Deepak Obhrai

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like my colleague from the Progressive Conservative Party to listen to what I have to say, as well the member from the NDP who never seems to have any solutions except criticizing.

Today I rise to voice my opposition to Bill C-21, an act to amend the Small Business Loans Act.

The purpose of this act is to extend the small business loans program to March 31, 1999 and to raise the government's liability under this program to $15 billion, a $1 billion increase. Few will deny the importance of small businesses. They symbolize the entrepreneurial spirit and the work ethic that have made this country what it is today. They are the engines of the growth of the Canadian economy.

In 1994 more than 98% of all businesses in Canada were small businesses with fewer than 50 employees. In 1995 the numbers indicate that small business accounted for over 40% of Canada's private sector economic output.

My wife owns a dry-cleaning store in Calgary. I am a junior partner. She has been operating this business for the last 15 years. I am an owner of a small international consulting firm. I was a business delegate with Team Canada to Asia. Therefore I know the struggle that small business owners go through just to make ends meet.

I also have firsthand experience in dealing with well intentioned but misguided government policies such as the small business loans program. This program does not successfully aid small business owners who truly need assistance.

The small business loans program has incurred a net loss estimated at $210 billion for loans issued between 1993 and 1995. Why? This program lacks accountability and clear objectives.

The banks are guaranteed the money at no risk to them if there is a default. Businesses will access more money than they can handle, thereby raising their debtloads. The government will try to look like a friend of small business by implementing this program. Lastly, enforcement is poor.

The auditor general, a non-partisan evaluator of government spending, has recommended that this government make a comprehensive evaluation of this program before it is extended. I agree with the auditor general because of the following reasons.

The Canadian economy is in a state of transition. No one would have expected in 1961 when the program was created the extent of change that would occur during the following 35 years. The Canadian economy has gone from being primarily based on the manufacturing sector to now being dominated by the service sector.

Who would have envisaged the growth of the high tech sector and the effects of the Internet in 1961? The Canadian economy and the business environment has changed and therefore the needs of small businesses have changed.

The current small business loans program does not take this into account. As well, the auditor general remains doubtful that the program's move toward full cost recovery will succeed. He suggests that careful monitoring and better systems to forecast the future performance of this program are needed. He also calls on this government to strengthen the program's auditing of potential borrowers.

The auditor general recommends that the department provide Parliament with information in order to allow us to assess whether this program is effective.

I have just listed several programs that both the auditor general and my Reform caucus colleagues share about the small business loans program.

We agree with the government on one thing, that we must encourage the growth of small business. This entails giving entrepreneurs access to capital.

While the Liberals feel that the inefficient and wasteful government programs will achieve this, the official opposition believes businesses will thrive if taxes are cut and bureaucratic red tape is reduced.

As one of those with experience in small businesses, I can attest to the havoc this government's excessive taxes and unnecessary bureaucratic paper work have on the small business community.

Business owners need the government off their backs. They need an economic environment which allows entrepreneurial spirit to excel. Let us start by reducing the tax burden that, simply put, kills jobs and profit.

Let us for the moment reflect on the tax burden for an average small business, the payroll taxes, CPP, UIC and WCB. While the objectives of this program are noble, government mismanagement has raised these premiums to very unacceptable high levels.

Then there is the business tax, a tax that is not tied to performance but to space occupation. Witness what happened in Toronto yesterday when small business owners were hit with huge tax increases.

Then we have the property taxes charged by the landlord through the operating tax, and finally the GST, a supposedly revenue neutral tax. Ask any small owner about GST. The GST came from their profits as competition and consumer resistance forced businesses to absorb this tax.

Therefore it is no coincidence that the provinces with the lowest provincial tax rates, Alberta and Ontario, are leading the country in job creation.

It is also no coincidence that the United States, whose taxes are considerably lower than ours, has an unemployment rate of under 7% and dropping while ours remains stuck at more than 9%.

