May 16, 1978

SC

Mr. Allard

Social Credit

1. Since the implementation of the Young Canada at Work Programme, did the government allocate money to the Constituency of Rimouski and, if so, in what amount?

2. For each project accepted, what was the (a) name of the project (b) amount allocated (c) year of acceptance (d) name of the municipality involved (e) number of jobs created?

Topic:   ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
Subtopic:   QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
Sub-subtopic:   YOUNG CANADA WORKS PROGRAM
Permalink
LIB

Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen (Minister of Employment and Immigration)

Liberal

Hon. Bud Cullen (Minister of Employment and Immigration):

Topic:   ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
Subtopic:   QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
Sub-subtopic:   YOUNG CANADA WORKS PROGRAM
Permalink
SC

Mr. Beaudoin

Social Credit

How many passengers did CNR and CPR carry in (a) 1977 (b) 1967?

Topic:   ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
Subtopic:   QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
Sub-subtopic:   CNR-CPR
Permalink
LIB

Bernard Pierre Loiselle (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce)

Liberal

Mr. Bernard Loiselle (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):

Statistics Canada reports the following: A comparison of the number of passengers carried by Canadian National and Canadian Pacific in (a) 1977 and (b) 1967 is provided in the table below:

Year

(a) 1977

(b) 1967

Revenue Passengers Carried1

by CNR and CPR 1967 and 1977

Canadian National

Railways Canadian Pacific Ltd.

9,538,522 3,861,761

17,620,665 6,138,757

1 Includes commuter passengers.

It should be noted that 1967 data reflect the influence on passenger travel of Expo 1967 in Montreal and other celebrations marking Canada's centennial.

Topic:   ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
Subtopic:   QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
Sub-subtopic:   CNR-CPR
Permalink
LIB

Yvon Pinard (Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Privy Council)

Liberal

Mr. Pinard:

I ask, Mr. Speaker, that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.

Topic:   ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
Subtopic:   QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
Sub-subtopic:   CNR-CPR
Permalink
?

Some hon. Members:

Agreed.

Topic:   ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
Subtopic:   QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
Sub-subtopic:   CNR-CPR
Permalink

POINT OF ORDER

MR. FRIESEN-DELAY IN ANSWERING QUESTION NO. 1,306

PC

Benno Friesen

Progressive Conservative

Mr. Benno Friesen (Surrey-White Rock):

Mr. Speaker, I submitted question No. 1,306 on February 10. It is not that complicated a question to answer. Much of it is statistical, but it is very important for me that I have the information for which I asked in that question. I would ask the parliamentary secretary if he could ensure that this question is answered quickly.

Topic:   POINT OF ORDER
Subtopic:   MR. FRIESEN-DELAY IN ANSWERING QUESTION NO. 1,306
Permalink

GOVERNMENT ORDERS

BUSINESS OF SUPPLY

PC

Otto John Jelinek

Progressive Conservative

Mr. Otto Jelinek (High Park-Humber Valley) moved:

That this House regards the small business sector as a key to the regeneration of economic growth, increased employment, an improved balance of payments position and increased Canadian ownership of the industrial and resource sectors, and therefore urges the government to end the delay in formulating small business policies by immediately taking steps to:

(1) implement a small business act, to include a realistic definition of small business, the criterion for which will be owner-management;

(2) give tax rebates and other incentives to those small businesses which invest in research and development;

(3) provide an incentive tax credit to any Canadian citizen who makes a direct investment in the equity of a Canadian-owned business;

(4) amend those provisions of the Income Tax Act which discourage the transfer of small businesses within families or to employees; and

(5) create a small business secretariat, independent of the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce, its duties to include:

(a) ensuring that the decisions of the federal departments and agencies reflect the interests of small business,

(b) assisting small businesses to form consortia to improve opportunities for export and domestic trade,

(c) establishing a Fixed proportion of government-purchased goods and services, to be supplied by small businesses, and

(d) exempting small businesses from the application of federal legislation potentially harmful to them.

