Scott Brison

[Financial System Review Act, March 27th, 2012]

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise today to speak to Bill S-5.

This legislation does not make significant changes to the Canadian banking system. In fact, the Canadian banking system is probably, if not the most, among the most prudentially sound banking systems in the world.

That is something all of us as Canadians recognize as being important to our Canadian economy. I believe it is good for Canadian jobs. It is good for our role in the world and our influence on the world. The growth in the scale and success of Canadian banks compared to other banks in other countries, in other banking systems, in recent years has been remarkable.

It is important to recognize why that is the case. While I agree with the Conservatives when they say that the World Economic Forum and other international fora recognize that Canadian banks and the Canadian banking system are among the best in the world, where I differ from them is on the genesis of why that is the case.

The reality is that during the 1990s, when the global trend in the U.S. and Europe was to go to rampant deregulation, it was the Canadian government that said no, that refused to follow the lemmings in other countries off the cliff.

In Canada, the Chrétien government, with Paul Martin as finance minister and Jean Chrétien as Prime Minister, was under immense pressure to follow the global trend of deregulation. They said no to that. They disagreed with that because they did not believe it was in the interests of Canadian bank customers, in the interests of Canadian small business or in the interests of ultimately the prudential strength of Canadians banks to do that. The decision was made not to deregulate at that time, and thank goodness that was the case.

It is important to realize that there were many members of the Reform Party or the Canadian Alliance Party. I forget what it was at that point. They were in fact opposed to the government and the decisions at that time.

I will be the first to offer a mea culpa from my perspective, because there were times when I was critical of the government's caution at that time. I will be the first to admit that when I criticized the government for its caution at that time, I was wrong. I will admit I was wrong, and I will not take credit personally for the decisions made by the Chrétien and Martin team at that time. I was wrong; they were right.

I just wish that at some point the folks on the other side, who were also wrong at that time, would admit that they were wrong and Mr. Chrétien and Mr. Martin were right. I do not take credit personally for the fact that some very strong and sound decisions were made by the Chrétien and Martin government, because I was criticizing those decisions at the time.

Again, I was wrong. Mr. Chrétien and Mr. Martin were right and the Liberal government was right. All I am saying is that when the government speaks of, and boasts of, the prudential strength of Canadian banks and our reputation in the world, it ought to do the same thing, have the same journey I have gone on where we embrace our inner honesty and expunge our inner hypocrisy, and we feel so much better. It is completely cleansing.

Let us look at what happened in the nineties. The reality is that the Chrétien and Martin government did the right thing by not following the global trend of deregulation.

There are some other reasons why Canada is doing well and our financial services sector is doing well. Part of it is that there is a massive global trend for commodities, and we have a lot of commodities in Canada: oil, gas, mining. Just in mining finances, 80% of all the mining transactions, financings, in the world over the last five years were transacted in Toronto.

I was in Calgary last week. I met with some oil and gas finance companies and some oil and gas companies. Calgary is booming in terms of oil and gas financing.

None of us in this House, not even the Conservatives, can legitimately take credit for putting the oil and gas under the ground or the minerals or potash under the soil. The Conservatives cannot say they put the oil and gas under the ground in Alberta or the potash under the ground in Saskatchewan. We all know they did not put the oil and gas off the coast of Newfoundland and Labrador. That was Danny Williams.

The reality is that we have to be honest with each other about why we are doing well as a country. Two of the reasons are that we have a strong banking system and we have become the global centre for mining and for oil and gas transactions. That is all very good.

In this bill, specifically, one of the changes the government is making is the decision that takeovers of foreign banks by Canadian banks will be subject to not public servant scrutiny in some cases but will go to the minister's office. The minister's office will make the determination, depending on the size of the transaction and the size relative to the Canadian bank's assets. It will not be OSFI, as an example, in the public service that will have the decision to make; it will be the minister's office.

I can understand the rationale from some perspectives. The government may see that as an extra level of precaution in terms of the minister's office, but I have a concern. I raised this at committee, the politicizing of these transactions. We know Canadian banks have been very acquisitive in recent years. We have seen the Bank of Nova Scotia buy all the Royal Bank of Scotland's assets in Colombia and more recently a significant retail bank in Colombia. The Bank of Nova Scotia bought 20% of the Bank of Guangzhou for $700 million in China a few months ago.

