Gary Lunn

[Fisheries, November 25th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Fisheries should realize that he just changed rules last week and his department officials confirmed that in committee yesterday.

I quote from a letter from 21 Canadian fish companies to the minister demanding access to this resource over foreigners: “It is inexcusable that foreign vessels and foreign crews are permitted to harvest turbot at the expense of Canadian fishermen”.

Where is the new Captain Canada over there? Why does the minister continue today to give away our resources at the expense of Canadian fishermen? What is he doing? How come he does not know what is going on in his own ministry?

[Fisheries, November 25th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Fisheries has just changed the rules so that foreign vessels and foreign fishermen can now fish turbot in Canadian waters where Canadians are denied access to this very resource.

Is it the policy of the government to pay fishermen to sit at home on TAGS while foreign vessels and cheap foreign labour are brought in to fish in Canadian waters?

[Canada Small Business Financing Act, November 23rd, 1998]

Madam Speaker, I would like to first of all set the record straight. I am very pleased to support Motion No. 6. It would in effect change the bill to ensure that the borrower would assume at least half the responsibility and the government or the lender the other half, which is sponsored by taxpayers. Right now it would be 85% to the lender and 15% to the borrowing. I suggest it should be an equal partnership if they have enough confidence in their own business plan when they come forward for that loan.

More important, I want to set the record straight with respect to Reform's commitment to small business. I think it is very important. We believe very strongly in small businesses and are a great defender of them. I think we would just go about it differently. We think it is very important that we provide small businesses immediate tax relief. We also want to make sure they have decreased payroll taxes as opposed to putting money into this small business loans program.

The initial legislation, as everyone well knows, would provide $1.5 billion to small business loans programs. I think there are other ways we could do it than again through government subsidies for businesses. I think there are other ways that would be more beneficial.

We could look at capital gains tax. Now the tax rate is 75%; perhaps lowering it to half that. There are other ways to attract investors, other ways for people to get money, without taking it out of the pockets of taxpayers.

This motion would decrease the liability of the lender or the bank down to 50% from 85%. That would make sure the person who is wanting to borrow this money would have enough confidence that they would assume liability for half. That is not a lot to ask when we are using taxpayer dollars.

Again, if the borrower is liable for only 15% of this loan, what kind of confidence do they have in their business plan to ensure that it will be viable and not be a burden on the taxpayers?

Small business is the economic engine which drives this country. We in the Reform Party believe that. We recognize that. In fact, 75% of our caucus are small business people. We believe very strong in that. But government subsidies are not the answer.

We have the government again giving out $1.5 billion for small business loans programs. But with incredibly high payroll taxes and incredibly high bureaucracy it is just not working. It is our job as legislators to create an economic environment where small businesses can succeed. Right now they are struggling through extremely high levels of bureaucracy, red tape, forms, paperwork and the list goes on and on. They are buried in it from all levels of government.

Again I would argue there are many other ways that we can help small business. Make no mistake, that is one of the principle objectives of the Reform Party of Canada. We believe strongly in ensuring that small business has an economic climate where it can succeed.

Unfortunately this small business program is just throwing money at it and hoping the problem will fix itself. I would argue that is not going to happen. I can never imagine in the private sector anywhere where anybody could borrow money and only be at a liability rate of 15%. They would be laughed at. The banks would absolutely laugh at them anywhere else in the private sector.

So assuming 50% liability, if a person has the confidence in his or her business plan, I would think what would be quite reasonable and would have been an excellent amendment to this legislation, equal partnership between the lender and the borrower in the liability of that loan.

I encourage all members of the House to support this Reform amendment to create an equal partnership. We need, more important, to move away from government subsidies and take away that liability on the taxpayer. These are high risk loans. The default rate is very high with taxpayer money. It is not our money. It is not our money to do as we please with. The people who send us here hope we will use tax dollars wisely. It is not that we would not invest the money in small businesses. We would do it different to ensure that they were getting the help they need.

[Division No. 265, November 23rd, 1998]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to support the amendments put forward by my colleague.

