Dean Del Mastro

[The Environment, June 10th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, despite the weasel words of and political tricks, Canadians are seeing the real agenda behind the Liberal leader's new massive national carbon tax. The Liberals can label it with fancy names and they can try to wrap it in green packaging, but a tax is a tax and the Liberal leader wants to impose the mother of all taxes on all Canadians.

Liberals MPs are now admitting their plan is a carbon tax. The member for Halton, the Liberal leader's communication adviser, says that he has seen the details and it is a carbon tax. Liberals such as the members for Oakville and Scarborough—Agincourt, star Liberal candidate Justin Trudeau and Liberal strategist David Herle have been calling it a carbon tax.

Even the Liberal leader himself today admitted his plan was a tax on “fossil fuels, home heating fuels and electricity”. Canadians too see the carbon tax for what it is, a tax on everything: gas, heating, electricity, groceries. It will affect everyone, especially seniors and Canadians with fixed incomes and families.

The Liberal leader needs to tell Canadians the truth. Why does he want to hurt individual Canadians and families?

[Budget Implementation Act, 2008, June 3rd, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, I have to point out what hollow, empty rhetoric we just heard from the member.

It is really remarkable. He talked about the Liberals accomplishments on immigration. He talked about the people they brought in. He did not talk about the enormous waiting list that built up under the Liberals, with the enormous landing fee they charged every immigrant to come to our country. They should be ashamed of that.

Second, when they did bring these immigrants in, they dumped them off, wishing them good luck and hoping they would make out all right. They never assisted them with getting any of their credentials or skills recognized. They abandoned them. They got their $1,000 and abandoned them.

That is the Liberal record on immigration, and it is terrible. There are 900,000 people waiting on the waiting list.

He talked about the train to Peterborough. I am very proud of that, but what I am really proud of is how that will assist the city of Toronto. That is every bit as much a Toronto issue as it is a Peterborough issue. It is an integrated transit solution for the eastern Greater Golden Horseshoe region.

What did the mayor of Markham say about it? I do not think the member knows. He talked about it as an integrated solution, how he would partner up with York Region Transit and how it would provide an integrated transit solution for the future of York region, for Durham region, for Kawartha Lakes, for Peterborough.

How many jobs will it support? How many jobs were lost in places like Peterborough and Oshawa because, under his government, infrastructure in our country declined? We have a massive infrastructure deficit. This government is doing something about it with the building Canada fund. His government did nothing. My region suffered because his government let us down, period.

[Budget Implementation Act, 2008, June 3rd, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, it is interesting to hear the member highlight a large number of failures of the Liberal government, a government he was part of. He talked about the immigration backlog but it was his party that created it. He talked about how Canada brought in skilled immigrants and then never recognized their skills, but that was his government that did that, not this government. This government has moved toward skills recognition.

He talked about something else. He talked about doctor shortages. As we know, there were no doctor shortages when his party took power. Why did that happen? It is because it made cuts to things like transfers to education.

This government has made investments in education, investments the member voted against, like the 40% increase for post-secondary schools. In this budget we see the creation of a new government student loan that will assist hundreds of thousands of students, and it ramps up. By 2012-13, it will reach 245,000 students each and every year. It will support students from coast to coast. We will train Canadians to be doctors to solve Canada's problem.

I guess the member has a problem with investing in education because he will be voting against the bill, which means he will be voting against the tax-free savings account that will assist Canadians of all generations. He will be voting against investments in knowledge of new technology. He stands for the status quo on immigration. Apparently, he likes the backlog.

[Budget Implementation Act, 2008, June 3rd, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to address the member's comments. I do not agree with a lot of what the hon. member had to say, but I do respect the fact that he stands and votes in the House and makes sure that he represents his constituents.

In May 2008, BMO Capital Markets economist Doug Porter produced a paper on 10 reasons to “feel good” about the Canadian economy. I would like to quote a bit of what he said. He ticked off our low inflation rate, rising real incomes, healthy government surpluses, record high employment rates, record car sales, a strong TSX and rising trade surpluses as positive economic benchmarks.