The government had an ideal opportunity to show its commitment to the hundreds of thousands of small business owners of Canada by reducing the tax burden in the last budget.

Did the government do that? No. In fact it went the other way and compounded the problem by throwing more money at what can best be described as a band-aid solution.

Rather than setting up more rules government should be allowing entrepreneurs to keep more dollars in their pockets, which will allow them to hire the extra person they need.

Government interference in the marketplace discourages the development of alternative and innovative financing solutions for small business. At the same time there must be a re-evaluation of the way in which financial institutions lend money to small business.

The banks must show a human face to the thousands of struggling individuals who need that extra infusion of capital to kickstart their businesses. The major banks must realize that their monopoly carries with it certain social responsibilities and obligations. They must also take certain risks. Right now the risk is zero or, at the very least, ridiculously low. They are thriving in this economy. Profits are at record levels. They should be partners in our society and at least assume some burden.

Today with their record profits banks can afford to be partners. They should be joining those pulling the wagon of prosperity instead of merely riding on it. They must do this or risk losing their monopoly.

The dual process of reducing taxes and having banks deal more compassionately with small business owners will be mutually beneficial. Less taxes mean more profit. More profit means better loan risks. Better loan risks translate into easier financing. Easier financing brings about expansion and thus more employment. This is the route we should be following.

We have before us a government that now seeks to extend the small business loans program by one year. I could possibly commit to supporting this if the government initiated a thorough review of the program, just as the auditor general recommended.

However the government has added an additional $1 billion in liability despite the fact that the program has $1.3 billion remaining before it reaches its maximum limit of $14 billion. This $1.3 billion is adequate—

[Canadian Census, February 24th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday a young Canadian cried out when the Secretary of State for Multiculturalism rose to defend her government's racial census.

Millions of Canadians share this youngster's anguish. Despite this government's best efforts the citizens of this country want to be recognized as Canadians.

Nineteen per cent of respondents proudly identified themselves as Canadians, with the highest percentage coming from Quebec.

Canada is a land of immigrants. It is by definition a multicultural society rich in diversity and tolerance. This census and this government's agenda to promote policies that do nothing but divide communities are shortsighted and a further threat to national unity and nation building.

Listen to the people and let Canadians be Canadians.

[Census, February 17th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, two years ago StatsCanada asked Canadians who they were and being Canadian was not an option. It is reassuring to note that over 8.6 million defied the bureaucrats at StatsCanada and wrote “Canadian” as their heritage. Good for them.

Will the government stop conducting surveys which categorize us racially rather than as Canadians?

[Customs Act, February 6th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I will start by recognizing the good work the customs officers at the borders are doing for Canada. They are our ambassadors. When visitors and businessmen come to our country they are their first contact. Their behaviour brings goodwill to Canada. Therefore I would like to recognize the good work they have been doing.

I feel that Bill C-18 which gives them power to enforce our laws is a good bill and we are in support of this bill. The only caution I make is that while it is empowering them, our ambassadors of goodwill, we do not want them to be carried away with these powers and abuse them at the borders, creating negative feelings toward Canada.

Nevertheless, as all Canadians know, our laws are lax specifically when it comes to our justice system in upholding our laws. Everywhere across the country we can hear people who are supposed to uphold our laws asking for more powers to help them fulfil their duties. I think this bill goes toward that intent. At the same time I would like to see that more laws like this are passed so that our officers who are upholding the law can carry out their duties.

Time after time in my riding and everywhere when I talk to law enforcement officers they say their biggest concern is the inability to enforce the laws of the land. Police are strongly hampered by their inability to enforce the laws because they feel that when they do their hard work it is difficult for them to ensure that the final result is conviction.

I have travelled across the world and have come in contact with officers at border crossings in many countries. At times I am ashamed by the treatment they give to people who are visitors to their country. At times we can see that their rudeness and their practices of corruption are a detriment to their nation's desire to have visitors and businessmen come into the country.

