Rob Anders

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

Mr. Speaker, I care deeply about Bill C-53.

Once again for the folks at home so they know what is happening, Bill C-53, the small business financing act, is what we are debating. Motion No. 12 has been put forward by a Reform colleague of mine, the member for Saskatoon—Humboldt. He wants to make sure there is proper accountability with regard to this. Lo and behold, the Reform Party is once again talking about accountability and is trying to amend a government bill to make it a better bill and to make the world a better place.

As it does with most motions put forward by the opposition, the government has grouped them according to how similar they are. Reform Motion No. 12 is in Group No. 6.

We want to see changes. Members across the way like to see change. That is what I am going to talk about. They want to see changes.

We want to see a minimum sentence as opposed to a maximum sentence of six months which an individual can receive for making a false application for fraudulent claim in relation to the act. The motion also established that fines can also be issued in a minimum as opposed to a maximum. In severe circumstances the minimum length of incarceration, if warranted, would be six months. This is taxpayer money. Serious theft thereof should carry something more than a slap on the wrist or a fine.

Let me boil down what the Reform Party is trying to do. The government talks about a maximum sentence if someone makes a false—

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

Mr. Speaker, let me read it verbatim for members across the way so they can make sure they get the full benefit of it. The amendment was brought forward by the member for Saskatchewan—Humboldt, a Reform colleague of mine. I want to focus the debate for them because I was talking about political interference. I will read it as it stands: “This amendment is brought forward in order to make the bill's regulatory process more open”.

That is what the Reform Party is trying to do. We are trying to make the regulatory process more open. I hope the member across the way has his ears open. We are trying to make it more open and make it more accountable.

That is speaking about as directly as I can to Motions Nos. 9 and 10. By tabling regulations in parliament and having the House of Commons or a committee subsequently pass them, we want to make sure an effective check is placed on ministers or departmental officials in terms of a bill to arbitrarily implement changes in the legislation. That is as straightforward as it gets. I am reading it straight up.

There is a widespread problem where departmental officials and ministers will bring through the back door via regulations what they would not or will not spell out in legislation. We are opposed to this practice and are attempting to remedy the problem. That is about as direct as I can be in terms of the problems we are facing and why we brought forward Motions Nos. 9 and 10.

The problem is that we have too many examples in this place of where the Liberals have said “Trust us”. They were to put the legislation forward and not cross all the t 's and dot all the i 's. They said “Don't worry. Some capable technocrat or bureaucrat will know what is best for you”. They will tinker with it and and make whatever changes they feel best.

Shame on them. Fool me once and shame on the Liberals. Fool me twice and what we have is a government that has broken trust too many times. We put our faith in the government and it went ahead and raised our taxes and brought in more regulation. It made it more difficult to do business and to generate jobs. The Liberals say they believe in creating jobs, jobs, jobs, but we see the record of political interference, bad loan policies and defaults. I am sorry I cannot put my faith in them on this one.

I want to see it printed in black and white. I want to be able to debate it in the House as we are doing now. Members across the way would be content to sit down, not debate and allow it to pass. It is evidence, point in fact, because they brought forward closure legislation that they do not want the legislation looked at with any great degree of scrutiny or a microscope brought to it. They want it shovelled through so they can leave for Christmas, not worry about it any more and pass it off to the bureaucrats.

That is what they would prefer to do. They do not like the business of governing. It would be a lot easier to set up third party arm's length relationships so that when something happens the minister cannot be blamed. It will be some nameless, faceless bureaucrat they can fire and blame the problem on. That is not good enough. They are the stewards of taxpayers money. They are the ones who vote for the increase in taxes.

If they do that, the onus is on them. They have a responsibility as Liberal legislators to make sure we debate these issues and that they are not being decided by some bureaucrat behind closed doors. They should be brought out for scrutiny so that we have a chance to debate the decisions. They should be accountable for them without arm's length relationships or firing somebody in the bureaucracy or in the ministry.

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

The Blood Bank Corporation. The hon member asked me to name one. I would only be too happy to talk about these types of things and how insidious they can be. It is not the only example.