Topic:   GOVERNMENT ORDERS
Subtopic:   BUSINESS OF SUPPLY
Sub-subtopic:   ALLOTTED DAY S.O. 58-MEASURES TO IMPROVE SMALL BUSINESS POLICIES
Permalink
LIB

James Alexander Jerome (Speaker of the House of Commons)

Liberal

Mr. Speaker:

Order, please. Hon. members will note that the proceedings on this motion will expire at the ordinary hour of adjournment later this day, pursuant to Standing Order 58(11).

Before giving the floor to the hon. member for High Park-Humber Valley (Mr. Jelinek), I should like to bring to the attention of hon, members that I have been advised just now

May 16, 1978

that at ten minutes to three o'clock this afternoon the bill referred to by the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton (Mr. Baker) was distributed.

Topic:   GOVERNMENT ORDERS
Subtopic:   BUSINESS OF SUPPLY
Sub-subtopic:   ALLOTTED DAY S.O. 58-MEASURES TO IMPROVE SMALL BUSINESS POLICIES
Permalink
PC

Otto John Jelinek

Progressive Conservative

Mr. Jelinek:

Mr. Speaker, hon. members will note that my motion is rather lengthy. The reason for that, of course, is to catch up on lost time, the time since the Department of State for Small Business was formed two and a half years ago. It was just over two and one half years ago that a long awaited and welcomed move took place when the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) appointed a member to his cabinet who would be responsible for looking after the interests of the small business community. At that time a glimmer of hope arose within this vast and major sector of our economy, and we hoped that at long last specific action would be taken to reduce the maze of bureaucratic regulations, controls, and directives, and that the general paperwork onslaught would be replaced with meaningful, incentive-oriented programs. Unfortunately our hopes have turned to disappointment. What seemed like an emerging light at the end of a long dark tunnel turned into nothing more than a marathon of studies upon studies.

In the meantime, we have attempted to offer a number of realistic recommendations dealing with the potential solution of the Canadian small business problem, in the House as well as across the country. We have developed a number of positive programs which we were looking forward to implementing as early as this coming fall. However, the Prime Minister put a monkey wrench into that by postponing the call for a federal election. Now that we will have to continue to suffer the government's inability to deal with the problems at hand for at least another few months, and possibly a full year, we would like to present a number of recommendations and proposals which have received general acceptance from the small business community, some of which are outline in the motion before us.

As we all know, because small business is the backbone of the Canadian economic way of life; because Canadian-owned and operated enterprises are diminishing rapidly, as witnessed by the number of bankruptcies which increased over 38 per cent in 1977 from the previous year, not to mention the number of businesses which are moving south of the border in order to operate within healthier economic climates; and because of the importance of restimulating the small business community, we must deal with the matter on as strictly a non-partisan basis as possible. Therefore it is my hope that the government will consider seriously, either by stealing, begging or borrowing, some of our recommendations. In fact the government does not have to stoop to that. It should consider seriously some of the recommendations, if not all of the recommendations and suggestions, that my colleagues and I will make today.

Before dealing with the recommendations, I should like to compliment the hon. Minister of State for Small Business (Mr. Abbott). I am sure that compliment comes as a surprise to him. I compliment him for taking at least the initial, long-

Small Business

awaited steps in attempting to reduce the paperwork burden which is so harmful to small businessmen, and for having produced the CALURA amendments. Also I compliment the minister and his predecessor for initiating the many studies, as outlined in the minister's booklet entitled, "Perspectives". These studies are all that have taken place. Unfortunately, those ongoing studies do not solve, in any way, shape or form, the present problems and concerns faced by small businessmen in this country.

I know we have received promises of action by the government, even as recently as last Friday when the minister indicated that he hoped to bring new programs before the House soon. We heard them in the throne speeches of 1973, 1974, and 1976. We heard them in a number of budget proposals. Yet, next to amending or updating existing programs, such as the Small Businesses Loans Act, no specific incentive oriented programs to assist small business have been implemented.

I sympathize with the minister because he is living in a policy vacuum. The small business community is slowly becoming aware of the fact that he is offering nothing more than lip service. Is it any wonder? 1 do not blame the minister himself. I blame the government and the Prime Minister for creating a lame duck department which does not have the power or the right to deal directly with the problems and potential solutions of the small business community. Imagine the unfortunate position of being dictated by and responsible to the minister from Crowfoot, who is serving out his time in parliament very quickly.