He said:

The glass is much more than half full in Canada. So instead of obsessing about a temporary bout of cyclical weakness, driven entirely by our largest trading partner, Canadians should instead be embracing the world of [economic] opportunities that still await.

This is the economic reality. We understand the Liberal spin on the economy right now and why the Liberals feel that way, but the member did cite something.

The member talked about low income Canadians and Canadians who are struggling to pay their bills. I would love to ask the member a specific question about the Liberal carbon tax plan, which we have heard the Liberals muse about. I know the NDP does not agree with this because those members know how much it would hurt low income Canadians, families and seniors relying on fixed incomes, and I would love to hear the member's comments on it.

I also wonder if he would like to talk about his disappointment with Liberal members who claim to disagree with the government but do not show up and vote.

[Budget Implementation Act, 2008, June 3rd, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, obviously the Liberal Party has difficulty understanding that the Canadian currency has gone up significantly and that does affect our GDP number since we are a major exporting nation. Nominally. when our dollar goes up, vis-à-vis foreign currencies, that does affect our GDP but that does not mean the economy has shrunk. The member, however, does not quite understand how currency volatility can affect those things.

We will see how that comes out in the second quarter because I really do not buy into the Liberal doom and gloom. Canada has a great economy. We are moving forward, led by constituencies like mine, of Peterborough. We work very hard and we will continue to make the economy very strong.

During clause by clause at the finance committee, the Liberals voted with the government members to limit debate on every amendment brought forward to five minutes. They then abstained on every vote that was brought forward.

The government has a position on Bill C-50. Whether they agree or not, the NDP members have a position. They have made that clear and they stand by their convictions.

The Liberals stand in the House today and make speeches. They pretend to counter positions when they really have no position at all. They have no plan. I am sure the NDP will agree with me when I say that the Liberal Party is void of any plan whatsoever. The Liberals simply pretend to have a separate position from the government but put no solutions forward whatsoever.

I do not think doom, gloom and spin is a good position for a party that hopes one day to be government. Maybe the Liberals will come up with a platform because they sure do not have one right now.

[Budget Implementation Act, 2008, June 3rd, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, that speech was almost unbearable it was so misguided and so rife with political spin, doom and gloom. I do not think that is what Ontarians want. I do not think it is what Canadians want.

When he talks about massive surpluses that the Liberals ran, it is certainly not because they were good spenders. There were three budgets in the last year that there was a Liberal government in Canada. There were three budgets with a 14% spending increase in one single year.

This government has done a lot for manufacturing. We have done a lot for industry and what the finance minister was saying was that the province of Ontario has an opportunity before it to harmonize its sales taxes, and to get its corporate taxes in line. I know the member agrees with it because he is on the record saying that reducing corporate taxes is a powerful tool to stimulate industry in Canada.

Now he stands in the House, having followed what the finance minister has done, which is exactly what he called for, and asks, why is he not helping? He has helped; he has helped a lot. What the member fails to point out is the fact that when the Liberals were running massive surpluses, they were doing it on the backs of Canadians.

It was excess taxation and the reason why he laments the EI change. This is what I would love to hear him respond to, why when they were in government, did they operate EI just as a tax? It was tax and spend, tax and spend. That is what they did.

That is why they are upset about the EI change because it is another tax that they will not be able to spend. It is another slush fund they will not be able to access any more. That is what the Liberal Party is upset about, is it not?

[Elections Canada, June 2nd, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, today the Conservative Party asked Elections Canada and the Canada Customs and Revenue Agency to investigate a Liberal fundraiser held last week in support of Gerard Kennedy.

The invitations for the event were co-branded with the logos of both the Liberal Party of Canada and the SHAMBA foundation and posted on the Liberal Party of Canada's website.

