House of Commons photo

Crucial Fact

  • His favourite word was billion.

Last in Parliament September 2008, as Liberal MP for Etobicoke North (Ontario)

Won his last election, in 2006, with 62% of the vote.

united statesbillionbudgethealth careincome taxriding of etobicokedealpublic safetyborder services agencysoftwood lumbergun registrypension planindustryprovincesfinancetaxessecurityoppositecompaniesfinancialrespectmeasuresdebtlow2000provisionsontarioeconomypolicenorthequalizationmarketratecertaininvestmenttobaccofiscalbenefitpleasedcutreliefperhapsnaturalforestfirearms

Statements in the House

Voisey's Bay Nickel Project April 29th, 1999

Mr. Speaker, I listened to the member for St. John's West and I can understand the passion with which he speaks. One might wonder why the member for Etobicoke North would enter the debate on the project in Voisey's Bay. I will give the House some background to that.

I had the good fortune to visit Voisey's Bay with my colleague from Labrador in 1996. It was quite impressive and we could see the potential for this particular site for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador and indeed the people of Canada.

The member for St. John's West said that this would be an important new addition to the economy of Newfoundland and Labrador. He asked for the federal government to assist in facilitating some resolution to this impasse. I certainly would support that. This project is important to that region and to all Canadians.

The problem as I understand it is that the Newfoundland government has attached preconditions. These preconditions are aligned, I suspect, with what the member opposite said, that the refinery would need to be located in Argentia.

Unfortunately I think we need to ground some of the debate in business economics and logic. Going back to the original purchase, in 1994 Inco paid $4 billion for the Voisey's Bay discovery. The price of nickel at that time was about $3.50 U.S. a pound. It is now about half that price.

To have this important new addition to the economy of Newfoundland and Labrador given current economic conditions, which are really projected to last for some time regrettably, this project will not really be implemented. That would be a sad day for the people in Newfoundland and Labrador and it would be a sad day for Canada.

Inco, as I understand it being a business, has to look at other options. It is looking at a project in New Caledonia, a French colony near Australia. Inco has to decide which one of these deposit sites is going to be developed next. Is it going to be Voisey's Bay or New Caledonia? Being a very strong Canadian company with a lot of roots in Canada, Inco would much prefer to develop the site at Voisey's Bay, but how can it when business economics argue totally against it?

One might ask why the member for Etobicoke North would be concerned. I am concerned as a Canadian. Having visited Labrador I would like to see the economy of Newfoundland benefit. I can understand why the people of Newfoundland and Labrador and their government are anxious to realize the full potential for their treasury and for their people, but we have to come back to basic business economics.

The fact is that if Inco decides to go to New Caledonia, Labrador will lose about 500 permanent direct jobs plus about 1,200 spin-off jobs. It will also lose about $1.1 billion in investment for the mine, the mill and the concentrator facilities.

As a member from Ontario let me say that Ontario is affected as well. The way that Inco has proposed it, the only way the project can proceed is if the mining, the milling and the concentrating are done in Labrador. At that point the concentrate would have to be sent to Quebec City or Sept-Îles and then moved to Sudbury, Ontario, or to Thompson, Manitoba.

That is the only way that Inco seems to feel it can proceed. It has its business people who understand business economics. They are accountable to their shareholders. That is the only way it sees the project working.

If the project does not go ahead, northern Ontario and northern Manitoba will lose smelting and refining jobs. Most of the smelting and refining of the New Caledonia concentrate will be done, for logistical and other reasons, in Japan and not in Canada.

Newfoundland insists on the smelting capacity being located in Argentia. Newfoundland and Canada are at risk of losing about $1.7 billion in taxes and other revenues over eight years. Now that the election in Newfoundland is behind us, it is time for the Government of Newfoundland to look seriously at some business economics and get on with this project.

To add some insult, I am afraid that in November 1998 the Newfoundland government announced amendments to the mineral act which gave the provincial cabinet the power to decide what was economically viable. The cabinet in Newfoundland, while we respect that it has good analysts and other people for advice, has the power to tell Inco, which is a business with shareholders, employees and other stakeholders groups to whom it is accountable and spends its whole life running businesses, that Newfoundland will decide what is economically feasible and what is not.