The manner in which this ministry is set up creates yet another horrendous bureaucratic animal, where the minister is responsible to so many other departments and ministries that he loses track of who to see, about what, and when. Therefore our first recommendation is to make the small business secretariat independent of the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce, as well as other departments, and basically to make it a one stop service centre. Instead of keeping small firms abreast of all aspects of government policy, the sector divisions of the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce are usually ignorant, and small producers often are forced to deal with several other divisions of that department, as well as with other departments and agencies. I am referring, for example, to special import policy, enterprise development, revenue, finance, DREE, and the anti-dumping tribunal, just to name a few.

The small business secretariat, as proposed by our party, must be made aware of the policies of other departments regarding small business. It should be capable of co-ordinating the various policies so that a small firm requiring assistance will have the benefit of a one stop service centre and will not be shunted from department to department. Small firms are far too important to be kicked around.

Although the Ministry of State for Small Business has failed to develop programs and policies beyond the promise and study stages, after two years and two different ministers,

5466

May 16, 1978

Small Business

several departments administer programs meant to encourage small business development. The Department of Finance is responsible for the Small Businesses Loans Act. We propose the transfer of responsibility for this act to the small business secretariat, as is the case with any other matter relating to small business.

The Department of Regional Economic Expansion has developed extensive programs for the encouragement of small business in the developing regions of this nation. The small business secretariat must move out of its glass tower at the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce and be prepared to work with others in the field to develop further small businesses. The secretariat must be aware of the programs and activities of other departments which may have an adverse effect on small business. I am referring to the Department of Finance Bank Act, the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs competition policy, the Department of Agriculture marketing boards, the Department of External Affairs international development agency, and the Department of National Revenue tariff policies.

Without awareness of the policies of other departments which directly affect small business, and the mandate to administer most small business-oriented programs, the secretariat can never move beyond the purposeless and functionless existence which it operates within presently. Because we believe small business is so important, we could not but expect the small business secretariat to become a focal point for Canadian small businesses.

What is small business? What is the definition of small business? I have attempted to receive a definition for some time from the government in order to know with what part of the Canadian constituency we are dealing. For example, in March, 1977, when asked to define small business, the then minister was unable to do so, even as it related to his own portfolio. Later he indicated that perhaps it would not be wise to define small business in any event because it would confuse matters. However, in September, 1977, the government finally made public the following definition:

-independently-owned firms which have not developed the managerial structures typical of large, mature corporations ... and that branch plants should not be excluded automatically from the small business community.

Therefore, according to that definition, branch plants of foreign-owned multinational corporations were included in the government's definition of small business.

Again last Friday when questioned in the House, the minister defined small business as follows:

-as a business with fewer than 100 employees and which in general terms is legally and financially independent of a large corporation.

We finally have our first incentive to small business provided by this government. It was created two and half years ago, and it is an incentive not to increase growth and employment in order to remain within the limits of that definition. It is one of the most ridiculous definitions I have ever seen because it limits companies on the verge of breaking the 100

employee mark if they want to increase their employment and therefore their productivity and growth.

Notwithstanding that definition by the minister, this government in less than one year has come up with four different positions in so far as a definition is concerned. Is it any wonder that a nightmare of confusion and uncertainty exists within not only the small business sector but our whole economy? My party's definition, which we have been consistently recommending for a number of years, is based on a definition-and I am not ashamed to admit it-put forth by the United States Small Business Administration, "a small business is one that is owner managed and not dominant in its field." This definition has worked effectively in the United States and is being widely accepted by many.

We should not be ashamed to borrow things that work, and certainly we should look at the example of the United States Small Business Administration which has been in existence for 25 years, including some of the incentive-oriented programs they have established. This definition is accepted by many business-oriented groups such as the Canadian Federation of Independent Business, and even by some Liberals. As a matter of fact, the Ontario Liberal party's official definition of small business is exactly the same as our proposed definition, and I would hope that the federal Liberals would at least follow the example of their counterpart in the provincial legislature.

Despite all of these studies which we are talking about, the government continues to remain confused, whether it be on the issue of definitions or of presenting incentive programs because of the promises which have never been kept, from that first promise in the 1973 throne speech. We need less government interference and far more incentive-oriented programs and opportunities if our Canadian owned, operated and controlled, small business sector is to prosper. It is as simple as that, and we cannot continue to swamp them with bureaucratic directives.