We are seeing that happen, and that is generally a very positive news story in terms of those head office jobs that will be here in Canada and the opportunity for us to strengthen our influence, financially and in business around the world. However, I want to see these transactions judged based on prudential strength, not on politics and other issues. I think we have be careful with that.

Another thing, when we are talking about the banking system, is that one of the biggest concerns we have is the level of personal debt Canadians are carrying right now. There is $1.50 of debt, on average, for every $1.00 of annual income in Canadian families. That is at a record high. That is actually higher than that of our American friends, who are less indebted personally than Canadians today. Canadian families have the highest level of debt. It is higher than the personal debt levels of Americans.

We have historically low interest rates today. People are struggling just to get by today. A lot of people have lost their full-time jobs. They have seen their full-time jobs replaced by part-time work. We have seen a bifurcation of the Canadian economy where for people who are in Alberta or Saskatchewan, which have a lot of natural resources, it is a very different kind of economy than if they were in Ontario or Quebec or the Maritimes.

The reality is that one of the reasons why we have seen growth in personal debt is not that Canadians are going out and buying big screen TVs and boats, as the Minister of Finance said when he blamed personal debt levels on Canadians' profligate spending on big screen TVs and boats. It is not that. It is that a lot of Canadians have lost their full-time jobs, which have been replaced by part-time work.

The other factor is that the government has sent signals to Canadians and in fact has changed the rules and regulations around lending to actually encourage Canadians to take on more debt. In his first budget in 2006, the Minister of Finance brought in 40-year mortgages with no down payment, for the first time ever in Canada.

The government has to take some responsibility for the growth in personal indebtedness and the degree to which Canadian citizens and families are leveraged financially today, because it changed the rules in 2006 to 40-year mortgages—

[Natural Resources, March 15th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, when the Conservatives broke their election promise and cancelled the eco-energy home retrofit program, thousands of Canadian jobs were lost. Sustainable Housing, a firm in Wolfville, laid off half its workers. However, if the program is brought back, Sustainable Housing will hire new college graduates to grow its business.

With Canada facing a youth jobs crisis, will the Minister of Finance use this budget to bring back the eco-energy home retrofit program and create green jobs for young Canadians?

[Employment, March 14th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, according to Statistics Canada's latest report, only 54% of young Canadians have a job. That is the worst number in over 10 years. It is worse than at any point during the recession. A generation of Canadians is being left behind with no job experience and no hope.

Will the minister admit that Canada faces a youth jobs crisis, and will he put a real jobs plan for young Canadians in his budget?

[Employment, March 9th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, young Canadians are facing a jobs crisis. Our youth lost another 27,000 jobs just last month. We now have the worst youth jobs numbers in 10 years. Since September 2008, young workers have lost almost 300,000 jobs. An entire generation of Canadians is losing hope, with no real job experience and no real prospects for jobs after graduation.

Why will the Conservatives not step up to the plate with a real program to provide real opportunities and real jobs for young Canadians?

[Canada-Panama Economic Growth and Prosperity Act, February 29th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, movement to greater transparency in finance and taxation is important. It is something that ought to be a strong priority of the government. I also believe that moving forward on a free trade agreement more deeply integrates our economies and increases the capacity for us to effect influence.

As with the hon. member, I would like to see, from a timing perspective, more movement on that as well. I would like to see the government move post-haste with that. However, I do not believe that signing a free trade agreement reduces the capacity of the government to do that at any time. In fact, it may have the opposite effect.

In terms of the general area of trade, this is where I think there is a fundamental difference between how the hon. member and I view these issues. I believe that the New Democratic Party in Canada ought to embrace some of the progress and evolution that other social democratic parties have around the world in terms of embracing trade. If we look at the labour party in Great Britain, the democrats in the U.S., or around the world generally, national social democratic parties have come to realize that globalization is a little like gravity: we do not have to like it but it is a reality. Instead of ignoring it and pretending that somehow we can shut off globalization, we would be better off if we were to engage with it and seek ways to increase our country's influence in that global economy.

In Canada, where we are such a tiny economy, we depend disproportionately on global markets. It is important to us, but it also increases our capacity to effect positive change in the world. My advice for the hon. member and his party is that they ought to move in that direction.

