Alex Shepherd

[Speech From The Throne, March 5th, 1996]

Madam Speaker, I thank the member for her question.

Basically one of the issues for small and medium size business is pooling. As we expand in the area of over the counters and junior markets in Canada it allows pension funds, banks and other financial institutions to pool relative securities. The whole object of the exercise is risk aversion.

Many of our institutions do not want to see a high concentration possibly in a few companies but they are willing to look at a wider base of possible technology stocks that transcends a global environment in Canada and therefore would inject funds for that purpose.

Once again, the object of the exercise of a more sophisticated securities market in Canada is to provide that area where businesses could pool similar stocks and then sell them to these financial institutions which could then more effectively participate in growing the Canadian economy and creating those new technologies.

[Speech From The Throne, March 5th, 1996]

Madam Speaker, the member from Essex-Kent very aptly leads into my dissertation about the speech from the throne. Basically my speech also deals with the prospect of the evolution of our federation.

We talk a lot in the Chamber about devolution. I think that is an inaccurate word. Basically what we want to do with our federation is evolve it. We have been around for 127 years and it seems reasonable that we should enter into some changes within the federation to make it more economically viable.

Canadians have historically refused to invest in themselves for a variety of reasons. The Canadian economy has been typified by foreign investment. Canadians have been reticent to invest in their own enterprises. As a consequence we have suffered as a country.

Why have we been shy about this investment procedure? I do not really know. The bottom line is the speech from the throne did attempt to address that in some very real and meaningful ways. I refer to a specific aspect which talks about the formation of a national securities exchange. Securities legislation is basically the jurisdiction and purview of the provinces.

Canada is the only industrialized country in the world that does not have a national securities exchange. What has this done? It has fractionalized our capital markets. It has prevented people from properly visualizing and assuming masses of capital for the investment of our own enterprises.

The concept of a national securities commission would not override the jurisdictions of the provinces but would envelope them. Basically the concept is to provide a basic national securities exchange commission which would have a national regulatory environment. Basically what it talks about is harmonizing all the provincial regulatory procedures so that it is one. What is the problem today?

A mutual fund registered in Canada has to register with each individual securities commission throughout the country. It is a very expensive process and basically many people do not do that. A lot of these offerings are not available throughout the country. They are available only in certain jurisdictions.

Another aspect occurring in Toronto, what is called the dealer's network, which is an over the counters market, is the strange evolution that we are having listings on that market which are basically extraterritorial. In other words, they are British Columbia listings, possibly Quebec listings, registering with the Toronto over the counters market.

We have the strange situation in which Ontario's securities legislation is basically being applied to British Columbian companies. One can see this is creating a great deal of confusion and overlap.

We often compare ourselves with the United States. I would like to make a quick comparison with Japan. In 1951 Canada and Japan had the same gross domestic product. That is a very interesting statement, especially because the Japanese economy by the year 2000 will surpass the gross domestic product of the United States.

That country has half the population of the United States and almost none of the natural resources. We must ask ourselves in Canada what we are doing and why we are falling behind the world. It is because of interprovincial bickering that prevents us from properly pooling some of our capital resources.

If Bill Gates were a Canadian he would never get his company started here. Why? We do not have a pooling system and a risk taking orientation within our financial institutions. Because many of our start-up companies are looking for equity capital they are forced to go to the United States.

They end up being taken over by Americans and we are back to where we started. We are on a treadmill of not being able to properly invest in our own companies mainly because of our own institutions.

Because of the great fractionalization of our equity markets, many of our companies go wanting even where they get a listing on the over the counters exchange markets. There is a whole area there that causes a great amount of fees being charged. The legal bureaucracy and regulatory environment almost prevents small and medium size companies from accessing this.

The history of many of these companies is they lost control when they tried to go through this process. The whole idea of a capital based system is to make it easy for small and medium size companies to access these markets.