Just in the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency one can count a number of problems where the Liberals promised to create jobs and did not do the job in a number of these cases just because of political interference. People overrode guidelines that were set for the granting of money or for providing a loan and the Liberals closed their eyes because they were political friends.

They covered them up despite the fact they knew it would not work and that they knew they did not have a commitment from the Chinese government for $300 million worth of business for the storage of blood. They went ahead and gave out over $2 million of federal taxpayer money. The Government of Newfoundland helped out with another $500,000. They used that to finance from private people $6.3 million. Now everybody is holding the bag for about $10 million.

With a million here and a million there, pretty soon we are talking real money. That is the problem when we allow tinkering behind the scenes by bureaucrats. They go ahead and they put taxpayers dollars at risk.

I look around and see the pages in the House. They are the ones who will have to pay taxes because of what the government has done. They are the ones who will have to pay for the mistakes. They are the ones who will be left holding the bag on some of these bad loans and these defaults.

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

Mr. Speaker, if government members were so proud of this piece of legislation I know they would stand in this place to defend it, but they do not. There is a general lack of interest on the government side in this regard yet they have brought in closure. Something smells funny.

My Liberal friends across the way would like me to focus on the motions actually mentioned in Group No. 5. They are Motions Nos. 9 and 10. This is all about making the process a more open process. The way it is done right now we need an effective check to be placed on the minister, the minister's departmental officials and their ability to arbitrarily implement changes in the legislation.

I will talk about these back door regulations that the government can bring in. I remember in the red book promises of 1993 and 1997 how the government across the way, the Liberals, talked about wanting a more open, transparent government. I support that. I think we should have a more open and transparent government. The reason I do not vote Liberal is that I believe in those things but I have not seen them deliver. That is the problem.

Once again I speak to the people at home. They are the ones who will have to make these decisions in the next election. They should make sure they get a hold of Motions Nos. 9 and 10 in Group No. 5 with regard to Bill C-53, the Small Business Loans Act. The government has brought in closure. It has tried to stifle the debate the opposition has tried to generate and the amendments to improve the legislation.

The hon. member for Saskatoon—Humboldt put a lot of time, blood, sweat, effort and tears into coming up with these changes so that we could improve the legislation. The people across the way do not want to listen to these things. Indeed I mentioned before how 44 times they have brought down closure in the House because they do not like listening to the ideas of the opposition.

Why do we want a more open process? Why do we want to prevent departmental officials in their ability to arbitrarily implement changes in the legislation? It is because small business owners want some sort of degree of predictability. They do not like being at the caprice or at the whim of the government and some of its back door officials or some of its henchmen. They do not like the idea of having legislation changed just because some bureaucrat some place, some hidden face in the bureaucracy, would like to make their lives a little more difficult or change the circumstances upon which they started their business and upon which they are going ahead and pushing forward with that business, or their ability to go ahead and access capital and financing. They do not need that type of intervention.

I spoke with respect to political interference. When one allows some bureaucrat or departmental official the ability to go ahead and tweak these regulations and do with them as they please and to treat small businesses as though they were puppets, that can lead to all types of interference and all types of corruption. We have seen that before.

It is not as though I stand in this place to speak about these things as something theoretical. They are very practical. On a day to day basis we stand in the House to put forward statements, to ask questions and to try to find out about some of the spurious activities that have gone on with regard to loans. Friends of the government have been able to benefit from loan arrangements to the tune of millions of dollars.

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

Mr. Speaker, focus we shall have. I shall focus on Group No. 4.

Motion No. 7, the Reform motion put forward by my friend the hon. member for Saskatoon—Humboldt, would change the nature of Bill C-53. We would not have as much of an expansion of the loans program.

The government across the way knows only too well about expansion. It started off as a fairly small government when the Liberals first got their hooks on it many moons ago and it has grown and grown. The taxes have gone up and up and up to deal with this growing government and this expansionist philosophy.

Speaking with the great focus which those Liberal friends of mine would like me to speak, I will deal with Motion No. 7. The volunteer sector is the not for profit organizations. There is a legitimate question to be raised about why the taxpayer should guarantee loans made to some of those organizations.

More important, Motion No. 8 expands the loan provisions. As well, this involves the ability of industry to grant loans to the volunteer and capital leasing sectors of this economy.

