is unfortunate and rather surprising. More than ever, energy efficiency appears to be an inescapable way of meeting international requirements in relation to climate change and the greenhouse effect. Natural Resources Canada has already started implementing an energy efficiency strategy.

It is well known that the resources now devoted to energy efficiency initiatives are modest. Strategic tools are limited and Natural Resources Canada is focussing primarily on public awareness. The following question therefore arises: are existing initiatives well managed and are they having a real and positive impact on the environment?

In this respect, the 1997 auditor general's report identified the areas in which Natural Resources Canada's implementation of its energy efficiency strategy was weak. The auditor general pointed out that there is no clear link between federal energy efficiency initiatives, on the one hand, and Canada's environmental objectives, such as stabilizing green house gas emissions at 1990 levels, on the other.

Furthermore, the contribution of existing measures to the attainment of stabilization objectives is not being well measured. The department's performance data do not allow this specific input to be measured. Nor do they allow us to measure the overall success of existing energy efficiency initiatives. All this was pointed out by the auditor general in 1997.

Motion M-300 proposes that the government invest in a comprehensive energy efficiency strategy. Logically, the motion implies that the Government of Canada should launch new initiatives. Before doing so, however, the federal government should first ensure that its existing initiatives are having a positive impact, one that is measurable and verifiable.

The motion before us today does not say which department or agency should implement the exhaustive strategy proposed. Caution would dictate better management of existing initiatives before Natural Resources Canada or the new energy efficiency office is given responsibility for implementing new initiatives in this area.

As a Bloc Quebecois member, I am particularly concerned about the question of jurisdiction. Energy is a provincial responsibility. This obviously includes energy efficiency. Furthermore, Quebec is in the forefront when it comes to energy efficiency.

Despite an increase in our population and in our economic activities, Quebeckers use the same amount of energy they did 20 years ago.

This is a testimony to the considerable efforts made by Quebec with respect to energy efficiency. Quebec is leading the way in Canada with its energy efficiency legislation, particularly as it applies to new buildings.

In 1997, the Government of Quebec created the Agence de l'efficacité énergétique. This agency has the backing of all Quebeckers. The legislation that created it was passed unanimously in the National Assembly. The agency will be the focal point for anything having to do with energy efficiency in Quebec.

Agency president Michel Dallaire shared his vision for the new agency last May. I quote:

Between now and the year 2001, the Agence de l'efficacité énergétique wishes to gain recognition as the key Quebec source of reference for energy efficiency and an unbiased promoter of its economic and environmental advantages.

One of this agency's mandates is to support R&D in energy efficiency technologies. This is, in fact, one of the main concerns in the motion by our colleague for Winnipeg Centre.

Of course, the Government of Canada regulates interprovincial commerce involving energy-consuming machinery and equipment. Through its spending powers, the federal government also devotes considerable resources to the promotion of energy efficiency, particularly in the areas of R&D and transportation.

Motion M-300 might be interpreted as being intended to encourage the Government of Canada to broaden its jurisdiction over energy efficiency. The Bloc Quebecois certainly has no intention of helping the federal government to broaden its jurisdiction. The federal government ought not to be needlessly duplicating provincial efforts.

Any major federal initiative in the area of energy efficiency ought to start off by gaining the support of the provinces. The Bloc Quebecois wishes to ensure that increased federal resources for energy efficiency will be used to support provincial objectives and strategies in this area.

If the federal government were to put new programs into place in this field, Quebec and the other provinces ought to be able to opt out of these programs with full compensation. In Quebec, the Agence de l'efficacité énergétique would be responsible for managing the amounts in question, according to its own priorities and strategy.

In conclusion, the economic concerns underlying Motion M-300 are entirely laudable. Investing in energy efficiency can lead to the creation of thousands of jobs and open up new markets for businesses in Canada and in Quebec. The Bloc Quebecois is not questioning this logic. However, economic logic should not be the sole criterion by which this motion is judged.

The primary raison d'etre for an energy efficiency strategy is to improve our environmental performance. Unfortunately, the Government of Canada's track record in this regard is disappointing. Existing initiatives could be much better managed.

This is why we are reluctant to support the motion. Before investing more money, the government must ensure that existing programs are well run.

Furthermore, it is primarily for jurisdictional reasons that the Bloc Quebecois has doubts about the content of this motion. Quebec has its own agency for energy efficiency issues, which will be responsible for all matters having to do with energy efficiency in Quebec.

We wanted to move an amendment to Motion M-300 that would have reflected provincial jurisdictions. Unfortunately, under the Standing Orders, such an amendment would have gone beyond the scope of the present motion and was therefore not allowed, leaving us no choice but to oppose the motion before us.

[Division No. 298, December 3rd, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to start off by deploring the time limit that has been set on our debate, courtesy of the government party.

This procedure is termed a gag order because it limits our ability to pursue debate and exchanges on a bill. When a gag is imposed, it prevents us as parliamentarians from continuing the exchange on matters of great importance.