These amendments will do two things. First, they will lower the maximum of a small business loan from $250,000 to $100,000. Second, they will prevent a second family member from obtaining a small business loan for a business when one has already been granted to another family member.

I would also like to comment on this whole small business loans program which, again with all due respect, I think has completely gone down the wrong track in what we are doing for the Canadian people.

This bill essentially will put $1.5 billion into the small business loans program where businesses that do not qualify for any other funding, that have been turned down by the banks and financial institutions for various reasons, would then try to obtain financing from the small business loans program.

I would argue this is the wrong approach. These people obviously are a higher risk. We are using taxpayer money as a poor investment. We are giving it to the worst business plans of this country, the businesses that are most likely to go broke and most likely to go bankrupt. The taxpayers will receive zero dollars on their investment. We are throwing money at bad business plans.

I would argue it is the role of government to be responsible for introducing legislation in this House that ensures there will be a strong economic climate. Again, I do not necessarily support subsidizing business after business by throwing money at it. Instead, we should be creating an economic climate where businesses can survive without government subsidies. In essence that is what this is. That is what we have failed to do.

My home province of British Columbia is in an absolute crisis state. As an example we can look at the forest industry in British Columbia. Many of my colleagues from British Columbia can attest to the fact that one of the principal reasons the forest industry and the business climate in the forest sector is in a crisis situation is largely government policy and the direction the government has been going in both provincially and federally.

The federal government cannot be let off the hook. It has created an economic climate, due to the quota system with the United States, where British Columbia has now lost a significant part of its quota to eastern Canada. The mills are suffering incredibly.

I was speaking with the senior forester in one of the forest product companies in British Columbia over the weekend. He tells me that their wood costs in 1994 were $43 a metre. Today their wood costs are $83 a metre. This has almost doubled. I asked him why they had doubled and what had caused the cost of the wood landed in the mill to be double to what it was three or four years ago.

He said strictly government policy, both federal and provincial.

I am a big defender of small businesses. They are the economic backbone of this country. If we are to have successful businesses, let us not do it with government subsidies. We have the government saying here is $1.5 billion available for small businesses.

Many of the ones that probably are struggling and will survive do not have access to this. Again, only the highest risk business plans are going to get access to this. We may never recover this money. I would argue very little we will recover.

The government gives out but takes right back through high payroll taxes. The EI premiums are billions of dollars higher than what they should be. The list goes on and on.

Speaking with small business owners, even very small businesses with only a few employees, they say they get government forms, both federal and provincial, in the mail two or three times a week. It never ends.

A full time bookkeeper is needed to keep up with the bureaucracy, the paperwork, whether it is the GST or the payroll tax forms or worker compensation forms. Some of them are provincial but the list goes on and on. How can they possibly survive?

It is our role as legislators to cut that down, break down these barriers. What kind of taxes are these companies paying? Can they be competitive? It goes further. Some of our most entrepreneurial people who should be creating these small businesses are running down south of us to the U.S. the day after they leave school. Why? Because of the economic climate in this country. Why? Because of the taxes they pay.

People pay double the taxes to our friends to the south. These are realities. These are the things the government should be focusing on.

The small business loans program has been around for a long time, which would only reinforce that the government is absolutely prepared to accept the status quo. It thinks things are just fine. Let us not change, just send out another $1.5 billion and that will take care of itself.

Some people cannot go to the bank. They get turned down and then go to the finance companies and get turned down there. They cannot raise any money, but we will give them some taxpayer money. We likely will never see it again because their business plans are flawed to begin with. The point I am trying to make is that government subsidies are not the answer. It has been proven time and time again.

Let us look at the fishing industry on the east coast in Newfoundland and the Atlantic provinces. What has this government done since 1993? It has spend $2 billion paying fishermen to sit at home and wait for the fish to come back but it has not changed anything within the department and how it operates. It has not looked at the root problems. It has not focused on anything.