I was pleased to serve on the industry committee when we talked with some of our biggest banking institutions about access to capital for small and medium size business. Again and again these

bankers told us the problem with small business was not its access to debt capital but its access to equity capital. This was rather strange for a bunch of institutions that only recently took over most of those brokerage firms themselves.

It is an interesting observation that the only bank which now loans to junior securities investment firms is the Toronto-Dominion Bank. Remarkably the Toronto-Dominion Bank is the only bank that does not have a securities arm. We can see there has been consolidation and economic concentration in the whole area of securities.

What I am saying is those banks are also federally regulated. It seems a logical conclusion that our securities industry should also have a federal focus, a national focus. I doubt that many of our provinces are on side on this. The maritimes basically are very interested in pursuing this. Ontario is also very supportive of moving forward with the dealer's network.

To give an idea of the over the counters market, which is part of that market in Toronto, it has zeroed in on small and medium size business. In 1993 it had tradings of over $10 billion. By 1994 it was up to $15 billion. By 1995 it was $17.5 billion worth of trading in small and medium size company stocks. This represents a 70 per cent increase in only three years. We can see there is a tremendous demand for this vehicle.

The over the counters market is still somewhat unsophisticated because of the capital markets we have. We are fractionalized. We are a very small market in the first place in Canada. We made it even smaller by dividing it many times over.

We need a three tier system of access to these over the counters markets, a junior market in which everybody will know the risk involved and then basically tiered into the larger markets like the TSE. It will provide a cheap access to allow start-up companies to find capital in Canada rather than forcing them to go south of the border.

I look forward to the initiatives of the government in this area and look forward to working once again with the provinces in creating a national securities commission in Canada.

[Taxpayers Bill Of Rights, March 4th, 1996]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-215, an act to appoint a taxation ombudsman and to amend the Income Tax Act to establish certain rights of taxpayers.

Mr. Speaker, it pleases me once again to reintroduce my private members' bill which I have entitled a taxpayers bill of rights. Basically the bill would provide for an ombudsman who would act as an adjudicator between taxpayers and the government.

Revenue Canada has become more and more desirous of increased revenues from taxpayers. It has used some of its authoritative mechanisms to, I believe, infringe on the civil liberties of Canadians to the extent of unnecessary seizures and other onerous acts.

This bill will protect widowers and widows from having to sell their properties in restitution of back taxes or taxpayers from having to relinquish their homes. It also provides a window of opportunity for restitution and compensation for wrongful acts by Revenue Canada. It provides for $50,000 compensation for wrongful acts by Revenue Canada on the taxpayers of Canada.

The United States and the United Kingdom have similar acts. It is long overdue here in Canada.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed.)

[Program Cost Declaration Act, March 4th, 1996]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-214, an act to provide for improved information on the cost of proposed government programs.

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to reintroduce my bill dealing with government financing.

Members of the House are often required to vote on various pieces of legislation. It occurs to me that quite often members of Parliament and the general public have no idea of exactly what the cost will be or its future impact on taxpayers.

The bill would require that prior to all legislation being voted on that it be properly costed and the costing be attested to by the Governor General. I believe if we had had this type of legislation in the past we would not have the debt and deficit problems which now exist.

I am pleased to introduce the bill which will provide an awareness and a better focus among parliamentarians on some of the debt and deficit problems we have.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed.)

[Employment Insurance Act, December 11th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, listening to the member for Calgary Centre I feel we are reading two separate acts. One of his concerns was that we were changing the name of this bill from the Unemployment Insurance Act to the employment act, and even that bothered him. Imagine trying to take a positive stance on getting Canadians back to work; this is just another thing they object to.

Canada works when Canadians work. This is the essence of Bill C-111. The previous Unemployment Insurance Act was basically a passive support system. It in many ways encouraged people not to seek employment in other areas. The Canadian economy is very much evolving from what some economists would like to call the old economy into a new economy. It is very appropriate that as Canada approaches the 21st century it attempts to evolve its legislation in the area of encouraging skills and skill development in our workforce.