[Canada-Panama Economic Growth and Prosperity Act, February 29th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, in fact, the drug trade in Mexico for many years was in significant decline. Certainly legitimate trade between Canada and Mexico within NAFTA has grown significantly and continues to grow. However, the member is quite right. In recent years, the growth of the drug trade and drug activities in Mexico has grown, but it is very difficult to tie that with a free trade agreement.

I would say that most people who study the drug trade on an ongoing basis, most scholars and experts in this field, say that the biggest reason for the growth of the drug trade and crime in Mexico and the violence associated with it in recent years has been the fact that Colombia was successful in clamping down on it and driving much of it out. That goes to my point that the drug cartels are mobile. As long as there is demand here in North America and in Europe and as long as we impose this prohibition, this failed war on drugs, we will continue getting supply somewhere.

That speaks to the final point in my remarks. I think we need to consider our failed war on drugs here in Canada, not just in terms of its incredible cost to the Canadian economy and to society, but also its incredibly negative effect on a lot of the countries with which we purport to be friends.

[Canada-Panama Economic Growth and Prosperity Act, February 29th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I absolutely agree that we must find ways to foster the sustainable development of countries with which we enter into agreements. I acknowledge that this agreement contains many provisions that signal progress in terms of sustainable development. I would like to have a better understanding of this particular approach. I agree that we must develop other approaches, but I need to review the information and understand what is being proposed.

[Canada-Panama Economic Growth and Prosperity Act, February 29th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise to speak to the trade agreement between Panama and Canada. However, before I speak to that, I would like to speak about the general trade policy of the government.

It has been said in debate in the House that for the first time in 30 years, under the Conservative government, we have seen trade deficits. This is in part due to our over-dependence on the U.S. economy and the U.S. downturn, but it also has something to do with the failure of the government to effectively defend Canadian interests, the Canadian economy, Canadian companies and Canadian workers, against U.S. protectionism. We know there is a knee-jerk protectionism in the U.S. that crosses party lines. It is in the Democrats, the Republicans, the Tea Partiers and the occupiers in the U.S. There is a knee-jerk protectionism when times are tough, and we know that times are tough in the U.S.

We have to do a better job on both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue: at one end, the administration, the White House, and at the other end, Congress. We have to do a better job in defending Canadian interests legislator to legislator, senator and member of Parliament to senator and congressperson, government to government, minister to minister, prime minister to president. We have seen stronger relations between presidents and prime ministers than we have between the current President of the United States and the current Prime Minister of Canada.

The reality is there needs to be more attention placed in Canada on defending ourselves from U.S. protectionism. We have seen more than one set of legislative actions in the U.S. in buy American type provisions, which have threatened, hurt and, in fact, eliminated Canadian jobs and cut Canadian companies out of participating in U.S. government contracts. That has had a pernicious effect. We have seen buy American type provisions rear their heads again just recently and there is tremendous concern among Canadian manufacturers.

Looking at the overall Canadian economy, it is important to realize that while the macro numbers look reasonably good in some areas, if we go just below and break them down by region, we are having a very strange sort of recovery in Canada. In fact, what the world is going through now is not an ordinary recession and recovery, but is really a global economic restructuring.

Part of what is happening in Canada reflects that global economic restructuring with the rise of China and India and the demand for natural resources, such as oil, gas, potash and minerals of all sorts. We are lucky in many ways, as a country, to have so much natural resource wealth. The positive side of it is we do have that natural resource wealth and we do have the capacity to meet the demand for those resources. We do well within those sectors and within those provinces that have those resources.

If we look at Alberta, Saskatchewan and parts of Newfoundland, the economy looks much better than it does in the traditional economic heartland of Canada, Ontario, Quebec, the Maritimes, where we see a real falling back and a falling behind. In many ways what we are going through as a country reflects what some people call the Dutch disease, where our dollar is being driven up by demand for our natural resources and there is a crowding out of traditional manufacturing and value-added jobs. That is something we have to look at as a country. We have to consider that as parliamentarians. We have to understand the growing disparity between have and have not provinces.

One of the ways to address that is through a more robust trade policy. The current Conservative government spent its first three years in office chiding China and ignoring India. The government has turned around on both India and China as of late. It is going to take a while to rebuild relations with China. Canada's relationship is at a historic low after 40 years of remarkable relations with China, going back to prime minister Trudeau's opening up of China in 1968. He was the first western leader to establish diplomatic relations with post-revolution China. Before Nixon built a bridge to China, Trudeau had done that.