The idea was to throw money at it and hopefully the problems will solve themselves. It accepted the status quo. That is not good enough. We need change. It is the same thing with the small business plan. That analogy can be drawn with small business people. Throwing money at them and saying go create a new business, we will create another level of bureaucracy to help them with their bankruptcy in six months is not the answer.

We have to create an economic climate where these businesses will thrive, where they will create employment, where they will be valuable contributors to their local economies.

We are not doing that. It is in every sector whether fishing, forestry or mining. All these areas are suffering. We have our heads buried in the sand. We are not looking at it. Now the government has forced time allocation. It will shut the debate off on this.

Again I plead with the government to look at the real problem. Travel to British Columbia to some of these interior communities. Go up to Lumby. Go down to Duncan. Go into Cranbrook. Go up to Prince George and see what is happening. One and a half billion dollars in the small business loans program will not solve anything. It will just be a high risk. If that is what the government is going to do it might as well go down to Vegas and dump it into a slot machine.

Some will argue I am against the small business programs. I am not. I will stand up and fight for small businesses. But I would do it differently. I would ensure that they have a strong economic climate. I would ensure that they are not being taxed to death on payroll taxes. It can be done without government subsidies. If I can leave one message, the answer to our problems is not government subsidies. It is our job to create the economic climate where they can survive.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to the Bloc's Motion No. 1 and also to defend the interest of small business for the business people of Saanich—Gulf Islands and all of British Columbia.

I too will read the proposed motion:

The purpose of this Act is to increase the availability of financing of small businesses, which would not otherwise have access to financing.

Obviously they are at considerable risk.

I want to talk about the business climate in British Columbia. It is in an absolute crisis situation. No matter who I talk to, people are losing their homes and their jobs by the thousands every day in Prince George, Cranbrook, Duncan, Lumby, Terrace. Mills are shutting down. Every other day on the news we see another mill shutting down. Some have suggested we will lose another 10 by the end of the year. No matter who I talk to in these communities, they feel the largest single contributing factor for these job losses and their lives being devastated is government regulation.

Yes, there is provincial government regulation, but there is also federal. As these whole communities are being devastated, the small businesses are being driven out of business as well. That is what this government needs to focus on. It has to create an economic climate in this country and in British Columbia for these businesses to be competitive and to succeed. That is not happening.

This program is not helping small business. When I speak to the small business people in these communities, they tell me that they are overburdened by government regulation. Small business people in my community tell me they get government forms every other day in the mail. If it is not a GST report they have to fill out, it is a report from the Workers' Compensation Board for premiums, or a report for Canada pension plan premiums. The list goes on and on and on. It never ends.

These small businesses are absolutely burdened with bureaucracy. That is what we should be focusing on to help these small businesses.

As my colleagues have said, it is the responsibility of this government to create an economic climate so that small businesses can succeed. It should not be raising taxes 40 times over four or five years. It should not be raising payroll taxes.

Government members like to stand and say “We have reduced EI premiums more than the Conservatives did”, but they do not tell us that they doubled Canada pension plan premiums.

This is choking the small business community. What does the government do? It says “We will bring in $1.5 billion. We will be out there to champion the small business community. We will make this money available”. Government is not telling us that this is a huge liability for the taxpayer.

The purpose of this legislation is to help businesses which would not otherwise have access to financing.

If we ask anybody in the business community what that means they will tell us that these are high risk businesses which probably will not make it.

Why is that? There are probably some poor business plans that are not going to succeed, but a lot of them could if this government would tackle the real problem instead of just trying to put a band-aid on it, thinking it will go away. That real problem is reducing government bureaucracy and creating an investment climate for people to come in and take hold. That is not there.

I cannot emphasize this enough. I speak to small businesses in my community. They employ two or three people. They show me the government forms they receive. They have to hire a full time accountant just to look after their bookkeeping, to handle the government bureaucracy and all the different forms from all of the different departments.

They are not just getting them from the federal government, they are getting them from the provincial government. The list goes on.

It was ironic. I did a radio talk show in my riding. A representative of the federal Liberal riding association came in and said “Mr. Lunn is against small businesses. He does not support the Small Business Loans Act”.