There is always the question of cause and effect when we get into the issue of unemployment or employment benefits. Many of our younger people are joining the workforce. Alarmingly, over 60 per cent of new entrants have received only a high school education. It is apropos that the government has recognized that and wants to upgrade the basic qualities of skills in the labour market.

Many of us can relate stories from their own ridings, anecdotal or whatever, of people who have purposely chosen not to work because the incentive to work was not there. In other words, they received unemployment insurance benefits and for them to take a job, with possible babysitting costs or whatever other costs attributed to going to work, it was cheaper to sustain themselves on unemployment insurance.

I do not believe unemployment insurance was ever intended to be an income support system. It was basically supposed to encourage and develop skills so that people would seek employment.

It is interesting how Canadian economist Nuala Beck said the economy in Canada has been changing over the last number of years. More people work in the sophisticated electronics industry than in pulp and paper. This is even true in British Columbia. More Quebecers have jobs in health and medical care than in the traditional sectors of construction, textile, clothing, furniture, automobile, forestry and mining combined.

More Nova Scotians work as teachers and university professors than in fish processing, forestry and construction put together. The province has the largest number of universities per capita of any province, making it one of the best knowledge intensive regions in the country. Why I submit that information during this debate is that sometimes we forget how our economy has been changing. We often look at the unemployment statistics and they also follow some of what people would call the older economy.

Basically we want to not subsidize and underwrite people staying with an old economy that possibly is leading to dead end jobs. Rather, we want to give them the skills and the incentive to move along within the workforce.

Canada has one of the highest benefit plans of unemployment insurance in the world. Many have suggested this has created a situation in which people have been reticent about seeking new employment in other areas. In a sense it has actually contributed to the immobility of our workforce and has possibly made it not as dynamic as it should have been.

We have watched the unemployment insurance system change in the last 12 years. In 1982, 15 per cent of workers were repeat users. By 1994 over 40 per cent of the people who accessed the unemployment insurance system have also done so at least one other time in the last five years, which tells us that more and more people have been using the unemployment insurance system not so much as an avenue for getting back to work or looking for new work but as a way to maintain their income levels.

Another aspect affecting our economy is a tremendous change in the remuneration for young people. Those under 24 years of age are today earning less than a similar age group in 1969. Many of these younger people are finding it difficult to access the labour market. Many aspects of this legislation create an open door which allows some of our younger people to get work experience.

How is this new act better than the old unemployment system with the problems I have mentioned? It is better in a number of ways. It assists employers in keeping assistance to small and medium size businesses. Premiums for workers will drop from the current level, which the previous speaker neglected to mention, of $3 to $2.95 in 1996, while employers will pay $4.13 per $100 of employee insurable earnings as compared with the current $4.20. This combined with a reduction in the annual insurable base from the current level of $42,380 to $39,000 means employers could save as much as $170 per worker in 1996.

Time and again employers have told us as a government that payroll taxes kill jobs. Payroll taxes, whether unemployment insurance or Canada pension plan and other benefits paid to employees, mean a cost to the employer to hire that extra employee. The government has realized that, has heard those concerns of employers and has changed the legislation to give employers more of an incentive to hire new workers.

This new system will streamline paperwork and simplify reporting requirements facing employers, thus reducing administrative cost. The elimination of weekly minimums and maximums to determine insurability means employers will save in the order of $150 million in administration costs.

The old system basically made people account by weeks with I believe 15 hours per insurable week of employment. One can imagine where an employer who had employees, some working 15 hours, some working 12 hours, some working more than that, would have a horrendous accounting procedure trying to figure out who was insurable and who was not. It also created a barrier. Some people wanted to get 15 hours in so they could have insurable employment. Many relationships between employers and employees were about who could get these hours and so forth.

It created an administrative nightmare for small business. It also created abuse in the relationship between employers and employees. The government has recognized this impediment to hiring people and has changed it in this legislation.

