John McKay

[Immigration, March 27th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, given your elevated status in life I do not know whether you have occasion to take taxis to and from the Ottawa airport. However, other members and I do and, in fact, there will be a rush for the taxis in a short period of time. The likelihood is that I will be picked up by a computer engineer from Sri Lanka, delivered to the airport and then returned to my home by a science graduate from Sri Lanka. I was delivered to my office building this morning by a history graduate from Kenya.

Our greatest resources are our human resources. It is somewhat scandalous that in this country we do not use our immigrants in a more useful fashion which would allow them to contribute to our country.

The legislative review entitled “Not Just Numbers” states the following in recommendation No. 27: “The proposed federal-provincial council on immigration protection should establish access to trades and professions and foreign credential recognition—”

[Income Tax Amendments Act, 1997, March 23rd, 1998]

Madam Speaker, far be it for me to refocus the Reform Party on its actual motion, but the motion that is before us is with respect to the impact of the proposed 10% tax on municipalities.

The beauty of this motion is that it attempts to focus the activities of a municipality.

A municipality, by definition, occupies a particular geographical area. By definition it is to provide services to its constituents where the constituents are in need of garbage services, education services or services of that nature. Those are public services. Those are services which are supplied at cost and for which people are not expecting the entity that supplies the service to be making a profit.

I understand that all municipalities are in this hunt for revenue. All governments in all countries are in a hunt for revenue. But this is a proposal which attempts to refocus and rebalance that concept. Municipalities should not be hunting for revenue by supplying services where other entities in our society supply those services.

If any motion prevailed with respect to the law of unintended consequences, this is it. May I suggest that there are a number of very significant unintended consequences that will result from the hon. member's motion.

The first unintended consequence is that municipality will be set up against municipality to supply services in order to be able to generate the most revenue. In other words, it will not have to go to its tax base, it will go to other forms of revenue. We will have, for instance, the municipality of Hamilton competing with the municipality of Kingston to supply service x at the cheapest and lowest cost. Therefore, whichever municipality gets to supply that service will not have to go to its tax base to generate revenue. Some of that is happening.

The beauty of the proposal by the government is that it will cut the matter off at 10%. After 10% of its gross revenues the municipality will not have the incentive to seek to augment its income in that manner.

Similarly, it will set up the unintended consequence of a private corporation competing with the municipality to supply a service. That is quite bizarre because the Reform Party's motivation, raison d'être, is to enhance and encourage the private sector. We will have this bizarre experience of a municipality competing with the private sector over the same service. With the huge advantages of a municipality, the private sector will not be able to supply the service.

Second, a municipality, again by definition, has an enormous infrastructure. It has secretaries, it has telephones systems, it has buildings, et cetera. It could in a number of instances undercut the private sector by a means which the hon. member might not have thought his way through.

The third and beautiful unintended consequence is that it provides a huge benefit to my municipality of Toronto. Most Canadians, from my experience in travelling across the country, do not think that Toronto should receive very many benefits at all. It is a national pastime to hate Toronto. There are some members here who would agree with that.

I might point out to the hon. member that Toronto is the seventh largest entity in Canada. It ranks ahead of a number of provinces. If this motion goes through it will provide to Toronto an enormous advantage because there will be an enormous incentive on the part of Mr. Lastman and his staff to create services to augment revenue, to knock the private sector out of the game. I do not know whether the hon. member wants to create a situation such as that, but that is a very real possibility and again follows through with the law of unintended consequences.

If the hon. member wishes to set up conflicts between municipalities, if he wants to set up conflicts between the private sector and municipalities, if he wants to benefit Toronto in particular but large municipalities in general, then we should probably stand aside and let this motion pass. However, I believe that the government's direction is far wiser. It is saying to municipalities generally that they can generate revenue and, yes, they will be allowed a certain amount of activity outside their municipal sphere.

However, once they go beyond 10% of their revenues being generated outside their geographical area or municipal sphere, then they will be taxed like any other entity. As with all governments, that achieves a balance which is a good balance and is healthy for this country.

I hope it also addresses the issue of the balancing of revenues among all three levels of government.

[Banks, March 18th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, it was recently reported that a Canadian went into a bank in order to obtain a loan and as a condition of obtaining the loan was required to transfer his mutual funds.

My question is to the Minister of State for Financial Institutions. What is he going to do about this action of tied, coercive selling?

[The Economy, March 10th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I rise in the House tonight to add my congratulations to the Minister of Finance on the balanced budget. Not only did he balance the budget but he brought in a budget with balance.

Governing is more than merely making the books balance. If you are not fiscally responsible you will soon not have a nation to govern.

I am one of those who thought that debt reduction should be the first priority. After 30 years of running deficits it seemed to me that getting our fiscal house in order was the highest priority. I heard that at the door. I heard it at three town hall forums. I heard it by way of correspondence and I heard it in my office. The people of Scarborough East repeatedly said to me that debt reduction was the highest priority.