That is quite tragic. We are depriving Canada, Newfoundland, Labrador, Ontario and Manitoba of jobs, revenue and economic activity because of an understandable passion by the Newfoundland government not to repeat mistakes it has made in the past. We can understand that sensitivity, but when the price of nickel is half what it was when the project was conceived, it is a matter of economics. Sometimes we cannot have the full cake and have to accept half the cake.

I believe strongly that Inco is quite prepared to sit down with the Government of Newfoundland. Perhaps the Government of Canada could play a facilitative role in bringing the parties together, cutting through the rhetoric, getting down to the basics of creating jobs and economic activity in Canada. If that could happen I know it would be very positive.

The project at Voisey's Bay is a staggeringly attractive proposition. As I said, I had the pleasure of visiting it and seeing the area oozing with hope and the dreams of the people who will be involved. However, they will not be involved if the people of Newfoundland and Inco cannot get together to make the project a reality.

I support what the hon. member is saying. The Government of Canada should play a facilitative role, but I do not see how it can do that if the Government of Newfoundland is saying there are preconditions, that the smelting capacity must be in Argentia. That is a huge stumbling block.

I support the member opposite in the sense of moving the project forward. I would argue that our government should be involved in helping to get the project rolling.

National Housing Act April 29th, 1999

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to rise to speak to various motions presented by my hon. colleague. The government does not support these motions and I will explain why.

I cannot repeat it often enough. What we have before us today are three visions of the relationship between the Government of Canada and CMHC. The amendments being proposed by my colleague from Kelowna would, in my view, seriously undermine the government's ability to carry out its public policy role in housing which it fulfils through the renewed mandate of Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation. Allow me to explain.

The Government of Canada is committed to playing a leadership role in housing. That is why the government renewed the mandate of its housing agency, CMHC, and has strengthened CMHC's ability to fulfil its mandate through amendments to Bill C-66.

The government understands the importance of helping Canadians meet their housing needs. We understand the importance of building a strong competitive housing industry. We know that good housing creates sound communities and a strong country. We know that housing has a major impact on the economy of Canada.

Bill C-66 clearly states the public policy role of CMHC. I will quote from the bill itself. It states:

The purpose of this Act, in relation to financing for housing, is to promote housing affordability and choice, to facilitate access to, and competition and efficiency in the provision of, housing finance, to protect the availability of adequate funding for housing at low cost, and generally to contribute to the well-being of the housing sector in the national economy.

Surely nobody could dispute the importance of these objectives. Yet the member proposes changes that would eliminate the government's ability to regulate CMHC should it be necessary to do so.

If we were to remove this section of the NHA as proposed. We would effectively be reducing the government's control, in other words, the public's control of CMHC.

I am certain that if my hon. friend thought for a minute about what he was proposing, he would realize how ridiculous it is to imply that the public should not have the right to ensure that CMHC is accountable to them. CMHC is a public institution with a public policy role, a role that has served Canadians so well for over 50 years. To suggest that government control of a public institution should be reduced is somewhat bewildering.

Bill C-66 will give CMHC the means to carry out its public policy role more effectively and in a financially prudent manner. That is what the Government of Canada expects. That is what the people of Canada deserve. That is what Bill C-66 is all about.

At the other extreme, we have the member from Cape Breton who would have every decision made by CMHC approved by the governor in council. Perhaps the member does not realize that to do so would involve great expense, both in terms of administrative costs and in the quality of services that the Government of Canada can offer Canadians. Indeed, the member would have the government return to the old days of red tape and heavy bureaucratic processes at the expense of the efficient delivery of important government services for needy Canadians.

Another member has presented a vision which would require that every service CMHC offers to individuals and communities be approved by the government of the particular province. We know this vision would have the Government of Canada so hamstrung that we would not be able to serve the housing needs on reserves without provincial approvals. This vision would also deny other needy Canadians access to important federal assistance should any of the provinces not consider the particular measure important or necessary.

Let me be clear: The benefits conferred by the programs administered by CMHC are and will remain governed by the House.

Bill C-66 introduces a modern relationship between the Government of Canada and CMHC. Bill C-66 calls for the approval of CMHC's corporate plan every year to ensure that the directions taken by CMHC meet the will and priorities of the government.

Moreover, every year the House is involved in approving the resources given to CMHC to reach out to needy Canadians; to implement those programs that one member would rather not see regulated at all and that another member would regulate to the point of administrative paralysis.