It is estimated that 60 per cent of small firms that currently contribute to the unemployment insurance system actually pay less under the EI while another 16 per cent will pay the same amount. This is a significant factor. Remember, small and medium size businesses are the employers of the future and have been almost the sole creator of jobs in the past. Over 76 per cent of small businesses will realize a significant reduction in their payroll costs. This will give them an incentive to hire more people.

In addition, further relief will be provided by a temporary premium refund for those small businesses that experience a significant premium increase over the next two years. Some 300 small businesses will be eligible for these rebates. This is another area where the government has heard the concerns of small and medium size business and their desire to create new jobs and a new economy.

In addition, we have recognized the importance of people being able to find that new job. Often the problem has been with the changing workforce and also a changing economy. In moving from the old economy to the new economy people have been displaced. Their displacement has also created a situation in which they were reticent about accepting lower paying jobs which may get them into a new labour force.

This legislation provides up to a $5,000 a year subsidy over a three-year period to allow them to access those new jobs. Eight hundred million dollars will be spent for new employment benefits, and on and on.

There is also the recognition of low income families. It was often cheaper for them to go on welfare than it was to work. The government has recognized that by subsidizing the child tax benefit provisions of the unemployment insurance system to providing more benefits for those young families trying to find a job, find a career. This is only a part of what is a very excellent piece of legislation.

These changes will assist Canadian corporations and their workers in providing new jobs for the young and for all workers in Canada in the new economy and putting the old economy behind us.

[Bankruptcy And Insolvency Act, December 8th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I listened intently to the speech of the hon. member for Capilano-Howe Sound who said how different our culture and our attitudes are toward bankruptcy. I do not believe that is the case.

For example, members of the Reichmann family, in the pursuit of some of their objectives not only within Canada but also internationally, used the protection of chapter 11 of the United States and also our own creditors arrangement act. Many of our countrymen are alarmed and curious to understand how it was possible, after all the smoke had cleared from that period of time in our history, that over 2,500 employees of the Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce had lost their jobs, but at the same time many of the executive staff were promoted and that today the Reichmann family still has partial ownership of Canary Wharf. These are the people that my Reform colleagues would like to support, I suppose.

I will now move into the area of this bill. It was a very honourable presentation by the member for New Westminster-Burnaby. Rather than take the time of the House today, I can state that it was never the intention that this act be abused by people trying to escape societal obligations. I believe it is very appropriate that the member bring forward this legislation at this time.

The question seems to be whether it is appropriate that this bill go forward. Another bill is currently being debated, Bill C-109, a government bill, which overlaps and has some similarities to this bill. When I try to compare these two bills, I discover that their differences are twofold. One is that the member's bill talks about assault and battery, whereas the minister's bill talks simply of assault.

My reading of the word assault would include the definition of the word battery. I do not believe that is a significant difference between Bill C-109 and the private member's bill.

The other difference, as I understand it, is that the hon. member includes the concept of interest related to awards or judgments in the area of assault and battery. That would be different from the existing bill of the minister.

I am not a lawyer, but I understand in law that when we specify in one aspect of the bill a specific such as interest, that by definition a judge will assume that we meant interest only in that particular area and that some of the other areas of the bill would not have interest judgments attached to them. As a consequence, I believe we need to either amend the existing legislation in Bill C-109 which talks about interest, so that we are clear that interest is included in all the categories, or we need to delete the interest adjustment aspect from the member's bill.

The bill presented by the member is a good one and deserves the support of the House, but it is a matter of time allocation. This House is very busy. We have been putting through a lot of legislation recently and I am sure the government has much more legislation to present in the new year. We have to find a way in which we can do this efficiently.

It seems to me that the most efficient way to handle the matter would be for the member to move an amendment to Bill C-109 at committee stage. Indeed, I would be happy to support the member in that initiative.

Today I would have to say that I have to oppose the bill, not because I oppose it in principle, not at all. I support the initiatives of the member. I would oppose it simply on the grounds of time allocation.

I believe there are many members on this side of the House that would support the initiatives of the member to bring forward amendments to Bill C-109 during committee stage, dealing with the aspect of interest.

