Lost his last election, in 2006, with 35% of the vote.
Employment Insurance November 6th, 1998
Mr. Speaker, once again the Reform Party has it all wrong. The more I stand in the House, the more I wish we could do something about its research staff.
The Minister of Finance does not meet with the EI commissioners regarding the setting of EI premiums. He has never met with them, has no meeting planned with them and has no intention of meeting with them.
Employment Insurance November 6th, 1998
Mr. Speaker, I guess I should also remind the hon. member that the Reform platform is to give the premiums back just to employers. What about the workers?
If we are talking about this mix, if we talk about providing what is best for Canadians and if we are talking about the best bang for our buck, let us not forget that 14 million Canadians benefit from any personal income tax cut. Only eight million Canadians would benefit from an employment insurance cut.
If what we are talking about what is best for Canada, we will continue that debate.
Employment Insurance November 6th, 1998
Mr. Speaker, I will continue to say that we will reflect Canadian priorities. The EI question is part of that mix.
When Canadians come before the finance committee in the prebudget consultations they ask us to take a balanced approach. They ask us to invest in Canadian priorities. They ask us to deal with the tax system we have in the country. They ask us to reinvest in health care.
If what the hon. member is actually advocating is for us to completely reduce EI premiums, as he is requesting, he is really telling us to go back into deficit, and the government will not do it.
Employment Insurance November 6th, 1998
Mr. Speaker, I remind the House that the hon. member who asked the question does not pay EI premiums either. As far as what planet, I am not sure the question came from anywhere in this stratosphere.
Let me deal with the facts. Since 1994 each and every year we have reduced EI premiums. Our payroll premiums are lower than those in the United States, our largest trading partner. We will continue this debate. No decisions have been made. We will continue to focus on Canadian priorities.
Canada Pension Plan October 30th, 1998
Mr. Speaker, the hon. member has asked the question in the House before and he has got the answer.
The firing of Dussault is between Mr. Palmer and Mr. Dussault. It has nothing to do with the government. It has nothing to do with the Minister of Finance.
Perhaps this will be his supplementary question. There are normal procedures in place to deal with indemnification for civil servants engaged in legal disputes. A civil servant can make an application. If an application is made, it will be approved or disapproved according to Treasury Board rules.
Employment Insurance October 30th, 1998
Mr. Speaker, I know the hon. member has recently come to this place, in 1997 I believe.
I do want to inform the hon. member that unless the rules have been changed, a House committee is an extension of parliament. Another Reform member is attending the committee. Perhaps I could encourage the member to attend. Instead of being the hired heckler that he was in the United States, perhaps he could contribute to the debate.
Employment Insurance October 30th, 1998
Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is certainly participating in the prebudget consultation debate. He was with the committee when we were in parts of western Canada. The member has been here in Ottawa participating in the debate. Who do we hear from in that debate? We hear from Canadians who come forward and talk about Canadian priorities. Canadians talk about the employment insurance program, about investment in health care and reduction in personal income taxes.
The debate is ongoing. I encourage the hon. member to continue to participate.
Employment Insurance October 30th, 1998
Mr. Speaker, since coming to office, the EI premium has been reduced by this government by $5 billion or more. Our payroll taxes are the lowest, lower than those in the United States. We will continue.
What I really want to point out is the incredible fact that the Reform Party changes its mind on what to do with the EI surplus more than the Conservatives actually change leaders or have leadership votes. First the Reform Party wants to apply it to the deficit. Now the Reform Party wants to give it all back. Watching the Reform Party is like getting policy whiplash.
Tax On Financial Transactions October 28th, 1998
Mr. Speaker, let me begin by saying that we share the hon. member's concern over the volatility that often occurs in financial markets and it is actually for this reason that we can support the motion put forward by the hon. member.
Certainly financial instability is a threat to global prosperity and I think it is incumbent on governments to examine all of the options to address the problem. A Tobin tax is one such option.
But let us be clear. Canada is already exercising international leadership as part of a broad strategy to attack the underlying causes of financial market volatility and we are enjoying considerable success in working with our partners on practical ways of improving the functioning of international markets and preventing and managing crises.
We would all prefer a world where markets always get things right, a world where exchange rates always behave in a way that we could clearly understand in the context of our economic circumstances and policies, a world where exchange rate movements were always helpful in promoting solid growth and job creation for our citizens. But financial markets are not perfect institutions. Clearly they do not always get it right. They travel in herds. They run on rumour. They sometimes ignore fundamentals and all too often they overshoot.
Exchange rates can sometimes move erratically and these erratic movements can cause economic problems, affecting competitiveness or requiring authorities to take some actions to defend the currency that they might otherwise prefer not to do.
The challenge that we face is to find the best way of dealing with these problems which economists call market imperfections.
Proponents of the Tobin tax argue that such a tax would put sand in the wheels of international finance by imposing a very small percentage tax on all foreign exchange trades. So the argument goes that this would discourage speculation and stabilize financial markets without interfering unduly with longer term trade or investment.
Others are attracted by the tax revenue that they believe the tax could raise and which they believe could finance many worthwhile programs.
The arguments surrounding the merits of the Tobin tax are certainly interesting and have been debated for quite some time by economists and others. I am sure that they will be debated for some time to come.