Much of that goodwill was damaged in the first three years of the current Conservative government. I do see that it is working assiduously to try to rebuild those relations, and that is the right thing to do. However, it is important to recognize that damage was done to those relations early on.

If we ask many global economists where they see the growth coming in the next 10 to 15 years, it is broadly believed that Africa represents tremendous opportunities. We have had a traditional aid relationship with Africa. We have to move from simply aid to an increased discussion and movement forward on trade with Africa. It is a continent with which Canada has had traditionally strong and historic relations and friendships. We need to redouble those relations. We should see the great commercial opportunity in Africa, opportunity that can benefit the people of Africa and the people of Canada. We could be partners in progress as Africa moves forward.

The Conservative government has focused largely on Latin America. Deepening our trade relations with Latin America is generally a good idea. It is not mutually exclusive, however, with having deep trade relations with China, India and Africa.

I see an opportunity for Canada to be a centrepiece in terms of global trade in many ways, to be a more central and leading figure in global trade for a number of reasons.

First, we have the best banking system and financial services system in the world. Not only are our banks successful in Canada, but they are successful globally, in China, India and Latin America. In some of the fastest growing economies in the world, Canadian banks are present and they are growing. A few months ago Bank of Nova Scotia bought 20% of the Bank of Guangzhou in China. A little over a year ago Bank of Nova Scotia bought all of Royal Bank of Scotland's Colombia assets. More recently, Bank of Nova Scotia bought a significant retail operation in Colombia. Bank of Nova Scotia can be found everywhere throughout Latin America and the Caribbean. It is not just Bank of Nova Scotia but Royal Bank, Bank of Montreal and TD Bank, particularly in the U.S.

One of the things that gives us influence in other countries is the presence and the strength in the reach of our financial services sector. We could be doing more to harness the power of the success of our financial services sector to affect positive change and influence in those countries.

Second, as I mentioned earlier, we are blessed in Canada with tremendous natural resource wealth that the China's and the India's of the world need. We have become very good at extraction. Our expertise in the extractive sectors is second to none in the world, not just in terms of oil and gas but also in mining. Much of the way we have developed our extractive sectors and our oil and gas sectors in Canada has given us the capacity to export wherewithal and technologies to other countries that have the benefit of natural resource wealth and are in the process of developing that wealth.

There is a lot of natural resource wealth in Latin America. Many of the countries in Latin America face some of the same challenges we have faced over decades in Canada. Many of them have a lot of natural resource wealth and need to now face the reality and the opportunity that there is unprecedented demand for that wealth. We can help, work with and partner with these countries.

Colombia is a country like Canada, with a lot of natural resource wealth in mining and in oil and gas. However, we also share a history with the people of Colombia in that neither Canada nor Colombia is a colonizing country. We are countries that were colonized. We also have a history of indigenous and first peoples in both countries.

Thirty years ago in Canada, most first nations and aboriginal peoples and their leadership were opposed to the development of natural resources and extraction in oil and gas. Today they are business and financial partners in the development of those extractive sectors. I would like to see us working co-operatively with the governments of Latin America to help them and us learn and partner in terms of best practices around the responsible development of natural resource wealth in a way that shares that wealth with first nations and indigenous peoples.

In these countries and in Panama there continue to be challenges. There have been issues around tax havens in Panama. There has been progress on that, but there needs to be more. I am of the belief that, in the same way there were and are challenges in Colombia, we have to ask ourselves, as people outside of these countries, how can we best influence and effect change in those countries. I believe that free trade agreements, with robust rules-based frameworks on things like labour, environmental practices and human rights, can strengthen our capacity to effect positive change and to partner with good people in those countries who want to move forward and to help their people move forward. Free trade agreements with strong labour and environmental frameworks give us more influence and the capacity to help in these countries, not just to build wealth for Canadian business people or to create jobs for Canadians but also to help those countries develop their economies and societies.

I share concerns that people in the House have expressed, from all parties sometimes, about some of the challenges faced in these countries in the past and present. The drug trade is an example. If we do not provide legitimate trade opportunities to these countries, the only opportunities that people have growing up in their villages and cities to make a living will be through the drug trade, narcoterrorism. If we are concerned about the drug trade in these countries, one of the best ways to help these governments and people fight narcoterrorism and the drug trade is to extend to them legitimate trade opportunities to buy their legitimate products. If we are not willing to do that, we are leaving many of those people stranded, potentially with their only lifeline being the drug trade, which is destroying their country and their society.