When there is little opposition to a bill, when we reach agreement promptly, when a bill is well put together and when everything appears to be in order, we make interventions in order to make some improvements, and then, relatively promptly, the debate leads to its logical conclusion, which is unanimous passage of the bill or, more often, its passage following a division to settle the outstanding points.

When a bill is more sensitive and more complicated, and when the positions of the various parties with something to say on the bill are harder to reconcile, then we need more time.

For some reason, the government deems it preferable to prevent us from continuing debate in an attempt to bring the various positions closer together and to find acceptable compromises. The government prefers to impose a gag order.

What will the outcome be? We will end up with a bill on which there will be a division, while considerable dissent still remains and consensus has not been reached, or in other words a bill that will be passed, despite its being badly put together.

It is an affront to our democratic principles. It is an affront to the quality of work that should come out of this House and, finally, it is an affront to the public's right to the best legislation possible in Quebec and Canada.

This is the situation we are facing. This bill was not unanimously received, quite the contrary, and we oppose it for a number of real and significant reasons. Rather than try to compromise or to align positions, the government, it seems, is insisting on its own position, will not budge, will not compromise. That is why it is imposing closure.

We should now, because we have a limited time, simply reiterate our positions in the knowledge—and note how frustrating it is—that the government will not budge one iota on the bill before the House.

It is frustrating to know that, despite our efforts, our recommendations, our research and our concerns, the government is turning a deaf ear, preferring to stop discussions and have the bill passed. Naturally, since the government has a majority, it knows it can impose its bill.

The House of Commons does not exist for the government to impose bills. A government that respects the opposition does not impose bills. The government is making a mistake, because this is an important bill affecting everyone. One day, it will realize that there will indeed be the negative effects we predicted, and the public will let the government know just what it thinks in an election.

Two years ago, in the last parliament, the Bloc Quebecois, the NDP and the other opposition parties accurately predicted the adverse effects of the employment insurance reform. We put our finger on its major flaws, which would end up depriving people of the income they need when they lose their jobs. We predicted the adverse effects of the reform on the dynamics of the labour market and on the employment situation.

We pointed all this out. Two years later, it is obvious we were right. The minister and government of the day took no notice of our objections and made no attempt to incorporate our suggestions for improvement into the bill. Since the legislation has been in effect, hundreds of thousands of people have been hurt by the major flaws in this legislation.

Not one government minister would set foot in an airplane thrown together the way the House sometimes throws its bills together.

The bill before us is ill-drafted. If it were an airplane, it would never get off the ground. But it is proposed legislation, and the government is determined that it will fly, with predictable results.

There are still ordinary folks who will have to defend themselves against this unjust and inefficient legislation, who will have to prove that they are right. Worse still, even if they are right, if the law says they are wrong, then it is the law that will apply regardless.

I would also like to point out that the bill before us wants to concentrate tax collection in one agency that is, to all intents and purposes, independent of the minister. It is a bill that separates tax collection in Canada from our responsibility as parliamentarians. This is a serious matter.

It is serious because, the day something goes wrong in this agency, we will rise in the House and question the Minister of Revenue. We will tell him that there is such and such a problem that should be corrected. Like all the other ministers hiding behind commissions and agencies, the minister will tell us that the agency in question is an independent body, with its own problem-solving mechanisms, and that it is able to take care of matters itself. He will tell us that there is a complaints commission and that we should butt out.

With a bill like this, it is not the opposition the government is telling to butt out, it is the poor population of Canada. The problem is that the responsibility of parliament for an important agency in charge of tax collection is being removed.

There is an old principle “No taxation without representation”. To confer on an organization operating almost at arm's length from parliament the power, duty and means to collect our taxes is certainly stretching this principle to the limit.

I will go one step further. In Quebec, we have our own department of revenue. My question to the government is this: Since the social union project to allow a province to opt out of a federal government program is now on the table and will be in the coming weeks the subject of further debate between the provincial premiers and the federal government, could and should Quebec not opt out of this project to have tax collected by an outside agency and collect both provincial taxes and all federal taxes and then, through the Quebec revenue department, send taxes collected on behalf of Canada to the Minister of Finance? The Quebec revenue department already does it, with great success and efficiency, for the GST.

Since I am running out of time, I want to say that I appreciate having had this opportunity to express my views. I hope the government will consider withdrawing this bill forthwith.

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

Mr. Speaker, this bill replaces the Small Business Loans Act in order to reform the Small Business Loans Program. The purpose of the program is to increase the availability of financing for businesses with gross annual revenues of up to $5 million.

This bill is aimed at increasing the availability of financing for the establishment, expansion, modernization and improvement of these businesses by allocating, between the minister and lenders, portions of eligible losses incurred by lenders in relation to loans of up to $250,000 to such businesses for those purposes.

The government will continue to be liable for 85% of the losses on loans not repaid, with the rest being the lender's responsibility. The financial conditions regarding the loans remain the same, that is 3% above the prime rate for variable rate loans, and 3% above the mortgage rate for fixed rate loans.