The minister must agree that all of these studies have gone far beyond the guidelines and have created a maze of bureaucracy. None of the studies has produced any legislation or a program that has even been presented on behalf of the small businessmen. The small business ministry in this country, as I stated earlier, has been in existence for roughly two and a half years, yet the government's own attitude toward the small business sector has not changed. The government still does not have a small business policy. Two and a half years, the minister says.

Topic:   GOVERNMENT ORDERS
Subtopic:   BUSINESS OF SUPPLY
Sub-subtopic:   ALLOTTED DAY S.O. 58-MEASURES TO IMPROVE SMALL BUSINESS POLICIES
Permalink
LIB

Anthony Chisholm Abbott (Minister of State (Small Businesses))

Liberal

Mr. Abbott:

It was created in the fall of 1976.

Topic:   GOVERNMENT ORDERS
Subtopic:   BUSINESS OF SUPPLY
Sub-subtopic:   ALLOTTED DAY S.O. 58-MEASURES TO IMPROVE SMALL BUSINESS POLICIES
Permalink
PC

Otto John Jelinek

Progressive Conservative

Mr. Jelinek:

Two years. I stand corrected on that, Mr. Speaker. However, even at that the government still does not have a small business policy nor does it have a small business act, and probably has not even considered one. Yet the minister in answer to many questions comes back and says, "John Bulloch of the Federation of Independent Businessmen agrees with what we are doing." However, John Bulloch also agrees with a small business act, and I am not suggesting that we

May 16, 1978

follow the wishes of John Bulloch to the "t". I repeat, I am more satisfied with the United States Small Business Administration outcome. Their small business act has worked effectively and proficiently for the United States small business sector.

I believe that if the government is serious in dealing with the problems of small business, the most realistic and effective way of committing itself to these problems is to implement a small business act. This we are recommending.

The small business act would co-ordinate and define federal law and policy affecting the small business sector. Such an act would adopt the definition of small business used in other effective legislation as "owner operated companies not dominant in their field", as I said earlier. More important, that act would ensure that a small business program is not tucked away and isolated in some department whose first concern lies elsewhere.

The independent secretariat would then, as a result of this act, be committed to deal with the problems first hand. It would ensure that the decisions of other federal departments and agencies reflect the interests of small business. It would exempt small businesses from the application of federal legislation potentially harmful to them.

What legislation is harmful? For example, in the present case of import quotas, we accept the need to limit temporarily footwear and textile imports to a percentage of the Canadian market. That is a piece of legislation offered by this government which has, indeed, been harmful to many Canadian small businesses. The Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Horner) has muddled what ought to have been a positive move to protect Canadian jobs. Some would suggest that he has destroyed more jobs through store closings caused by the quotas than are protected by these import restraints.

I am sure the minister knows that by imposing the quotas for the protection of large shoe manufacturers or textile manufacturers he has forgotten, or ignored as is the case on most occasions, the small business sector which automatically falls within those quotas. The small specialty shops across the country cannot compete with the large manufacturers in any way but they also fall under these import quotas on textiles and shoes, and they go bankrupt as a result.

There are many cases of this. I have received a number of concerned letters in my own office and I am sure the minister has received similar letters. I have received representations from small business shoe retail outlets across the country and the same with textiles and clothing stores which import specialty items from, for example, Italy or Mexico. So the job of the independent secretariat, instead of being dictated to by IT and C and by the other large departments and instead of going through red tape in order to effect anything on behalf of the small businessman, would be in a far better position to deal separately with small business and keep it away from the harmful pieces of legislation that are good for the large corporations but not necessarily good for the small ones.

We have yet to hear the small business minister either publicly denounce the treatment small retailers have received

Small Business

at the hands of the quota administrators or to intervene to protect small retailers from the disastrous effects of such quota administration. Our proposed small business secretariat could exempt when necessary small firms from such harsh regulations. It would intervene before the regulatory body to assist the development of clear criteria for small business that would consider the problems such quotas may cause when constructed and administered without thought for these small firms.