Furthermore, the CMHC Act and the Financial Administration Act clearly confer to the government oversight in all aspects of the corporation's activities. What more could the member want? Why, for instance, would we go so far as to endorse the proposal from the member from Cape Breton to have potentially every project approved by the governor in council?

The vision that we are proposing in Bill C-66 is a modern vision, a vision which will result in government services that are more responsive to the needs of Canadians and the needs of their regions, a vision which will better equip CMHC to work co-operatively with provinces, and a vision that at the end of the day will lead to a more efficient government. That is a vision I think every Canadian would support.

National Housing Act April 29th, 1999

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise to speak to various motions presented by my hon. colleagues.

What we have before us are three visions of the relationship between the Government of Canada and the CMHC. At one extreme, we have the amendments being proposed by my colleague from Kelowna which in my view would seriously undermine the government's ability to carry out its public policy role in housing which it fulfils through the renewed mandate of Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation.

Allow me to explain. The Government of Canada is committed to playing a leadership role in housing. That is why the government renewed the mandate of its housing agency CMHC and has strengthened CMHC's ability to fulfill its mandate through amendments to Bill C-66.

The government understands the importance of helping Canadians meet their housing needs. We understand the importance of building a strong, competitive housing industry. We know that good housing creates sound communities and a strong country. We know that housing has a major impact on the economy of Canada.

Bill C-66 clearly sets out the public policy objectives of the CMHC. Permit me to read this extract from the bill:

The purpose of this Act, in relation to financing for housing, is to promote housing affordability and choice, to facilitate access to, and competition and efficiency in the provision of, housing finance, to protect the availability of adequate funding for housing at low cost, and generally to contribute to the well-being of the housing sector in the national economy.

I know we have already talked about this, but it is important to repeat it.

Surely nobody would dispute the importance of these objectives. Yet the hon. member proposes changes that would eliminate the government's ability to regulate CMHC should it be necessary to do so.

If we were to remove this section of the National Housing Act, as proposed, we would effectively be reducing the government's control, in other words the public's control, of CMHC.

I am certain that if my hon. friend thought for a minute about what he was proposing, he would realize how ridiculous it is to imply that the public should not have the right to ensure that CMHC is accountable to them. CMHC is a public institution with a public policy role, a role that has served Canadians so very well for over 50 years. To suggest that government control of a public institution should be reduced is somewhat bewildering.

Bill C-66 will give CMHC the means to carry out its public policy role more effectively and in a financially prudent manner. This is what the Government of Canada expects. This is what the people of Canada deserve. This is what Bill C-66 is all about.

At the other extreme, we have the member from Cape Breton who would have every decision made by CMHC approved by the governor in council. Perhaps the hon. member does not realize that to do so would involve great expense, both in terms of administrative costs and in the quality of services that the Government of Canada can offer to Canadians. Indeed, the hon. member would have the government return to the old days of red tape and heavy bureaucratic processes at the expense of efficient delivery of important government services for needy Canadians.

Finally, we have another member of the opposition presenting a scenario where every service provided by CMHC to individuals and communities would first have to be approved by the province concerned. This would limit the Government of Canada to such an extent that it could not provide Indian reserves with the services they require without provincial approval.

It could also prevent other Canadians from having access to federal government measures in areas that were not of interest to a province.

Let us be clear about it. The benefits arising out of programs administered by CMHC are, and will remain, subject to the decisions of this House.

Bill C-66 will modernize the relationship between CMHC and the Government of Canada. In fact, Bill C-66 requires yearly approval of the CMHC business plan. This will ensure that CMHC's actions are in keeping with the wishes and priorities of the government.

Moreover, every year the House is involved in approving the resources given to CMHC to reach out to needy Canadians to implement those programs that one member would rather see not regulated at all and that another member would regulate to the point of administrative paralysis.

Further, the Canadian Mortgage and Housing Corporation Act and the Financial Administration Act clearly confer to the government oversight in all aspects of the corporation's activities. What more could the hon. member want? Why, for instance, would we go so far as to endorse a proposal from the member from Cape Breton to have potentially every project approved by the governor in council?

The vision that we are proposing in Bill C-66 is a modern vision, a vision which will result in government services that are more responsive to the needs of Canadians and the needs of their regions, a vision which will better equip CMHC to work co-operatively with provinces, a vision that at the end of the day will lead to a more efficient and effective government. That is a vision that I think every Canadian would support.