I communicated those views to the minister and to the Prime Minister, privately and in caucus. I was therefore pleased to see the commitment of the minister to debt reduction. It is something to be celebrated.

The budget documents that the debt for fiscal year 1997-98 will be $583 billion. That is a serious amount of money by anyone's standards.

The debt is divided into two components: market debt and non-market debt. Approximately $477 billion or 80% of the debt is in fact market debt. Because the total is so high our percentage of GDP is approximately 73.1%, which has since been revised down to about 71%. Some market analysts actually put our GDP to debt ratio at about 68%, primarily due to the growth in the economy.

We will recall recently that when the Prime Minister was in New York he chastized money market traders who buy and sell the Canadian dollar. He called them the men in red suspenders. He was upset because Canada's fiscal house was in order, the fundamentals were the best of all the G-7 nations, and yet the dollar continued to be discounted.

Unfortunately our debt is high relative to our G-7 partners and the traders have noticed. We have no choice but to commit ourselves to a steady reduction in the absolute amount of the debt.

Some economists feel that the economy will grow us out of our debt difficulties. However, if one is to commit oneself to the virtuous circle, one needs to make an absolute commitment to debt reduction.

With the greatest respect, I do not believe that merely letting the economy grow us out of our difficulties is an answer. There are at least two significant reasons beyond interest rate fluctuations for that view. The first is the diminished size and role of government in the lives of Canadians. The second is the wild card effect of a rogue provincial government.

When the people in red suspenders look at Canada they are not only looking at federal government debt. They are looking at national debt. The provinces contribute to the national debt. In fact, if we add the provincial debt to the federal debt, it virtually adds up to 100% of the gross domestic product. If every man, woman and child worked in this country for an entire year they might pay off the debt.

Canadians have been saying in a variety of ways that there is too much government and too much overlap. In some measure the government has listened and has devolved or even abandoned areas of jurisdiction to other levels of government. The House has vociferously debated those things, but even after the cacophony has died down this is a reduced federal government, a reduced entity.

The net effect of the role of government, therefore, in terms of GDP is a reduced role. The government plays a significantly reduced role in the gross domestic product and the red suspenders crowd has noticed.

Another reality is the role of provincial government national debt. New Brunswick, Saskatchewan and Alberta have all balanced their budgets and are not contributing to the debt. However I cannot say that for Ontario.

Ontario will over the course of the mandate of the current government add $30 billion to the national debt. It is a charter member of the flat earth society. It expects that the provincial economy will grow its way out of its difficulties. This is a terrible waste of a time of prosperity. It is as if we have learned nothing. We have learned nothing from the Mulroney years where there were periods of prosperity which were squandered.

The men in red suspenders have taken note and Canada does not get enough respect, a la Rodney Dangerfield, because Canada is far from out of the woods when it comes to the management of the national debt.

The federal government, to its credit, paid down $13 billion of market debt last year. In addition, it did not go to the market for any new debt. It reduced the ratio of foreign debt as a per capita and a per cent of the overall federal debt. It is on the way to becoming a master of its own house.

However, certain provinces have not seen the light, in particular the province of Ontario. The good efforts of the federal government may well be offset by those provinces. The men in red suspenders, I anticipate, will have a few more profitable years.

The federal government wants the ratio down from 73% over the course of the mandate to a low 60% or 50%. A number of private forecasters have in fact said that will happen. For instance, CIBC-Wood Gundy predicts that even if the contingency reserve is not used there will be an absolute reduction in the net debt by about $20 billion over the next two budget years.

Instead of a debt to GDP ratio of something in the order of 70%, it will be down around 59.7% according to that private forecaster. It is good news indeed and something that the red suspenders crowd should notice. However, it will not have any impact on the dollar unless provinces make similar commitments. Spending one's way to prosperity does not work. Tax cutting one's way is equally foolish.

Books that balance is a laudable achievement but a balanced approach to debt reduction makes the budget even better. Building into the budget a contingency is prudent. Committing to debt reduction on a straight line basis is even more prudent. Diminishing the per cent of debt to GDP is more prudent again. However, balancing to other compelling priorities is the most prudent thing a government can do, and to heck with the red suspenders crowd.

[The Budget, March 9th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday was International Women's Day. The budget was of considerable benefit to Canada's youth, to low income families and to students. Yet women continue to be disproportionately impoverished.

Would the Minister for the Status of Women tell the House what if anything the budget held for women?

[Supply, February 23rd, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, the minister has already said that and answered that question fully. It is an agreement of this country and goes through the normal parliamentary process. I do not know why the member needs to be concerned about that.

[Supply, February 23rd, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I am somewhat disappointed in the member opposite in that it appears he has missed my major point. I will repeat it.

The major point is that the industries which feel they are in need of protection will obtain protection from this agreement. However, those cultural industries which are not in need of protection, such as the CanWest and Nordicitys in this world, will not necessarily obtain it in the agreement.

My point is simple: We will have our cake and eat it too. That is the essence of good negotiations and good agreement.

[Supply, February 23rd, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, the short answer is that I do not. The issue is the form of cultural industry which appears to be in need of protection. I believe the minister is in the process of negotiating that form of cultural protection.