I believe I have indicated that the only action this government has taken thus far, generally speaking, was to reshuffle old programs and amend and update existing legislation, whether it be changing the IDB to the FBDB or amending the Small Businesses Loans Act in order to keep up with the times. But even those amendments are not realistic. For example, in the loans act, those businesses eligible are defined as a small business enterprise whose estimated gross revenue does not exceed $1.5 million a year. You will recall that this is one of the amendments that increased the gross revenue from $1 million to $1.5 million.

On June 13 I moved a motion in the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs as the Small Business Loans Act was being amended, and I quote in part the text of that motion as follows:

-to change the definition so that subsidiary companies with parent companies who have sales over the amount ($1.5 million)... would not be eligible-

The then minister of small business was forced to accept the concept embodied in my motion. In committee he stated:

I have accepted the spirit of the recommendation. I make a commitment that we will bring forth an appropriate amendment at the report stage.

Although promises were made, th: amendments to the Small Businesses Loans Act passed tht House of Commons on June 13, 1977, without any reference to the ability of subsidiaries of large multinational companies to receive assistance under the act.

According to this legislation, which is the law of the land, today a small business is one having less than $1.5 million in sales. Let us consider several of these companies. There is, for example, Nordex Explosives Ltd., based in Montreal. Their sales in 1976 were $855,000. This company is safely under the small business sales limit of $1.5 million. But is this company in fact a small business? I would argue that it is not. And I think the major shareholder of the company, the Dow Chemical Investment and Finance Corporation of Michigan, would be rather surprised to hear that a company they control is a small business. Dow Chemical's assets exceeded $7.7 billion in 1977.

Another Canadian firm which appears to fit into this small business definition in the legislation, with only $1.3 million in revenue, is Debhold (Canada) Ltd., a subsidiary of De Beers Consolidated Mines Ltd., the international conglomerate holding a near monopoly in the world diamond market, yet they are eligible under the Small Businesses Loans Act. There are many others. There is Husky Leasebacks Ltd., and the list goes on and on. It is sufficient to show that a definition based

80038-56^

May 16, 1978

Small Business

on size alone, as used by the Small Businesses Loans Act, does not always describe what is the most important feature of a small business, that it be owner managed, as in our definition. The minister and the government must consider using that definition which has been accepted internationally. Naturally, this party would like to remove the ability of subsidiaries of multinational corporations operating in Canada to apply for and receive assistance under this act.

Still on the loans act, Mr. Speaker, in order to help owner-operated enterprises raise working capital, we are recommending that the small business loans program cover working, as well as investment capital where such funds are not available through normal commercial arrangements. We feel that including working capital assistance within the loans act would enhance the use of the act and assist the small firms where assistance is most required.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I have attempted to be as general as possible in talking to our very positive motion today. I will not repeat all the points in the motion, but it spells out many of the incentive-oriented programs we proposed, including-and this is a surprise to me and maybe the minister could speak on it- amendment of those provisions of the Income Tax Act which discourage the transfer of small businesses within families or to employees. The last budget indicated that incorporated farms would be exempt from the implications of this, so it is beyond me why the rest of the small business sector was excluded. I understand the minister will reply to my remarks, so I hope he will try to answer this question. We have made this proposal for a number of years, and prior to the minister's appointment, of course.

Some of my colleagues will speak on the areas of taxation and farming, and the hon. member for Hal ton-Wentworth (Mr. Kempling) will discuss research and development. But I have one point to make on that subject. In the last budget no mention was made regarding small business proposals, with the exception of the reduction in the provincial sales tax which is a short term, phony way of improving the situation. We do not see consumers flocking to retail outlets. As a matter of fact, Mr. Ted Burton, who represents Simpsons, the large Canadian retail outlet, has indicated that the reduction of the sales tax will not substantially increase consumer purchasing in retail outlets. Yet this was the minister's answer to the problems that small business in this country was facing.

I have said I will not dwell on research and development because my colleague will deal with that matter. Tax breaks were given for research and development, however, but in what sector were they given? To multinational foreign-owned oil conglomerates. There is nothing wrong with that, but again small business has been left out. This government supports a trend toward centralization and concentration of power, be it larger and fewer multinationals, bigger and stronger labour unions, or costly and more powerful bureaucratic governments.

