Dick Harris

[Apec Inquiry, October 19th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister says that no one had a complaint against the students. Obviously he sure had a complaint against the students when he ordered them pepper sprayed at the APEC conference.

[Canada Small Business Financing Act, September 28th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise again in the House to speak to Bill C-53.

I am probably somewhat qualified to speak about small business and some of the challenges it faces, particularly when it comes to financing, having spent my entire life before politics in small business. I certainly understand the challenges that small business faces today.

The thing that really disturbs me about the Liberal government is that it truly believes that the best help it can give to small business is to be in its face with programs, regulations and plans. It thinks it is being of assistance to small business.

CFIB surveys over the last few years have asked the question: What can government do to help you? The number one answer, year after year, has been “Just get away from us and let us run our businesses. We know better than you how to run them”.

The Liberal government does not understand that request. It believes it has to be involved in every single part of the economy and in businesses whether they are large or small, either through regulations or programs.

I am not convinced that it is the government's place to be a guarantor of small business loans through its small business program. I think the small business community in this country would be quite happy for government to get out of that and let the private lending sector look after their requirements.

There are those who say that the banks are not doing it. I think that the regulations which are in place are a disincentive for banks to get involved in small business financing. They are trying. Let us give them credit for what they are trying to do. But the fact is, if we look at the banking community in other countries, and we will take the U.S. as an example, they have some very creative ways of lending to small business that we do not have in Canada because our regulations do not permit it.

I remember in the 1980s there were many small businesses moving from Vancouver down to Bellingham and Blaine in the state of Washington because the banks down there were saying “Come down here and we will show you how you can establish your business, how you can expand your business and even how you can start up a business”. The banks would provide the funding. They had a number of plans and options, ranging from some sort of involvement in the company itself that was phased out over a number of years while the loan was being paid off, to some very creative venture capital financing.

We simply do not have that in Canada because the government's regulations have forbidden it.

The best thing this government could do, instead of bringing in, extending or amending yet another program that will keep it involved in small business lending, would be to get out of the way of bona fide private lending institutions and let them do the lending. Let them bring in some sort of risk-based lending for small business. They have said in their presentations that they think this is a possibility, if they were allowed to do it.

There are many people in the country who have some great ideas about how to start a small business, whether it is a small home-based business or a business they are going to set up in an industrial park or retail area, but they just do not have the assets needed to go to the traditional lending institutions to get the money.

They cannot do it through small business loans either. They have to have some sort of security to offer.

If the traditional lending institutions were permitted to bring in creative lending for small business, right down to micro lending, then I think this would probably be the greatest gift the government could give to small business.

There are even greater disincentives to small business that this government refuses to recognize. I cannot talk about small business without talking about the incredibly burdensome tax regime that the government has laid upon the backs of small business in this country.

Small businesses create about 90% of the employment in this country, and yet they are overburdened by the current tax regime. Taxes eat into their profits. Taxes eat into their opportunity for expansion. Taxes eat into their opportunity to hire more employees. The regulations are all very costly. These are all tremendous disincentives for small business to grow, prosper and expand, and yet the government does not recognize it.

I am not just talking about the regular corporate taxes they pay. The government has effectively decided that it is not going to change the capital gains taxes which small businesses have to pay. No matter how many times the CFIB has told the government that the capital gains tax is a terribly burdensome tax, the government has done nothing.

I take exception to the member for Broadview—Greenwood who said earlier that the Reform Party has just woken up to the plight of small business and taxes in this country. Since 1993 when we arrived in the House we have been talking on a daily basis about the tax regime in this country. Since 1988 we have been talking about the tax regime in this country and how it affects people in every walk of life, small business or otherwise.

Incidentally, that is why there were 52 of us elected in the 1993 election. We were talking about the very things that were bothering Canadians. That is why, contrary to the wishes and the dreams of the Liberal government, we returned in 1997 as Her Majesty's loyal official opposition, to the surprise of the Liberal government. We were talking about taxes. We were talking about a government that was in the face of not only private citizens, but small businesses all across this country. Those are all disincentives. That is why we are here.

We will talk about this on a daily basis. We will never stop because it is a big issue in this country. When we talk about an engine that creates 90% of the employment in this country, it is not something we could ever stop talking about.

Now we find that the government is about to do it again with the EI surplus. The finance minister knows very well that a surplus over a certain level, according to the guidelines that have been set down by the EI commission, has to be returned to the people who pay into the fund in the form of EI premium reduction. That is perfectly clear. That is what the law says.

The finance minister, by continuing to take the surplus after the date laid down, will be breaking the law. It has come to our attention that he is going to change the law.

As I pointed out the other day in question period, it is sort of like Jesse James making bank robbery legal. We can draw the same comparison. He did not want to break the law, so he changed the law to make it legal to rob banks. That is what our finance minister is going to do. He is planning to change the law. He is going to scoop that $6 billion over and above the allowable rainy day surplus, the amount set down by the commission to sustain the EI fund, when that money should be going back into the hands of the employers and the employees in the form of EI premium reductions.