But the more important question from our perspective is not the theoretical benefits that might result from introducing such a tax, but the very practical question of whether this would be feasible. Here it seems very unlikely that a Tobin tax could be imposed on a scale that would actually give rise to the benefits its supporters claim without penalizing some countries severely.
The reason for this is that for the tax to be at all effective in stabilizing markets or raising revenue it would need to be applied globally, and given today's advanced communications and computing technology, transactions can be conducted anywhere in the world and can shift from one location to another in the blink of an eye. If a Tobin tax were not universal in its coverage, transactions and the incomes and the employment they generate would simply shift to any jurisdiction that did not impose the tax.
Canada in fact explored the idea during the Halifax summit, at which time it became apparent that a number of G-7 countries were adamantly opposed to this idea. Their positions have not changed, despite, as the hon. member has mentioned, some change in governments.
But even agreements among the G-7 or all of the industrial countries would not be sufficient for the proposal to work. All countries would have to agree. There would always be an incentive for some group of countries to opt out, thereby establishing themselves as an off-shore financial centre. I do not believe any member of the House would support a policy that merely encourages the growth of off-shore banking centres.
There are other practical problems. Enforcement of a Tobin tax would involve a constant cat and mouse game of closing loopholes discovered by market players.
So it is for these reasons that the Tobin tax has not attracted widespread support from other countries.
I am not here today to tell the House that nothing can be done to address the question of volatility in international financial markets. In fact, a great deal is being done on this front and Canada is exercising considerable leadership in these efforts.
Our aim, working with our international partners, is to address the underlying causes of international crises such as the Asian crisis and to develop mechanisms to help manage them when they occur.
Although the crisis in Asia had complex roots, it is clear the governments in the region contributed to the problem by allowing, and sometimes even encouraging, imprudent lending on the part of local financial institutions.
Moreover, the promise of fixed exchange rates, a promise that ultimately proved hollow, encouraged local banks and companies to borrow huge amounts of foreign currency. Financial turmoil was the inevitable result of these inappropriate policies and practices.
Canada has provided leadership to the international community on reforms that would address the underlying cause of financial crises and not just symptoms.
At the spring meeting of the IMF and the World Bank our finance minister proposed measures to strengthen supervision and regulation of financial sectors including peer review. Simply put, peer review would allow experts from Canada and other countries to share their expertise with their counterparts in emerging markets and ensure that best practices are being followed.
I am pleased to inform the House that our Canadian proposal was endorsed by the G-7 and the IMF at the annual meetings in Washington. The IMF will begin to use peer review as a way of strengthening financial sector supervision and regulation starting next year.
Canada has also proposed a mechanism to ensure that private sector investors such as banks will be involved in the resolution of international financial crises in a much more integrated way than has previously been the case.
Standard operating procedure today is for the IMF, the World Bank and national governments to put up money first. The private sector gets involved only at the end, if at all. Quite clearly that is not an equitable way to share the burden. More to the point, it is no longer on.
Our finance minister proposed a mechanism that would allow for payment standstills during financial crises. This would give hard-pressed countries the time needed to put economic reforms in place much as solvent but illiquid companies can be shielded from their creditors.
A great deal has been accomplished on these concrete measures to address the volatility in international financial markets. Obviously there is still work that needs to be done on this subject.
Canada is determined to carry on its efforts toward leading the international community in its efforts to develop a more stable and prosperous world economy. It is in this context that Canada could accept the imposition of a Tobin tax if the problems that we have outlined were resolved and if all—and I need to be very clear on this—other jurisdictions agreed. Unfortunately those are very big ifs.
Our finance minister, the government and in fact the country, rather than sit back and wait for a Tobin tax or for some other option, acted in a way showing leadership. We put forward a six point plan to attack the underlying causes of financial market volatility. By putting forward that six point plan we have the support of the IMF and the support of the G-7 countries.
We have countries around the world looking to Canada for leadership on this issue. The finance minister has demonstrated that leadership. We will continue to do so as we continue to explore this issue with other major countries. We will continue to show leadership on a much broader strategy to attack the underlying causes of financial market volatility.
I commend the hon. member for bringing the motion forward and for allowing the House an opportunity to debate an issue which has been debated for some time now and will continue to be debated. It is an honourable thing to do, but there are flaws in this tax from the perspective that the one underlying principle which must be adhered to is that all countries must participate in a Tobin tax. They must all do it at the same time so we do not create any offshore financial centres. We can support this motion in principle.
However, I caution the House and the hon. member that there are many obstacles in the way to seeing this tax come to fruition. In the meantime, we will continue to show leadership as a country. Our finance minister will continue to show leadership at the IMF by adopting a strategy for addressing the broader underlying causes of the crises that are faced by the world.
Employment Insurance October 5th, 1998
Mr. Speaker, the EI debate is more than just about premiums, as the hon. member wants to keep talking about. It is about making choices.
I will use the hon. member's terms. In terms of payroll taxes, our country's are one of the lowest of the OECD nations. We will continue to ensure that this country has the right fundamentals in place to continue to grow. Canadians want to see sound, stable investments and continued success. We are prepared to deliver that on behalf of Canadians.