Mr. Speaker, as you are aware, registered charities such as SHAMBA are forbidden from being directly or indirectly involved in partisan political activity. Mr. Kennedy and the foundation must provide full disclosure on the matter to clear the air.

Either the Liberals violated the copyright of the SHAMBA foundation or the SHAMBA foundation has political involvement. Whether it is one or the other, it needs to be cleared up. This fundraiser continues to raise serious ethical questions about the fundraising practices of the Liberal Party and its friends and must be investigated.

Once again, the same Liberal Party that brought us the sponsorship scandal and just recently attempted to bypass election financing rules by holding a sky is the limit fundraiser for its rich friends and Liberal insiders is showing that it simply cannot be trusted with the rules.

[Business of Supply, May 28th, 2008]

Mr. Chair, the Liberal leader recently said Canada should lower taxes on things we want more of and raise them on things we want less of. In Peterborough I assume he means he wants fewer people working. He wants less manufacturing. He wants fewer people living in rural communities. He wants to disadvantage seniors. I guess that is what he wants less of. I do not understand it.

What he wants to bring in is a special Liberal carbon tax. It would be a disaster for Peterborough. A lot of people in my riding live a long way from work and the only way for them to get there is by car. They have to heat their homes because we have a winter in Peterborough and it gets cold. Sometimes they like to turn a light on.

In fact, some people in Peterborough might even be watching this on their television and the Liberal leader wants to increase their cost of electricity. I guess that is what he wants less of. He wants people enjoying their life a lot less and paying a lot more tax so he can spend it because we all know he has made $72 billion in promises and a $10 billion promise just tonight.

Could the finance minister please share with me what a disaster the Liberal carbon tax would be and can he tell my constituents in Peterborough how much the Liberal carbon tax would take out of their pockets and how much it would hurt the people of Peterborough?

[Business of Supply, May 28th, 2008]

Yes, it is unbelievable. --and fight against our government's plan to better protect investors in Canada through a common securities regulator.

[Business of Supply, May 28th, 2008]

Mr. Chair, as all members of the House will know, one key priority of the Minister of Finance and his department has been to create a competitive advantage for Canada in global capital markets.

Part of this challenge has been to improve the regulation of Canada's capital markets, a need recognized and accepted by observers domestic and international. In the words of former IMF managing director, Rodrigo de Rato:

The Canadian economy is a very sophisticated economy, but in financial markets, you're not at the top....

Many of your big corporations go elsewhere to finance themselves. ...you [Canadians] should ask yourself why, and to what extent you're losing opportunities

Mr. de Rato's plea is simple and it is short, “Canada's investors deserve better”. The government agrees. While we recognize the constitutional jurisdiction of each order of government should be respected, we firmly believe we must modernize our securities regulatory framework. It is an important component of strengthening our economic union.

The government is taking action on this file and demonstrated leadership when it recently announced the membership of an expert panel, chaired by the hon. Tom Hockin, tasked to provide independent advice and recommendations to ministers, federal, provincial and territorial, on the best way forward to improve securities regulation in Canada.

There is good reason for taking action on this front. Canada has a strong and growing financial services sector which provides good, high paying jobs for Canadians and key services for consumers and businesses and yet we have a capital markets regulatory system that falls well short of our needs.

As aptly stated by the bastion of Conservative thinking, the Toronto Star:

At a time when the world's seven richest countries are looking for ways to collaborate in strengthening regulatory oversight of integrated, international capital markets, Canada is the only country that does not have a national securities regulator; instead, it has separate provincial regulators.

Canada is one of the only major industrialized countries without a common securities regulator, and this is a problem. Even my Liberal colleague from Wascana, who ever so briefly served as finance minister once, understood that when he remarked in 2004:

that Bosnia-Herzegovina is the only other industrialized country...[without a common regulator..."That should say to all of us that we need to substantially improve our system in Canada".