The bill provides for the continuous operation of the program subject to a comprehensive program review every five years. It limits the minister's aggregate contingent liability to $1.5 billion for each five-year period. As for the department, it does not have to compensate lenders for losses incurred when its total contingent liability for the loans exceeds $1.5 billion in a five-year period.

The bill also authorizes the minister to conduct compliance audits and examinations. A whole new series of measures are included in the legislation to provide for the audit and examination of various reports to verify that this act and the regulations are being complied with in respect of a loan, including that the lender has exercised due diligence, as provided in the regulations, in the approval and administration of the loan.

The bill before the House authorizes the establishment and operation of pilot projects to determine whether the program should be extended to include loans to the voluntary sector and capital leases. The minister's maximum aggregate contingent liability in respect of each project is provided by an appropriation act or another Act of Parliament. The pilot projects have a maximum duration of five years.

Also, the bill reforms the offence and punishment provisions. Anyone found guilty of an indictable offence is liable to a fine not exceeding $500,000 or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years, or to both. However, anyone found guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction is liable to a fine not exceeding $50,000, where it was only $1,000 previously, or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months, or to both.

The bill also provides for a comprehensive review of the program every five years, in consultation with Parliament.

After this brief overview, I would like to address the crucial issues underlying Bill C-53. The Small Business Loans Act is crucial to small and medium size businesses. Since these businesses are the engine of our economy, Bill C-53 deals not only with issues directly related to small business, but also indirectly with the issues of job creation and productivity.

We all know how important small businesses are to our economy. A few figures tell all there is to know: in 1995, when the most recent recession hit us, small businesses with fewer than 100 employees accounted for 99% of the 935,000 businesses in operation in Canada. These small businesses employed 42% of wage earners in the private sector and paid 38% of all wages and salaries.

However, small and medium size businesses are fragile. As a matter of fact, nearly 15% of them shut down during their first year of operation, and more than half of the businesses that existed in 1989 were no longer in operation six years later.

Fortunately, the annual rate of new business start-ups exceeds that of closures, allowing the renewal of this pool of employers and jobs. In many cases, this high rate of closure of small and medium size businesses is caused by insufficient credit. That is why governments, particularly the Quebec government, are forced to develop complementary programs.

Therefore, the Bloc Quebecois supports Bill C-53. However, we are still disappointed by this review of the Small Business Loans Act.

We had the right to expect certain things in this review of the SBLA. For example, we had the right to expect provisions that would give small and medium size businesses in Quebec and Canada increased access to credit.

According to a survey conducted by the Canadian Federation of Independent Business, 29% of small business owners say credit availability is one of their main concerns. Moreover, according to a survey of small and medium size businesses conducted by members of the Bloc Quebecois in their ridings, 90% of them said it was very difficult or difficult to obtain credit at a reasonable cost. Only 10% said it was easy.

We also had the right to expect a program that increases credit availability for those small and medium size businesses which would not otherwise have access to financing.

In the same survey by Bloc Quebecois members, just over 50% of businesses feel that the small business loans program ought not to guarantee loans except those to small and medium-sized businesses which would not otherwise have access to credit.

Finally, we would have been justified in expecting this new legislation to give entrepreneurs the means of financing their working capital so as to ensure the growth and development of their businesses. In fact, 80% of small and medium-sized businesses responding to our survey feel that the small business loans program should also cover financing for working capital.

And what is there on this in Bill C-53? Unfortunately, nothing that will make any further improvement to the situation of small and medium-sized businesses.

Bill C-53 does not improve small and medium-sized businesses' access to credit. There is merely a change in the way the total government commitment is calculated, but in actual fact no increase. The main reason behind this revision is not the needs of small and medium-sized businesses, but the accounting concerns of the government, unfortunately.

Bill C-53 does not make it possible to provide funding to businesses which would not otherwise have access to funding. By focussing its reform on accounting concerns, the government has not included in its assessment the macroeconomic effects of the loan guarantee program. It is in fact taking a step backwards in terms of the Small Business Loans Act by strengthening the requirement for diligence by the banks in according loans under this program. In fact, small and medium size businesses that cannot find financing with the banks should not expect things to be better under this program.

There is also no mention of financing of working capital for small and medium size businesses. There is no provision on this in the bill, not even in what has been called the pilot projects. However, small and medium size businesses have clearly expressed their needs in this area. For these reasons, the Bloc Quebecois has proposed amendments to make a law that truly serves small and medium size businesses.

We want the good news for these businesses to be more than just the fact that the loans program is extended, we want it to be the fact that it is improved too. This is the aim of the Bloc Quebecois amendments, which attempt to respond to the major shortcomings we have noted.

More is needed than simply tightening up the old legislation. The Bloc Quebecois considers that the proposed changes in accounting require an examination of the need for economic development. These vital amendments are being proposed for reasons of economic development and job creation.

We are proposing an initial amendment to clearly establish the aim of the bill. Insufficient funding, in a way, is worse than none at all, because the business cannot develop as it might, and, more importantly, as it should. This amendment therefore is intended to clearly define the program so it may providing financing to SMBs.

We have other amendments as well, and I will leave it to my colleagues to tell the House about them.