The whole issue here is to decentralize, of course, and that is why when speaking on behalf of the small businessmen, not necessarily on behalf of my party, I am truly disappointed with the results of the just announced Bryce commission which not

only supports but strongly recommends the concentration of economic power which would, on a long term basis, allow small business literally to go down the drain. That has been the trend of this government for at least ten years.

The fact that this government is more costly than any in the history of Confederation is no secret. I shall not go over the statistics. The concentration of union power is as damaging to the economy as a whole as to the small businessmen. The Post Office deficit alone has increased by 872 per cent to over $651 million. Yet in ten years postal rates have increased from six to 14 cents, while the mail service has deteriorated to such an extent that Indian smoke signals over one hundred years ago were more efficient and cheaper.

We must no longer allow this permissiveness on the part of the government to continue. We must begin to decentralize and, I believe, especially in the case of the Post Office, the right to strike should be removed from all monopolistic essential services in Canada.

I have outlined some of the positive, incentive-oriented programs which we are recommending and which the government has ignored since and before this minister was appointed.

I hope that serious consideration will be given to our proposals. Had the Prime Minister not backed down from calling an election, in a month or two we would be in a position to implement these programs.

In closing, I would like to repeat what I have said often in this chamber, something which I believe is imperative if our democratic way of life is to survive. If we want the small business sector to survive within our society, as I am sure we all do, then immediate action must be taken by the federal government. The small business community is what the free enterprise system is all about. It is what this country is built on and what this country can prosper by. Other countries which presently are more fortunate than Canada with respect to unemployment, inflation, productivity, and other areas by which the standard to success is judged, have all concentrated their economic energies toward their small firms sector within their industrial way of life.

My concern is so genuine regarding the problems of small business and freedom of enterprise that I hope the seriousness of these problems can be dealt with, as I said, on a non-partisan basis. We cannot wait any longer, the small business community cannot wait any longer, and Canadians cannot wait any longer for the government to move in a positive direction in this regard. I hope hon. members will realize the seriousness of the situation and consider some of the proposals which we are outlining today. Opportunities still exist in Canada-

Topic:   GOVERNMENT ORDERS
Subtopic:   BUSINESS OF SUPPLY
Sub-subtopic:   ALLOTTED DAY S.O. 58-MEASURES TO IMPROVE SMALL BUSINESS POLICIES
Permalink
LIB

John Napier Turner

Liberal

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):

Order, please. I regret to interrupt the hon. member but his allotted time has expired. He may continue with the unanimous consent of the House. Does the hon. member have unanimous consent?

Topic:   GOVERNMENT ORDERS
Subtopic:   BUSINESS OF SUPPLY
Sub-subtopic:   ALLOTTED DAY S.O. 58-MEASURES TO IMPROVE SMALL BUSINESS POLICIES
Permalink
?

Some hon. Members:

Agreed.

Topic:   GOVERNMENT ORDERS
Subtopic:   BUSINESS OF SUPPLY
Sub-subtopic:   ALLOTTED DAY S.O. 58-MEASURES TO IMPROVE SMALL BUSINESS POLICIES
Permalink
PC

Otto John Jelinek

Progressive Conservative

Mr. Jelinek:

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the unanimous consent. I was just coming to the end of my remarks. I repeat

May 16, 1978

and emphasize to the minister, who sits there grinning, that I hope he will approve some of the recommendations we have been making. I hope he will seriously consider putting into effect some of the studies the government has made in the last few years, as well as our incentive-oriented programs, including the recommendation for a secretariat separate from the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce. I am sure the minister himself would like to see that. I hope the minister will seriously consider implementing these things before it is too late for the small businessman in Canada, and before it is too late for the free enterprise that Canadians have grown to accept as a way of life.

Topic:   GOVERNMENT ORDERS
Subtopic:   BUSINESS OF SUPPLY
Sub-subtopic:   ALLOTTED DAY S.O. 58-MEASURES TO IMPROVE SMALL BUSINESS POLICIES
Permalink
?

Some hon. Members:

Hear, hear!

Topic:   GOVERNMENT ORDERS
Subtopic:   BUSINESS OF SUPPLY
Sub-subtopic:   ALLOTTED DAY S.O. 58-MEASURES TO IMPROVE SMALL BUSINESS POLICIES
Permalink

May 16, 1978