What a pile of hogwash. They do not understand the problem. They think that if they throw money at it the problem will go away.

After spending a year in this House the one thing I have learned from this government is that it thinks that if it throws money at a problem it will go away by itself, without it having to attack the real source of the problem.

I would like to emphasize what is going on in British Columbia. It is in a crisis situation. If we go to any of the interior communities we will see people losing their livelihoods. They are losing their homes. Why is that? It is because governments, both federal and provincial, have created a climate through government bureaucracy and policies in which these companies cannot survive.

The spinoff, the rippling effect, the number of small businesses that are closing is staggering.

Let us take the example of the softwood lumber quota. The province of British Columbia has lost it through government regulations. It is struggling to export its product. It is forced into quotas by this government because of more bureaucracy, more government regulations, more paperwork.

Members opposite can shake their heads, but these are facts. I invite any member of the government to go out to British Columbia, go to the small communities and to talk to these people. Hear it from them. Look at the devastation that is happening out there and then come back here and say “We need more than just $1.5 billion to throw at people with business plans who otherwise could not get financing from anywhere else”.

We have to do something for these people. What we see is absolutely not acceptable.

I think it is a disgrace that I have to look at this legislation in the House and then go back to the people of British Columbia and say this is what the federal government is doing for you. They will say that I am their federal member. I shake my head because these people are so frustrated. What are they going to do? There are real problems out there. We need to start attacking the root of the problems.

I will repeat that the government's responsibility is to create an economic climate in which businesses can thrive, profit and provide employment without government subsidies and taxpayer liability. We are not doing that, although it is our role in this House to do so.

[Government Appointments, November 3rd, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, let us deal with some facts. The Liberal government's record of patronage and backroom deals just got a whole lot worse.

Former Liberal MP Ron Fewchuk was appointed president of the Freshwater Fish Marketing Corporation in 1997. When he arrived he was not wanted. They would not even give him the keys to the front door. No doubt this appointment was an agreement for giving up his seat in the riding redistribution.

Fewchuk has now been fired after a disastrous year in his new position. As a parting gift from the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans he has thrown in another generous severance package. This is Fewchuk's second golden handshake in 18 months.

Who will pay for it? Will it be the Canadian taxpayer? Will it be the fishermen who finance the marketing board? Either way, it is unconscionable.

The Liberal ship of patronage appointments is adrift at sea. How much money will have to be wasted on Ron Fewchuk and others like him before the government gets the message.

[Marine Conservation Areas Act, November 2nd, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, that is a very good question. I think it has been made quite clear by the members of this House that in fact the consultation process—and again I will use the word—is hollow. The government can send out questionnaires, but there is nothing in the legislation except empty schedules.

The member asks whether it will trample the rights which the provinces have under section 92 of the Constitution. She makes a valid point. I think it is open for debate. I believe that the bill gives the government broad powers over our inland waters in creating parks. That, without question, I would agree is provincial jurisdiction. The only area that we may question is the waters which are shared by two provinces. That could be open to interpretation.

The waters of the Lac-Saint-Jean and Saguenay areas which I visited this summer are very beautiful. I think it is up to the province of Quebec to impose provincial legislation to protect and to choose the waters in their provincial parks. Similarly, with respect to the inland waters of British Columbia, it is up to the province of British Columbia to implement legislation.

The last thing we need is different levels of government and bureaucracies all trying to do the same thing, which we have seen over and over again in this country. It is a waste of taxpayers' dollars.

Again I would agree with her comments, with the exception of waters which are shared between provinces. That would be open to debate.

However, regardless of the jurisdiction, this is a hollow piece of legislation. Looking at the government's record, we have to question whether it is really sincere about actually protecting the ecosystem, considering its past performance and the fact that it is allowing Americans to slaughter whales in Canadian waters which are potentially going to wash up bloodied on the shores of Victoria in the riding of the minister of fisheries.