[Supply, December 8th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I listened to the member's discussion. I found it odd what Reform Party members say on this issue. I remember when they first came to the House and how they were to make a positive contribution. They were to support the government.

This piece of legislation is very important for the domestic economy and for making our manufacturing sector competitive within the world. The unemployment insurance rates in Canada are some of the highest in the western world. Many people feel that because of their attractiveness to some extent the rates have had a significant effect on our ability to compete.

I recall in my own practice as an accountant dealing with small businesses. There was an ongoing problem of people refusing to take jobs at a time when they were already receiving unemployment insurance benefits because the cost of physically travelling to the place of employment or having to employ babysitters, et cetera, meant they would receive less than by sitting home and drawing benefits. In some ways this piece of legislation lowers those benefits in recognition that we have reduced the competitiveness of our labour force.

I listened to Bloc members go on and on about the need for underpinning the social structure of the country and possibly workers in Quebec. The Quebec Manufacturers Association recently published a study showing that competitive labour rates within that province were some of the worst in Canada, which makes its ability to compete worse than that of many other provinces. As a consequence it creates a situation of continued unemployment.

The hon. member said that we missed an opportunity. I also heard him say that he wanted to devolve. I think devolve is the operative word of the Reform Party today. Let us call devolve what it really is. It means to destroy or tear down a system which creates labour mobility and allows people to move from province to province to seek employment. Would he reflect on the history and recognize the positive initiative that has been taken by the government to increase our competitiveness in international trade, to keep the underpinnings of a mobile labour force and to recognize the object of employment is to get people back to work and to increase their skill levels?

[Banks, December 8th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Secretary of State for International Financial Institutions.

The banks have reported profits of over $5 billion. In that same period of time, they have raised service charges and also reduced the number of people that serve the general public. What is the secretary of state doing to protect consumers from this oligopolistic practice?

[Recognition Of Quebec As A Distinct Society, December 6th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, it is a great pleasure to enter the debate on Motion No. 26, which would recognize Quebec as a distinct society.

As we listen to the opposition parties we are wondering just what we are doing here. A distinct society will not cause the price of gasoline to go up. It will not affect our paycheques. It will have little or no effect on the lives of Canadians.

I have taken the opportunity to do a mailing to the constituents of Durham. I am happy to say that a good many of them are responding on how they feel about this issue. Their main concern is they want to keep the country united and strong. However, they have limitations. They do not think it should be done at any price. They are concerned that we respect the civil rights of all people in Canada. This motion will not inhibit the civil rights of individuals within the province of Quebec.

People are prepared to recognize each other as being distinct. However, it is an unusual concept for a society to recognize one element as being distinct. Clearly that means the other elements must also be distinct. There is a polarization of understanding. I believe that is healthy. It is useful within our system.

As I was coming to the House tonight I thought about all the debates and arguments caused by these two words in the last two or three decades. I wondered what would happen if we all collectively went to bed tonight and got amnesia. We would forget about our past. We would forget about our history. We would forget about we were doing when we lived together.

What would happen when we woke up tomorrow morning? We would find that we still have this huge country, the second largest nation in the world. We would discover that within that nation there were different linguistic groups: some French, some English, some others.

We would find that over a certain period of time they had entered into agreements with each other, individuals. That is all government is about, contracts and agreements between people.

We would discover that we had built a caring society, that we had developed medicare systems, unemployment insurance systems, pensions for our elderly. We had built all of these things, a social fabric, and we called it Canada.

We also did some other things. We also borrowed a lot of money to pay for some of these social programs in periods when our revenues could not sustain them. We would discover as we opened the books that we had huge debts; some of them federal, many of them provincial, but all culminated in a huge bill we all had to pay.

Having looked at these aspects, we would also see we had inherited tremendous resources. We had inherited the forests, the mines, the rivers. We had inherited a country of mountains, of lakes, from sea to sea to sea, and that we all together shared this great nation.