Our system of 13 regulators is cumbersome and fragmented and lacks the proper tools of enforcement. In a rare moment of clarity, the former NDP finance critic and member for Winnipeg Northdeclared that she was, “convinced of the need for a national securities regulator rather than the piecemeal provincial approach”.

Some have suggested the passport system, currently advocated by some provinces and territories, with the significant exception of Ontario, are sufficient reform.

However, we, along with most observers, believe that does not go far enough or fast enough. With the passport system, Canada still has 13 securities regulators with 13 sets of laws, however harmonized, and 13 sets of fees. Moreover, the passport system lacks national coordination of enforcement activities, making it difficult to maximize results on this critical part of the system.

In the words of the Canadian Bankers Association:

...[the passport system] is only a second-best solution. All of the same infrastructure, costs, and fees of the current fragmented regulatory system remain in place...entrench[ing] a potentially confusing and inefficient enforcement mechanism.

Furthermore, the passport system does not address our need to improve policy making. It is still necessary to obtain agreement from 13 regulators to change the rules.

Such a system is not progress away from the cumbersome realities of today. In short, the passport system is not where Canada needs to be in today's global economy. On that point the Liberal opposition again agrees with the government. I will quote the member for Wascana again who said:

I don't believe that the passport system is an adequate response. It still leaves us with a system that is largely fragmented and certainly less sophisticated than that in virtually every other country in the world.

That is the kind of good sense that the member displays along with his colleagues in the Liberal Party when they continually support our government on matters of confidence in the House.

For years, Canada took a leading role in advocating for free trade in securities with the United States. Under mutual recognition of each other's regulatory regime, Canadian investors would have better access to global opportunities and businesses listed on our exchange would have better access to global investors.

However, our country suffered a disappointing setback when the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission decided to proceed with discussions with Australia as a priority rather than Canada. This decision was directly related to the fact that the U.S. would have to deal with 13 separate securities regulators rather than a single Canadian regulator.

Where do we go from here? Clearly we can no longer afford to sit back and watch our competitors pass us by. Now is the time for a more efficient market system.

The benefits of a common securities regulator are well known. It would give all regions in Canada a seat at the table. It would make the regulation of our markets more responsive and accountable by creating a decision making body that would coordinate the views of all jurisdictions promptly and fairly. It would improve market efficiency and ensure the best use of money and resources by making the system more efficient to operate. This, in turn, would lower costs and make it more affordable for all who benefit from it, both those with capital to invest and those with businesses to build.

Another advantage is that a common securities regulator would improve enforcement and better protect investors with a common set of sanctions and remedies, as well as better enforcement across the country.

By serving as a single point of contact for law enforcement agencies, both at home and abroad, Canada would be better placed to share information and detect market fraud.

It is worth nothing that many observers suggested that the current market turbulence surrounding asset backed commercial paper, or ABCP, could have been lessened with a common securities regulator.

For instance, in a recent appearance before the finance committee, Diane Urquhart, independent financial analyst, and Larry Elford both noted that the ABCP situation was yet another reason that Canada desperately needed a common securities regulator.

Having such a structure would ensure meaningful participation by all provinces and territories, with a strong presence in all regions with local expertise who would respond to regional needs, for example, the oil and gas industry in the west or the futures market in Montreal.

The bottom line is simplicity and effectiveness. A common securities regulator represents an opportunity to move toward simpler, more principles based regulation.

It is little wonder that the all party Standing Committee on Finance's 2008 prebudget consultation report, something I worked on crafting, had as its first recommendation the establishment of a common securities regulator. The minister has made the case to all ministers, federal, provincial and territorial, that we must look beyond the passport system.

As such, I would like to ask the minister in the time remaining for his comments on improving Canada's securities regulation. Why is it, along with other measures to break down interprovincial trade, so important, and not allow for investment in Canada but investors small and large?

Also, I also would like his comments on the NDP's recent decision to abandon the position of its former finance critic, the member for Winnipeg North--