Khalsa April 15th, 1999

Mr. Speaker, I will now ask my colleagues to tune in to their Punjabi translation channel as I say:

The Khalsa (pure) is of the God.

The victory is of the God.

Happy 300th birthday of Khalsa, the Sikh religion. Sikhs in my riding of Etobicoke North and Sikhs all across Canada are celebrating the tricentennial of their religion this week with a variety of celebrations and festivals. I look forward myself to attending the World Sikh Organization's gala celebration this Saturday in Etobicoke.

At this special time I would like to acknowledge the outstanding contribution the Sikh community has made to Canada. Because Canada is a country that celebrates and honours diversity, the contribution that Sikh Canadians have made to Canada is well recognized and appreciated. The social, economic and cultural contributions made by Sikhs have strengthened the fabric of our country. Happy Vaisakhi .

The Khalsa (pure) is of the God.

The victory is of the God.

Bank Act March 24th, 1999

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to stand in the House today to speak in favour of Bill C-67, an act to amend the Bank Act. This bill is very important, not in itself necessarily, but because it begins the process of creating a more competitive financial services sector in Canada.

As a member of the 1998 national Liberal caucus task force on the future of the financial services sector, which was chaired by my colleague from Trinity—Spadina, I met with Canadians and listened to their concerns about the financial services sector. Canadians of all walks of life are concerned with both the accessibility and the affordability of financial services in Canada.

For example, seniors and seniors' organizations shared with the task force many of the same concerns about banking services as did other Canadians. Seniors are concerned about reduced choice in banking services, tied selling, poor service in rural areas, access to capital for small businesses, high levels of profit and privacy issues. Seniors also brought forward issues regarding the cost of banking services, reduced teller services, fewer branches, reduced pedestrian access and a lack of information about basic accounts.

Although many seniors are having their banking needs properly met, the multitude of different banking options now available can be very confusing. Banks have a tendency to promote the most expensive service packages, which may include features seniors do not need. It is particularly important that services available to seniors and basic low-cost service packages in general be advertised prominently at bank branches and automated teller machines.

The trend toward automated services cuts costs for banks and can provide a convenient service for many customers. Many seniors, however, are uncomfortable with some of the new technologies and prefer to deal with a person rather than a machine.

Further, not all branches have lower counters for persons with limited mobility or provide areas where seniors and others can sit while waiting for service.

For many seniors dependent upon public transportation, a visit to a bank branch a few kilometres away can cause significant travel time while waiting for buses.

Low income Canadians and ethnocultural communities in Canada have also raised concerns about the accessibility and affordability of financial services in Canada.

As well, small and medium size businesses, which are the driving force behind economic growth, also need affordable and accessible financial services. There are 2.4 million SMBs in Canada. Half of all private sector jobs are in these businesses. They are also responsible for 45% of the production in the private sector, and 95% of all new jobs.

Small businesses are highly dependent on the chartered banks for financing. This dependence has been increasing over the past few years. The Conference Board of Canada has shown that domestic chartered banks held 50.3% of the total SME financing market in 1996, compared to 48.4% in 1994. In addition, they held 72% of outstanding commercial loans to SMEs in 1996, up from 66% in 1994.

With such a large share of the SME lending market, the chartered banks face little competition from other institutions. This absence of competition is even greater in some regions of the country and in rural areas where small businesses may be totally dependent on one or two banks that operate in their communities.

The situation is even worse in areas located outside financial centres. Women, young entrepreneurs and aboriginal people in particular have poor access to debt financing. Small and medium size businesses are an integral part of our economy, yet they have only limited access to bank capital.

In the gallery are two business people from Alberta, Darrell Toma and Tom Clark, who have a very good entrepreneurial idea involving innovation in the agricultural and agribusiness sector. Capital is an issue that is constraining them. For that reason I am hoping they are successful in their visit to Ottawa.

It is for these reasons that our caucus task force made it a priority to offer solutions to ensure that affordable financial products and services are available to all Canadians and their businesses, regardless of where they live. We, the members of the task force, concluded that the most effective way to make the financial services sector more affordable is to encourage more competition.

Among other measures, the task force recommended the introduction of foreign bank branching into Canada. Our government again has responded.

At the present time, foreign banks wishing to operate in Canada must open distinct Canadian subsidiaries. For foreign banks not wishing to receive retail deposits in Canada this constitutes a needless regulatory requirement, which adds to their costs of doing business in the country.