Free trade agreements with strong rules-based approaches to labour, to human rights and to the environment can help wean some of these countries away from the criminal activities that have sadly been part of their history over far too long a period. There has been a lot of progress in Colombia. Throughout Latin America, the economic growth in places like Colombia and Panama has been incredible in recent years.

For decades, Latin American countries were basket cases in terms of their economies. Whenever there was a World Economic Forum panel on Latin America, it was always on the basis of what we would do with Latin America. There was always another financial crisis, another series of government bailouts and country defaults. Last year, I served on a panel on the future of Latin America with President Martinelli from Panama. Last year, at the World Economic Forum, the focus of the panel was on the remarkable growth, opportunity and progress of Latin America.

I can tell the House that people like President Santos of Colombia and President Martinelli of Panama speak quite openly to the challenges they face in their countries. They speak quite openly to the challenges they face with corruption, organized crime, narcoterrorism, issues around FARC and other organizations, but at the same time as they acknowledge those challenges, they have put in place a road map to move forward.

Since the drug trade issue has been raised in the House as part of this discussion, I want to close with some consideration of drug policies in Canada, in the U.S. and in much of the developed world and their pernicious effect on Latin America. There have now been two different panels conducted by two different groups of former Latin American presidents, countries like Panama, Colombia and Mexico, on the impact of North American drug policies on their countries and the remarkable destabilizing impacts of our war on drugs on their countries.

I will provide a couple of facts. Prohibition did not really work that well with liquor. During the time of prohibition, Americans continued to drink but the biggest bourbon factory in the world was in Chihuahua, Mexico. However, after prohibition was lifted, it went back to Kentucky. The reality is interdiction, policing and incarceration did not work in terms of prohibition and it does not work in terms of our war on drugs. It costs a lot of money, it is hugely expensive economically and societally, and it is remarkably destabilizing to the countries of Latin America.

Colombia was largely successful due to the planned Colombia initiative, which was initially launched by President Pastrana and President Clinton and then further implemented by President Uribe and President Santos as a minister. In Colombia, the war on drugs was quite successful. However, Colombia's success in the war on drugs drove the drug cartels, which are very mobile, to Mexico. That is one of the reasons that Mexico and President Calderon have faced such challenges in the last couple of years. Production and distribution can be stamped out in one country but it goes somewhere else.

We need to actually develop rational approaches to drug policy in places like Canada and the U.S. and understand that interdiction, arresting and putting people in jail for this will not be as successful as treating drug issues as addiction and health issues. If we were to invest a fraction of what we are spending on police and incarceration in our war on drugs into treating drug addiction as a health care issue, treating mental health and helping people with addictions, we would have better results in Canada and we would stop punishing people in countries in Latin America who are penalized by our continued failed war on drugs policy in Canada.

When we are talking about that region of the country, I think it is important that we are open about all aspects of our engagement. One of the areas where are playing a negative role is in our drug policy here in Canada and in countries like the U.S. where we are playing a negative role in terms of our relations with Latin America.

[Business of Supply, February 28th, 2012]

There won't be much left.

[Financial System Review Act, February 14th, 2012]

Again, Mr. Speaker, it is the practice of the Liberal Party of Canada, both in opposition and in government, to always listen to members of Parliament from all political parties and to consider carefully and respectfully their contribution to the debate. Certainly we would listen and take it seriously.

However, there was a strong group of Liberal caucus members, led by Tony Ianno, a member of Parliament at that time, that mobilized, that did cross-country town halls and round tables on this issue. It met with small business and community organizations, heard from Canadians and made some very strong recommendations to then Prime Minister Chrétien and finance minister Paul Martin. It said that we should not follow the global trend of deregulation.

What the hon. member is describing, however, is the way parliaments ought to work, where members of Parliament from all parties, including the governing party, contribute constructively and meaningfully to public policy debate and decisions ultimately reached by a government. Hon. members have described a Liberal government that listened to all members of Parliament from all parties and its own backbenchers.

There is no such thing as a bad seat in the House of Commons. We are all chosen and given the privilege to serve the people who elect us and have the responsibility to defend our interests. Mature governing parties recognize the importance of enabling that and respecting that Parliament will ensure it happens.