Our customs officers, the ones I have come in contact with, have actually performed their work very well and have a respect among travellers who are coming to Canada. I would like to again say that I am proud and happy about the work that they are doing.

Here we are empowering them with something which we hold dear to ensure that the laws of this country are upheld. I wish them good luck in this. But I would also like to caution and bring to their attention that they are our ambassadors of first contact to bring goodwill to Canada.

[Immigration, February 5th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, Canadians are losing confidence in our immigration process. In addition to blatant abuses of immigration policies, we now hear of corruption and fraud by more than one former immigration officer.

Can the minister inform the House how many criminal investigations are currently taking place involving former officials in her department and how many past investigations have resulted in convictions?

[Black History Month, February 5th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, February is Black History Month in Canada. Across our country Canadians of African descent will be celebrating and reflecting upon their rich and diverse heritage.

To mark Black History Month I will be hosting a reception this evening to announce the launch of my private member's bill proclaiming Emancipation Day in Canada.

On August 1, 1834 the British parliament passed an act which abolished slavery throughout the Commonwealth. British and Canadian visionaries led the charge toward equality.

My hope is that Emancipation Day will serve as a time when Canadians young and old can learn from past injustices and continue our process of nation building. During the 19th century Canada offered a ray of hope to the millions who remained in bondage in the United States.

Let me close with a quote from a U.S. slave published in 1851:

O Righteous Father, wilt thou not pity me and aid me on to Canada, where coloured men are free?

[Refugees, December 11th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, last week the auditor general stated that he “deplores the fact that it takes on average more than two and a half years to settle a refugee claim”. Today 38,000 refugees have their lives on hold as they wait to have their claims heard.

The fact of the matter is that the auditor general has been calling for an overhaul of the minister's department for the last 10 years. Now another promise has been made.

Will the minister commit today to the urgent implementation of the auditor general's recommendation?

[Amendment To The Constitution Of Canada (Newfoundland), December 8th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I do not think so. I still say that this is a change, not taking rights away. I still feel that parents in Newfoundland have the basic right to educate their children in the manner they want.

I know that in Calgary those who do not agree with that are teaching their children at home. Basically I am looking at this through the referendum and the desire of parents of Newfoundland who are asking for a change to be made to better administer the system. As a person who belongs to a minority I would be the first to raise the flag if I felt a minority right was disappearing. I do not feel a minority right is disappearing.

[Amendment To The Constitution Of Canada (Newfoundland), December 8th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, there are some good analogies there.

To answer the question, in the case of slavery, that referendum was taking away the basic human rights of someone, treating someone as inferior.

In this case we are talking about a change in the system, not about taking away the rights of somebody. We are talking about changes. That is the way I view it. I do not view it as somebody's basic human rights in the province being attacked. All it is doing is changing the basic system which the people of Newfoundland people think would be far more effective for them and at the same time is giving them religious rights.

It is not taking away religious rights or the right to send my child to a religious school. I can keep my child at home and teach him religion. So there are two basic, strong fundamental factors here.

The bottom line is that in this referendum I do not view that a right has been snatched away from someone in Newfoundland. I feel that the referendum has asked them if they want a change in the system. That is the way I view it.

[Amendment To The Constitution Of Canada (Newfoundland), December 8th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today after hearing compelling arguments put forward by members on both sides of this issue.

Having listened to my colleagues it is a very difficult situation for me to make a decision on. I have thought and thought about it. Especially being a minority myself, this is a very important question for me. Are we trampling on minority rights? There is always the possibility that a majority can trample minority rights, and being a minority this is a very important issue for me. I have looked at the issue very seriously. I sat in the House and heard all members talking about the pros and cons.

Where do I stand on the matter? After listening to everybody and looking at what we have stated as our policy, I have learned over several years that amending the constitution is never an easy undertaking. Nor should it be.