Since reaching a peak of 59 in 1987, the number of foreign bank subsidiaries in Canada has declined to just 45 in 1998. Their share of total banking sector assets, which stood at about 12% in 1990, fell to just under 10% by the end of 1998. Almost all of the foreign banks in Canada operate solely as investment banks specializing in financing large corporations.

Foreign banks have publicly stated that they currently find the cost of trying to compete head to head with Canadian chartered banks for personal and small business lending to be so high as to make it futile. These banks cite tax, regulatory issues and the delay in introducing branching as factors inhibiting the entry of foreign banks.

I am pleased to note that earlier this year our government announced measures which will ensure that Canadian branches of foreign banks, Canadian subsidiaries of foreign banks and domestic banks are all taxed on a similar basis. Bill C-67 further levels the playing field for foreign banks. At the same time, however, no advantage has been provided to foreign banks over our domestic banks.

Compared to other industrialized nations, Canada is falling behind. The 1998 world economic forum on global competitiveness ranked Canada 39th in the ease with which new banks can begin operation and 40th for the participation of foreign banks in the Canadian financial sector.

There is no question there are significant barriers to entry for foreign banks and that is why this bill is so important. It is also why our national Liberal task force encouraged the government to move expeditiously to allow foreign banks greater access to Canada, and our government has responded.

Bill C-67 will bring Canada's foreign bank entry policies into line with practices in other major industrialized countries, all of which allow foreign bank branching. The new rules will give foreign banks the option of establishing one of two types of branches, a full service branch or a lending branch. Full service branches will not be allowed to accept deposits of less than $150,000 from Canadians. Lending branches will not be able to accept any deposits or borrow except from other financial institutions.

Since the branches of foreign banks will not be accepting retail deposits, they will be subject to slightly less stringent regulatory requirements in Canada than the subsidiaries of foreign banks.

The restrictions applicable to deposits ought not to discourage the arrival of any new banks, since most foreign banks want primarily to provide commercial banking services in Canada. Those wishing to accept retail deposits will still be able to establish a distinct subsidiary in Canada for that purpose.

The proposed banking regime will permit foreign banks to use their larger capital base to support lending activities in Canada. Over time this should allow foreign banks currently operating in Canada to increase their lending activities. This will provide new sources of capital for small and medium size businesses.

Bill C-67 is the first step in a process to encourage more competition in Canada's financial services sector. I encourage our government to unleash the power of our domestic financial institutions such as the credit unions, near banks and some of our very own crown corporations through further legislative and regulatory change. This will further encourage greater competition in Canada's financial services sector.

In conclusion, the bill benefits all consumers of banking services. It will, in particular, help small businesses to create still more jobs in the 21st century.

It is for this reason that I am proud to support Bill C-67 and I hope my colleagues will do the same.

Bank Act March 19th, 1999

Mr. Speaker, the member for Kamloops, Thompson and Highland Valleys is an experienced member of the House but I am wondering if his constituents are listening. If he feels eunuch like, maybe the constituents would be better advised to send a member of the government side to this Chamber.

As part of a task force chaired by the member for Trinity—Spadina, it was the members on this side who recommended strongly against the bank mergers. Lo and behold the government did not allow the bank mergers to go through. Maybe the member over there feels eunuch like, but not the members on this side.

I ask the member a question with respect to his comments. He talked about the trickle down theory and about all the breaks that were being given to these foreign banks. I wonder if he could cite any of those breaks. What this bill is about, if the member had read the bill, is breaking down the barriers to entry and creating more affordable and accessible financial services for all Canadians. Can he identify the breaks to the foreign banks mentioned in this bill?

Income Tax Amendments Act, 1998 March 18th, 1999

Mr. Speaker, I listened to the critique of the member for St. Albert. It reminds me of the difficulty the Reform Party seems to have with how government revenues are generated. It is a fairly simple phenomenon that as the economy grows and expands, which Canada's economy has been doing with great strength, and as new jobs are created, which has been happening in Canada with more than 1.4 million new jobs since 1993, there is more income in the economy and more income taxes are payable. It is a sign of a good economy. It is not the sign of a bad economy.

The members opposite seem to be challenged with this very simple concept. I want to remind the House that gross tax revenues are up because the economy is growing.

I would like to briefly comment on one item and perhaps the member opposite could answer. The member for St. Albert was in Australia recently attending a conference on budget cutting and expenditure reduction. Given the fact that our expenditure to GDP is the lowest in about 30 or 40 years, what new ideas did he come away with after his visit to that jurisdiction?