Industry is not just industry in terms of other businesses. More specifically, it means the department and that touches on the minister. It touches on political interference and there certainly is a history of that. When we look at government involvement in loans and the granting of loans, we could rattle off a litany of political interference with regard to loans by the Liberal administration.

I hearken to think of just a few days ago when I talked about the blood bank scandals in the fair province of Newfoundland. People are on the hook for millions of taxpayer dollars there. Jobs have gone belly up. The government loves to bleed on about how it wants to create jobs when just a few close friends are the ones milking the best of that.

Another example of political interference with regard to loans is one of the reasons we are opposed to this type of thing. I think of Charlottetown, that failed constitutional agreement that was rejected by Canadians from coast to coast. I remember how there were threats and musings over the phone by people who represented the government, saying that not for profit volunteer organizations better back the Charlottetown accord otherwise their grants might not be approved.

They went ahead and supported the Charlottetown accord. Then after they were told they had better get their grants in right away because they had been good loyal supporters of the Liberal regime. That is the reason we cannot have political interference. That is the reason we have problems with this legislation. That is the reason the opposition is talking about amending it.

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

Mr. Speaker, if the government members are not willing to speak about the glowing virtues of Bill C-53, this bill they say they are so proud of, then they are going to have to listen to me critique it a bit more. That is the way this place works.

I want the folks back home to clearly understand what is happening here today. We have a debate on Bill C-53, the Canada small business financing act. The opposition has once again made some very useful amendments to this piece of legislation. Once again, the government has brought in closure and is trying to shut down the debate. It does not want to seriously consider the amendments that have been brought forward by the various parties on this side of the House to try and make it a better piece of legislation.

Before I talk at great length about Group No. 4, I would like to note that this is not the first time the government has brought in closure. This is not the first time it has used time allocation or closure motions. As a matter of fact in the 35th Parliament the government brought in closure 35 times. There were 32 time allocation motions and three closure motions. In this brand new 36th Parliament since I was elected on June 2, 1997, the government has brought in nine time allocation motions, including the one on Bill C-53. The grand total is 44 times. There have been 41 time allocation motions and three closure motions.

The government likes to say that Bill C-53 is a boon to small business yet the Liberals want to bring in time allocation. If this were such a boon to small business, if these Liberals were so generous to small business, all of them would be in here giving speeches and sending copies off to their constituents, preening themselves about how they love small business. But no. I think they are ashamed of the fact that they have raised taxes 40 times. They have raised payroll taxes.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is just like a Liberal to interrupt you when you are on a roll about some of the problems the government has.

The Liberals talk about the Small Business Loans Act. They talk about wanting to increase the problems for the banks and the lenders which will be left holding the bag. The government will be left holding the bag. The default rates are going to continue to increase because of Liberal policies. This whole philosophy is wrong-headed. It is Liberal wrong-headed thinking. It is not talking about allowing greater competition.

I know small business people in Calgary who, when they needed money to expand their business, did not go grovelling to the Small Business Loans Act or any of those types of places. To get entrepreneurial capital they went to the banks themselves, but they could not get it because of the conservative lending philosophies. That is the way banks operate. I understand that. Where did they go? They could not get it anywhere in this country. They went across the border to institutions in the United States because there was greater competition and less regulation. As a result, they got access to the capital they needed. That is a real solution that Liberals across the way are not talking about, greater competition and less regulation in banking. That would be a—

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

Nobody gives out jobs to their political friends better than Liberals. That member across the way who heckled about Liberal jobs knows only too well about patronage. This institution is full of people who got jobs because of their friendship with the Prime Minister or other members across the way. But I do not think that is the way to provide employment in this country. I do not think that is the solution. I think the Liberal job creation strategy of patronage puts the taxpayers on the hook for these types of things and that is not the way it should go. I have never door knocked a small businessperson in this country who told me they want to make sure there is full employment in this country and, therefore, every Liberal hack across the land should get a job, and a good patronage one at that. I have never heard them say that yet.

The default rate under the Small Business Loans Act is nearly 10 times higher than in the private sector. The changes that the government wants to make will make it even worse. How is the government helping small businesses by giving them more rope to hang themselves with? That is not what they are asking for. Small business across the country is asking for tax cuts, less regulation and less government interference. They want government out of their face and the Liberal government will not give it to them. It comes back again and again. It is always meddling with private business in this country.