[Marine Conservation Areas Act, November 2nd, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, we have to go back to the government's record. The legislation contains numerous Henry VIII clauses. We all know that a Henry VIII clause will allow a minister to designate new areas under the act without having to steer the amendment through parliament. That is an absolute given.

I can only go on the performance of the government over the last year and on what it has done in the House. I do not have confidence in the government at all. We have seen that dwindling among Canadians over the past month. The Liberals are going down and down and down and they know it.

That is why I say the legislation is hollow. How can we possibly sit here and believe when the minister of fisheries is allowing the slaughter of whales by Americans in Canadian waters? Those whales could potentially wash up on the beaches of Victoria. How can we expect the government to mean that it will consult with industry, the provinces and the different sectors? The government's record is dismal in this area. We have had a dictatorship. We have seen it over and over again.

I can give them all kinds of examples. We could look at the EI fund. Every member on this side of the House has demanded consultation, and all we hear is the Liberals saying no. There are a hundred examples. The record speaks for itself. Their performance has been absolutely dismal.

They are sighing over there because they have nothing better to say. They know it. It is a fact. The legislation is very clear. It gives broad sweeping powers to the minister. We would like to know exactly what we are passing in the House before we vote on it. We will not vote on a hollow piece of legislation which will give the minister the ultimate say on where the parks are.

Let us not forget there are all kinds of resources attached to these parks. There is the fishery which the government has destroyed. The Liberals can talk to their own member from Gander—Grand Falls in Newfoundland. He has been very open in the House and is a big defender of the fishery. He will talk about how the government has destroyed the resource over the last 10 years. It has been an absolute dismal failure. The auditor general has confirmed this in numerous reports. Now the Liberals are coming out and are to be the great saviours of the ecosystems and the environment. It does not add up.

We would like to support something that would truly protect the environment and the ecosystems and would include these people in the process. This legislation clearly does not do that.

[Marine Conservation Areas Act, November 2nd, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I also live in a riding which has an extensive marine ecosystem. I probably have ten times more coastline than highways in my riding.

I have five Gulf Islands among numerous other islands. Those islands are all frequented by daily ferry service. I live in a very sensitive marine environment with all kinds of marine life from pods of orcas to grey whales.

We in the Reform Party also support protecting ecosystems. We want to make that very clear. We are very concerned about ecosystems and it is important that we protect them.

This legislation has all kinds of problems with it. I will focus and demonstrate to this House how this legislation is very typical of the type of legislation we see in this House. We have a hollow piece of legislation.

There is absolutely nothing in it. I will demonstrate that to the House with numerous specific examples which will make it very clear to see. We have a piece of legislation brought forward by the government suggesting that it actually wants to protect an ecosystem, but in effect it is hollow.

Furthermore it does not bring in other groups such as the provinces. It does not bring in the resource base to ensure that there is active participation in the management of parks and to ensure that the resources can be removed safely so that we do not trample on the rights of the people who are already there.

Members opposite do not agree with what I am saying. Let me give an example. Schedules I and II of the legislation describe the lands that are to be set aside. We have a bill that is for marine parks, the Marine Conservation Act. I ask members to get out their legislation. Schedules I and II describe the areas that we are thinking about.

However, when we look up schedules I and II we cannot find them. They are not there. This is just a hollow piece of legislation that provides broad powers to the minister. The government will decide this later.

I emphasize the problem I have with the legislation. I am a strong advocate of conserving our marine life. I would fully support legislation specifying pockets that should be set aside for marine parks. I would even go further to say that the small pockets should be class a marine parks that we cannot even touch. That is not what we have. We have no idea what we are getting ourselves into.

I have watched the example set by the government. The current minister of fisheries talks over and over again about his three priorities: conservation, conservation, conservation. However what happens when the actual practices come down? For example there is the Makaw whale hunt that is happening outside my riding. The minister supports the Makaw whale hunt. He is supporting the slaughter of whales in Canadian waters.

I have to question whether the government is serious when it asserts that it wants to protect our ecosystems. It can be done but this is not the legislation to do it. It is hollow.