Income Tax Amendments Act, 1998 March 18th, 1999

Mr. Speaker, I find it passing strange that the member for Calgary Southeast finds a whole range of issues with the 1998 budget but fails to take into account that it was the first balanced budget since 1969-70, the first time the government had balanced the budget in many years.

It was the beginning of tax relief for Canadians. It was $7 billion of tax relief for Canadians which was also extended in the 1999 budget, amounting to a total of $16.5 billion in tax relief for Canadians.

The member for Calgary Southeast spoke about simplifying the Income Tax Act. I am sure all Canadians want to simplify the Income Tax Act, but the hon. member failed to indicate how he would simplify the Income Tax Act. I have a suspicion that the way to simplify the act in his mind is the Alberta Reform solution, the flat tax solution. A flat tax does not really comply with the progressivity of the Canadian Income Tax Act.

Yes, it simplify things. It simplifies things very much, but it means that the tax is not progressive. Higher income Canadians now pay more income tax in percentage terms than lower income Canadians. This seems to be an equitable way to arrange things. A person who makes more income pays more income tax, not only in absolute terms but in percentage terms. That is called a progressive tax system.

When we go to this simplified tax, yes, it would clean up a lot of messy details in the Income Tax Act, but I am wondering what it does to equity. How fair is it when we move to a tax system like that?

Another feature of the 1998 budget which the member conveniently forgot to mention was the Canadian opportunities strategy. It provides a number of initiatives that give Canadians greater access to the knowledge and skills needed as we move into the next century.

We also began the process of paying down the debt which had not been done for many years.

The member opposite gets into a lot of the details of the Income Tax Act but he fails to acknowledge the very positive aspects of the 1998 budget.

There is one aspect I would like to raise, and perhaps the member could comment on it. He talks about the 20% foreign limit for RRSPs. I think he is implying that it should be 25% or 30%. I am wondering why the Canadian taxpaying public should be subsidizing Canadians who want to invest more outside Canada. Should we not be saying that if Canadians want to diversify their portfolio and have 30% of their portfolio outside Canada, that is fine, but why should the tax system subsidize that?

Competition Act March 12th, 1999

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to speak on this important initiative on the part of the hon. member for Sarnia—Lambton.

He is to be congratulated for bringing to the attention of the House a marketing practice many Canadians find offensive and for giving the House the opportunity to express our concern and support for the rights of Canadian consumers.

Many if not most Canadians dislike aggressive marketing tactics. We dislike pushy sales techniques. It makes us uncomfortable to have to hang up the phone on a telemarketer or to slam the door in a salesman's face.

Aggressive sales tactics often succeed precisely because they exploit our better nature.

The marketing practice dealt with in Bill C-393, negative option marketing, may be a little bit more subtle than the tanned salesman who shows up at your door, but it is just as aggressive and intrusive. Negative option marketing means that a company will send the consumer an offer saying that he must refuse it, otherwise it will consider that he has accepted the offer. It will then send him a bill or, if he are already a customer, add the extra costs to his monthly bill.

Naturally many Canadians find this sales strategy more than a little annoying. There they are sitting at home quietly minding their own business and they are not safely out of reach of businesses pushing products and services they do not need, do not want and maybe cannot afford.

Why should Canadians be required to be eternally vigilant against unsolicited sales?

There are negative option billing arrangements that satisfy both the consumer and the business, for example in certain book or record clubs, but generally these are contractual agreements in which the rights and obligations of both parties are clearly set out and where the consumer has all the information and knows what to expect.

I hope this discussion finds support and solutions from the House.

Business Investment March 12th, 1999

Mr. Speaker, as hon. members know, under the leadership of the Prime Minister and as a result of the work of the finance minister, Canada has been getting the economic fundamentals right. Just how right and how good Canada's brand name is was once again demonstrated by the release yesterday of an international cost comparison study conducted by the management and consulting firm KPMG.

This international study compared data on typical costs of doing business for nine industry sectors, including manufacturing and service operations in 64 cities around the world located in the G-7 countries and Austria.

The KPMG report is good news for Canada as it demonstrates that among the eight countries Canada offers the most cost effective locations for new business investment. The challenge now for all of us is to spread this good news message to business communities around the world. Fortunately we have a tremendous product to sell.