The Liberals think it is more important to give money to foreign aid than they think it is to give tax cuts. They think it is more important to forgive foreign banks their debts, to the tune of hundreds of millions or billions of dollars—

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

Madam Speaker, I rise on Motion No. 6 put forward by my colleague from Saskatoon. We support this amendment.

The amendment lowers the percentage of the government's liability for a defaulted loan. This means the Liberals want to increase the government's liability with regard to small business loans.

People are probably asking themselves have the Liberals not learned lessons with regard to liability. Obviously not. They are the masters of this. They have a $600 billion liability called the national debt that does not take into account the unfunded liability with the Canada pension plan, with native land claims and a host of other things we could toss on to the kitty.

The Liberal government, according to independent estimates such as the Fraser Institute, has put a total liability, in other words dug a potential hole, of two trillion dollars. The government wants to once again saddle taxpayers with future debt and future taxes with an even greater liability. The government does not think the way to solve the problems of small business is to actually lower taxes.

No, the Liberal solution for these things is always to increase the government's liability and therefore the taxpayers'. The government feels it at election but the taxpayers are the ones who feel it in the long term. The people of my generation are certainly going to be paying for all the boondoggles this government has got us into and for all the debt that it dug us into when it had some of its former prime ministers and finance ministers at the helm.

This amendment also means that the lender must assume a larger portion of any loss. Business is about calculated risk. That is something which unfortunately some of my Liberal friends across the way forget about.

If a business person is going to go to the government or is going to turn toward the Small Business Loans Act as opposed to going to a conventional bank or any other type of lender as they would for just about anything else, aside from any of these kinds of protections or special arrangements made through the Small Business Loans Act, they go ahead and negotiate a loan under normal circumstances. Under these circumstances, of course, the government picks up the liability.

It is only fair for people who want access to money, especially when it is arranged through some special contrivance with the government, to be willing to accept some level of risk. I do not think we would be asking them to accept too great a risk with the way the Small Business Loans Act would be structured by our motion. It means that there is some sort of individual responsibility. That is something that my Liberal friends across the way do not understand very well. They understand collective responsibility very well, but not individual responsibility.

I am going to digress and talk about the Charter of Rights an Freedoms to illustrate this point. The charter was based upon the idea of collective responsibility. That is something Pierre Trudeau believed in. He believed that rather than going ahead and representing people as individuals, the charter should safeguard their rights as groups. As a result, we have all sorts of groups across this land claiming victimhood status or some other sort of label. The charter does not protect people as individuals, it instead protects peoples' collective rights.

That is part and parcel of the Liberal philosophy here. It is representing collective rights. It is representing group rights. It does not talk much about the individual.

Motion No. 6, put forward by my hon. colleague from Saskatoon, states that by lowering the liability from 85% to 50% the lender also assumes a greater risk in making the loan.

The Liberals would like the government to have more liability which means that the taxpayer would have more liability. It also means that the Liberals are disregarding the idea of individual responsibility for small business accountability. They are trying to up the ante for the government to pick up the cost. As well, lo and behold, it was not bad enough that they beat up on two groups with a baseball bat, they took that bat to a third group. They actually now want the lenders, the banks or the institutions that give these loans, to have greater risk in terms of giving out this money. Is that not the solution?

When I talk to small business people they do not tell me that they want to have greater access to rope with which to hang themselves. They do not want unending supplies of rope to regulate themselves, to tie themselves up or to strangle themselves and cut off the creative juices of productivity. No, they do not want any of that.

They want lower taxes. That is what businesses are talking about. They want less regulation. They want less payroll taxes so they can employ more people and provide more jobs. But that is not something these Liberals understand very well.

[Solicitor General Of Canada, November 20th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, when Sinclair Stevens was fired from cabinet in 1986 then Prime Minister Brian Mulroney was abroad in China. After days of defending the indefensible the prime minister ordered his deputy to fire Stevens.

Why will the current Prime Minister not match the ethical standard of Brian Mulroney and fire the solicitor general?