My experiences in the House have shown that we do not have openness and transparency. The government would like to bring in legislation where all these decisions would be made by orders in council or after the fact. We have no idea. Will there be a consultation process if there is an abundance of shellfish in a marine park?

Furthermore, the only way I found out about the legislation and what the government was intending to do was through government press releases. My riding is one of the ridings that would be most affected by the legislation. I have had private meetings with the people in the bureaucracy and have asked them about it. It is only after I pursue and dig into it that I find out what is going on.

The government does not come forward and inform all members of the House, as we have seen over and over and over again with the bills that are brought forward. It operates in a vacuum, this little tight-knit group, this handful of people who surround the Prime Minister. What we have is a dictatorship.

I could go on. The legislation does not even identify which areas will be designated as marine parks. We have no idea what is happening. I know the minister has announced a couple of small areas, his wishes for marine parks, but the reality is that the legislation leaves it wide open.

There are broad, sweeping powers for the minister. We have no idea whether the provinces will have any participation in the marine parks. We have no idea whether the resource based industries in British Columbia, the fishing sector or the forestry sector, will have any input regarding how they will be affected. Both the forestry and fishing sectors are in a very difficult situation in British Columbia. I could safely say in the House, after speaking with those representatives, that they are also very strong supporters of maintaining our ecosystems. Bringing in legislation that will not consult with them to ensure that all these people can be brought on board to make sure it is done in a very economical and positive way is not the way to go.

It enlarges the minister's jurisdiction. There are all kinds of examples of this in clauses 2, 4, 5, 6 and 8 which enlarge the minister's jurisdiction. They effectively empower the minister to designate whatever areas he or she feels fit, depending on the time. Right now it comes under the minister of heritage. She would have the power to do as she sees fit. It has raised concerns among the residents of British Columbia. Many of them are strong supporters of our ecosystems.

They raise flags with me in discussions. They are somewhat amazed when the government comes out with this kind of legislation in flashy press releases with no substance. Then, only hours later, they find out that the minister of fisheries, Mr. Conservation, is about to allow the slaughter of whales on our beaches. Whales will be floating up on the beaches of Victoria in his riding. This has caused them great distress. He has taken absolutely no initiative to stop it. I have approached him and the Minister of Foreign Affairs with no success, asking them to lobby against the the unnecessary slaughter of the Makaw.

Even more disturbing is the Canadian government's giving the Makaw tribe permission to slaughter these whales in Canadian waters. It is absolutely unacceptable. Then the government tells us that it is bringing in marine parks to preserve our ecosystems.

I listened to the Conservative member from Nova Scotia. I agree with him it is very important that we protect our ecosystems and our marine parks. However the legislation is not the vehicle that will do that. We have a hollow, empty piece of legislation.

I question why it is there. I question what the government is doing. It imposes upon the provincial governments, as was pointed out by my hon. colleague in the Bloc, without their active participation. If we are to succeed in doing something meaningful and in providing something that would preserve some of the ecosystems, the provinces should be brought on board as effective partners and not just have a dictatorship against them.

I will conclude my remarks. This is but another example in the House of the Liberal government bringing in legislation which is absolutely hollow. It does not give us specifics. I repeat that it is not worth the paper it is written on. It does nothing to give us any specifics on preserving ecosystems, a process which I support. The government should look at the record of what it is doing and get the Canadian public to agree before it starts bringing in these types of bills.

I understand the minister of fisheries would like to designate some areas in Victoria, but he creates his own problems when he allows the slaughter of whales in Canadian waters. He should be ashamed of himself for supporting that initiative and suggesting that he also wants to come out with legislation for marine parks.

On that basis I will be voting against the legislation because it is a scam against Canadians to suggest that the government is in any way concerned about our marine environment.

[Petitions, November 2nd, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, the second petition that I am pleased to present to the House is again on behalf of the residents of Saanich—Gulf Islands.

It relates to private member's Bill C-304, which is again a fundamental principle that needs to be propped up in our society. It would strengthen the protection of property rights and the Canadian bill of rights.