The issue really is to equally access and have a level playing field with respect to those industries which have either mass appeal or that need large capitalization. In this way we can have our cake and eat it too. Those industries which do not require that protection will not have it in the agreement.

[Supply, February 23rd, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the secretary of state for regional development.

I am somewhat disappointed in the motion as it fails to move the debate off this eternal merry-go-round. It is in distinct contrast with the participation of the Reform Party in committee and its helpful contributions to the committee.

If I may, I would like to refer to the committee's minority report as it was written in the larger report. I take the Reform Party at its word when it says that it is a free trade party and supports Canada's participation in the construction of a multilateral agreement on investment. It continues:

The Reform Party is a free trade party that supports liberalized trade and investment. We thus support the MAI initiative at the OECD subject to the concerns we have outlined on labour and multinational standards and culture.

Having stated its position as supportive of the government's initiative, I propose to turn to two of its criticisms in the time allowed.

I highlight these in contrast to the motion which seems to be highly critical of the government. I characterize its critique as one of nuance rather than adamant opposition, as one with which reasonable people might disagree but one which is characterized by a broader sense of agreement.

The Reform Party states in its minority report:

We endorse most of the recommendations contained in the subcommittee's study of the multilateral agreement on investment with the exception of the one on labour and multinational standards and the one that has a broad exemption for culture.

I would like to turn to those two exemptions and ask whether Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition is giving the government good advice.

We have heard from a great variety of sources with respect to cultural exemption. It has a variety of names, a cultural carve-out, cultural exemption, sectoral exemption, et cetera. The argument is that the agreement will severely limit Canada's ability to foster indigenous culture and Canada's voice. Some of the rhetoric borders on paranoia and uses silly language like NAFTA on steroids.

The Reform Party, to its credit, is a bit more nuanced in its critique. For those of us who sat in on some of the testimony it became quite clear very quickly that not all cultural industries are created equal. Writers and artists dependent upon grants from government and other sources appeal to a limited audience or are just starting to feel the need for some protection.

Cultural industries that are capital intensive and have a degree of mass cultural appeal need access to large, international markets and international capital.

I would like to quote from the report:

Canada's film and television production industry increasingly depends on foreign markets. Peter Lyman of the Nordicity group pointed out the importance of foreign trade and investment from a Canadian perspective. Foreign financing and foreign revenues contribute about $600 million to Canadian film and television production.

The example of CanWest Global was given as a Canadian firm that gets tens of millions of dollars in revenues from its foreign investments in Australia and New Zealand, which strengthens its ability to finance traders.

To state that all cultural industries are created equal is not consistent with the testimony of the witnesses. Clearly quite a number feel the need for protection, but there is also a number who feel that the protection of an MAI carve-out may be a serious detriment to their eventual success.

The Reform Party's position is that if the protection of culture must exist it should be drawn as clearly and narrowly as possible. In fact it would prefer a cultural policy which does not put stressful artists and companies at risk.

I am of the view that when the minister negotiates the final working agreement he should be very specific as to what culture, for the purpose of the agreement, means. This is not an abandonment of culture. I believe that this is the direction the government is going. It is one which is desirable and has broad support within the House.

The second area of dissent is on labour and multinational standards. The Reform Party's position in the minority report is:

Although the Reform Party fully supports the labour standards at issue—the right to organize democratically, bargain collectively and strike peacefully in the absence of discrimination—we cannot support thrusting these standards on to other countries.

I believe that the Reform Party is wrong for two reasons. It is missing an opportunity to develop a practice of raising international standards. Many of the countries with which Canada is negotiating have labour standards and practices which are appallingly low.

A number of countries that are party to these negotiations routinely exploit their labour force. In some respects it is an ideal time to try to raise labour standards rather than let them slip off the table as the Reform Party advocates. The argument which has the direct or indirect effect of raising standards needs to be supported.

The second reason I think the clause needs to be included is to level the playing field. I would much prefer that other countries bring their treatment of workers up to our standards, rather than the reverse. If we miss the opportunity to raise the standards for other countries, our own competitiveness will be eroded and therefore defeat what we hope to obtain from the agreement, namely the ability to sell into other countries without exploiting our labour force.

I believe this is an opportunity to enhance the lot of workers around the world and to provide a measure of dignity to all. No country including our own should be put in the position of having to exploit its own labour force to obtain a measure of prosperity. At its root, raising worldwide labour standards is enlightened self-interest and one which the minister should pursue with vigour.

In conclusion, the Reform Party has a useful contribution to debate. It is my view that it is a more nuanced approach to the cultural exemption and one which needs to be examined. However, on the issue of labour and multinational standards, Reform is clearly wrong and cannot be supported.

[National Parole Board, February 23rd, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the solicitor general. While statistics show that crime is down, the fear of crime is up among Canadians.

The parole board has been often criticized when releasing offenders into the very communities in which they were sentenced.

What has been done at the National Parole Board to improve public safety?