The constitution contains the principles and underpinning upon which we govern and are governed. Its influence on the daily activities of Canadians is all encompassing. Therefore our constitution must reflect the will of the people.

Some who have not followed the issue closely may wonder what exactly is happening with this amendment. Basically by amending term 17, the Newfoundland and Labrador school system would change its common denominational nature within the province, allowing the province to move to a single, publicly funded school system.

It should be noted that even with these changes this amendment would not take religion out of the schools. Term 17 contains a provision which guarantees that religion must be taught and that religious observance must be permitted in schools where requested by parents.

My colleagues feel this is not exactly guaranteeing minority rights that were guaranteed at the time Newfoundland joined Confederation. I agree that is true, but does it really take away a minority right? That is the question I was wondering about. I personally feel that it does not take away a minority right. It is there. It may not be in the same manner as it was before but it is there. Therefore I feel that the basic principle of a minority right being taken away is not a major issue.

On the other hand, children would not be forced to participate in such activities if the parents or themselves did not wish that. These issues are very emotional ones which go to the basic values of individuals. Each time this has been debated in this place we have heard very eloquent and heartfelt arguments on both sides as to why or why not we as parliamentarians should support or oppose this resolution.

As a new parliamentarian I have heard from several concerned individuals on both sides of the issue. This is a decision that one cannot enter into lightly. I have spent a great deal of time thinking about it. After thinking very hard on the issue I have come to the conclusion that I am in favour of this resolution. I feel that it follows the democratic will of the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.

My colleagues have stated that the question put forward was not clear and was changed and that the referendum did not meet the criteria of a real referendum.

I would submit that this debate has gone on in Newfoundland and it is the people of Newfoundland who are ultimately responsible for making this decision. In the second referendum over 73% of the people agreed on this issue. I can share some of the concerns my colleagues have expressed and I would agree with their sentiment. However, they have gone through two referendums in Newfoundland and in the second referendum the percentage increased. Therefore I am quite satisfied this was a legitimate referendum.

One of the first and foremost principles of our party is the equality of provinces and respect for provincial jurisdiction. We support each and every province's having equality of status and equal powers and Parliament and the Government of Canada's treating all the provinces equally. Term 17 deals with the provincial power over education and the amendment allows the house of assembly to decide.

I agree with my colleague who said education should be the responsibility of parents. The primary responsibility of education must fall on parents. The parents who live in Newfoundland have made a decision through the referendum that this is the way they want to do it.

Another principle deals with respect for the equality of all citizens. We are in favour of citizens having equal rights under the law. Under the current system with term 17 there are not equal rights for all citizens. What is at issue here is whether the existing rights have to be swept away or whether they could be accommodated in some other manner.

Another guiding principle refers to the basic right of freedoms of conscience and religion. At issue here is whether the right to denominational schools is an element of this freedom or not. Under the new amended term 17 education in religion is not specific to any denomination but what is guaranteed is the right to religious observance for all.

The last two principles deal with the will of the majority while at the same time respecting the rights of minorities. At issue here is whether the procedures of the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador were fair and whether the rights and interests of minorities were safeguarded, as I alluded to in the beginning.

There have been arguments on both sides that have dealt with the fairness of the procedures used by the government in obtaining its mandate to reform the school system. On one side it has been argued that the government did not give the citizens enough time to make an informed decision, that it was a short campaign during the summer months and that the text of the referendum question was released only a week prior to the referendum date. The government actively campaigned for the amendment, as my colleague mentioned.

On the other side, this was the second referendum in a two year period, which supported the changes to the educational system in the province. The second referendum received a substantially higher percentage of support than the first one. As I mentioned earlier, the referendum question was supported basically in every part of the province and gained the unanimous support of the house of assembly.

When it comes down to whether the importance we attach to democratic consent and respecting the will of the majority outweighs our concern about the impact of this amendment on denominational rights in Newfoundland, I think it does. That is why I will be supporting this resolution.