Each percentage of increase in EI premiums costs about 40,000 jobs in this country. Each time EI rises by 1% that is 40,000 jobs. It is estimated that since 1988 when the Tory government was in power, the way it set EI rates cost the country 130,000 jobs. The Liberals have reduced it somewhat but it has another $6 billion to pour back into it by reducing it by one per cent or one and a half per cent more. If we work the numbers back, that would probably create 40,000 or 50,000 jobs. Who would not want that? The unemployment rate in my city is at about 17% right now. If we had some tax relief and if we had a premier who knew something about how to run a province we might have an unemployment rate that was comparable with that of the rest of the country.

While the Liberal government believes this bill will be a big help to small business in Canada, it will not be. The best help the government can provide is to lower EI taxes. It can reduce regulations, in particular the federal-provincial regulations that overlap and cause a lot of confusion and expense to small business. In general it can get its hands out of the pockets of small businessmen and let them do business. Let them continue to expand, be prosperous and hire people in this country.

[Canada Small Business Financing Act, September 28th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, you can tell it has been a long day when the member opposite stands up and tells the House and the television audience how much his government and minister have done for small business.

There are a lot of small businesses right now that are taking some Tylenol, some Pepto-Bismol because that speech must not only give them headaches but make them absolutely nauseous.

They say they do not want to stand in the way of small business and that they are helping small business. They have breached their obligation to small business. They have thrown up obstacles which small business has to struggle over just to do what it wants, to try to make some money.

I want to talk about the incredible tax regime that the Liberal government has laid on the backs of small business. Where does the money come from that the government says it is giving to the small business program? It rips it out of the pockets of small businesses and then it comes like heroes and tries to give it back to them. The best thing it could do is to stay out of the pockets of small businesses and let them get on with business. That would be better than any program it could put on the table for small business.

How can the Liberals stand up in the House and say how good they are to small businesses while at the same time they are taxing them by over 33% more on their EI premiums? They are ripping it out of their payrolls, their investment capital and their profits. How can they stand there and say how good they are being to small business? It is astonishing and it is dishonest.

[Employment Insurance, September 28th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, it is amazing the finance minister just simply cannot understand a direct question. It is clear that the finance minister is thinking about changing the law that deals with the EI surplus. We are talking about $6 billion here. That is a lot of money out of the pockets of Canadian workers and employers.

What we want to know, what they want to know, what all of Canada wants to know is: Does the minister intend to change the law so he can get his hands on the $6 billion of EI surplus he is not entitled to? Is he going to change the law or not? It is real simple.

[Canada Small Business Financing Act, September 28th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to offer some comments on the debate today because it concerns a subject that is very near and dear to my heart, small business. Having been in small business for over 20 years, when I had a real life before I became a politician, I was aware of many things that were lacking in what it took to run a successful small business.

I cannot let this debate go by without revisiting a couple of things that this government has failed to recognize. At the top of that list is the level of EI premiums.

Small businesses and the people they employ are currently being overcharged by some 33% on EI premiums that are necessary to not only sustain the program but also to provide a reasonable rainy day fund in case we have a downturn in the economy.

Not only do we have that rainy day fund available but the finance minister has decided that he wanted to create a hurricane fund. We now have a surplus of $20 billion in EI premiums for this year. Let me clarify that. There are many workers who think there is $20 billion in the fund but in fact all that is there is an IOU from the finance minister who has scooped the entire pot and it looks like he is intending on defying or changing the law that governs EI surpluses so he can continue to scoop an extra $6 billion per year.

I know members want me to conclude but I cannot stop without talking about the high taxation level. Canada is the highest in all the G-7 countries. Small businesses are stressed under a burdening tax regime that makes us uncompetitive. I would like the member from the fifth party to elaborate. I know this is the Reform issue but I am sure the Tories can try to elaborate on it.

[Employment Insurance, September 25th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, the Liberal government is talking utter nonsense when it talks about the tax reductions it has put into force.

As a matter of fact, since 1993 the Liberals brought in 39 individual different tax increases. They ripped an additional $30 billion off Canadians in tax increases and they have taken $8 billion out of health care and education. How can they stand up and talk like that?

My question is for the finance minister. Regarding the $6 billion surplus that he cannot have, why is he so intent in scooping it? Is it for his own political—

[Employment Insurance, September 25th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, why is the finance minister so intent on ripping off Canadian workers and employees? Why is he so intent on being some sort of modern day version of Bonnie and Clyde?

[Employment Insurance, September 25th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Finance is showing utter contempt for the laws that govern the EI surplus and he is showing utter contempt for hardworking Canadians.

Because he cannot get his hands on the money legally, he is simply going to change the law, something like Jesse James making bank robbery legal.

[Employment Insurance, September 24th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, the finance minister knows very well that there is about $6 billion over the allowed surplus which he can make a decision today to put toward lowering EI premiums. Incidentally that will spur the economy, will create jobs and will make Canadian workers and businesses a lot happier. Let us make the right choice today.

Does the finance minister intend to comply with the directive of the EI commission to use that surplus to once again lower EI premiums? Yes or no.

[Employment Insurance, September 24th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, the EI commission is about to force the government to lower EI premiums.

It appears the Minister of Finance does not want to let his golden goose get killed quite yet. He is planning on changing the law to allow him to keep fleecing the multi-billion dollar EI surplus.

The finance minister talks about choices. I ask him to make the right choice today and say that he will not change the law, that he will comply with the EI commission and that he will lower EI premiums? Will he do it today?