It seems to me we would be hard pressed to discover what we did not like about each other. We would be quite respectful with each other and humble to live in such a country. We would discover we were willing to respect the cultural integrity of the numerous groups that live within that country; that our objectives were not to overpower or overwhelm another culture but to co-exist.

I am sure we would look at the calendar and would see we were approaching the 21st century. We would look at our debts and we would look at our resources and we would try to see how we can live together and work together as we approach the 21st century. I am sure we would find a solution for that.

The other side of the coin is we do not have amnesia and so what have we forgot? We probably forgot the negative parts of our history. We forgot about the Plains of Abraham. We forgot many other aspects about the existence of Canada today. We probably forgot about some of the symbols we display so proudly, which are really symbols of a bygone day. They are symbols of our heritage, and not something we want to get rid of; we want to evolve as a nation.

It is clear to me as I travel throughout the country that people no longer understand what the governor general stands for or represents. Ever since being elected to this place, one of the things I enjoy doing, at least initially, is going around to our high schools and presenting the governor general's award. The governor general's award is presented to the highest scholastic student in a

secondary school each year. I have many high schools in riding and I do many of these events.

When I am handing out that award I ask those people to name the governor general. In two years none of these academics has been able to name the governor general. If our institutions of government have become so irrelevant maybe they should be changed.

If we want to enter into and renew our partnership links, both of these cultures have to adjust for each other. I question some of my brethren in other parts of the country who want to cling to the status quo, our symbols of the past.

Two days ago I was surprised to hear my Reform colleagues arguing about changing the coat of arms of Canada in such a way that it states we want to work toward a better country. Can we imagine wanting to stick to the status quo to the point where we could not see that simple change as being useful? I would like to change a lot of other things in the country. I know many people respect the monarchy. Indeed that is part of our past and is something we cannot erase.

It is time to change some of the symbols of Canada. I have no problem with our currency reflecting distinctly Canadian symbols.

It was interesting to watch the referendum in Quebec. It was my privilege to be at the Montreal rally and see the oui signs which showed that side of the loonie depicting the Canadian loon. I ask some of my colleagues in the House whether that tells us something. Does it not tell us that if we want to evolve as a country we clearly we have to evolve together?

It would be very good if we could all get collective amnesia, put to one side some of the things in our past that we are not happy with and recognize the true strength and wealth of the country. Basically we should get along together. We have many problems. Our deficit is a tremendous burden. It is much like having a huge mortgage in a marriage and not being able to afford a divorce.

The people out there should remember that we are not talking about giving away the farm. There is very little expense, but the bottom line is that it is time to change our nation.

[Supply, December 5th, 1995]

Madam Speaker, as I listened to the member's comments about this bill I became very confused. He started off criticizing the federal government's spending power, presumably under the whole aspect of manpower training. Basically what has been asked for is the federal government not use that power in such a way that it would create duplication and overlap within provincial jurisdictions.

I hear the federal government has consented to that and has basically said it will not use its spending powers. However, they want the government to do both. They want the government to give them the money in addition to curbing its powers. The reality is they want to have their cake and eat it too.

Worse than that, the hon. member went on to give us a dissertation from the national assembly in Quebec City which would, as I understand it, basically say we should have no presence there whatsoever. The member continued to argue why we should have a placement centre in his riding of Trois-Rivières. It would be more consistent if he argued there should be no placement facilities either in Shawinigan or his own riding.

It seems terribly inconsistent to me. The argument seems to have developed into "we want to have the spending, we do not want you around, but we kind of want you around too". We had a very looped discussion.

What really concerns me is the discussion about labour mobility. Basically what has been stated is that the federal government has no presence in the whole aspect of placement throughout the whole country as a nation. I do not know what the member is saying. If he has unemployed workers in Trois-Rivières and there are jobs available in New Brunswick or possibly Ontario or another jurisdiction, would he rather have those people in Trois-Rivières continue to be unemployed? Is that basically the philosophy behind these comments? Possibly the member could clarify that for me.