Scott Brison

[The Economy, February 22nd, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, the October economic statement does not take into account red book three promises. Nor does it take into account the throne speech commitments. The estimated price tag for these commitments is approximately $2 billion.

Why will the finance minister not bring in a new budget to authorize these commitments, or is it that the Liberals have no intention of keeping their red book promises yet again?

[Fuel Price Posting Act, February 21st, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, it is with pleasure today that I rise to speak to Bill C-220, an act respecting the posting of fuel prices by retailers.

I commend my hon. colleague for the introduction of the legislation. It will help in terms of achieving greater levels of transparency in the pricing and in terms of allowing consumers to know the price they are paying at the pumps for fuel that actually goes to the retailer and ultimately to the petroleum company.

That being the case, the real culprit in fuel pricing in Canada is not necessarily the producer but, as is more often the case, the federal government in terms of the gas taxes that are collected and are not returned to the provinces for investment in our highways and our infrastructure.

The excise tax on gasoline in Canada and the U.S. is quite similar, despite the fact that gas retailers and refineries in Canada operate in a less efficient market than the U.S. The federal government is clearly the real culprit in terms of the taxes levied on petroleum.

From 1998 to 1999 the federal government collected $4.7 billion in gas taxes and only returned 4.1%, or a paltry $194 million, in provincial transfers for highways. Thirty-six per cent to 45% of the price consumers pay at the pumps actually goes directly to federal and provincial taxes.

The 1998 Liberal caucus task force, with, I believe, 47 Liberal backbenchers, recommended reducing the federal excise tax on gasoline from 10 cents to 8.5 cents. After studying the issue their request was turned down by the Minister of Finance. Ironically, what the Liberal caucus task force was looking for was the elimination of the 1995 deficit reduction surtax that was introduced by the Minister of Finance at that time to ostensibly reduce the deficit.

The deficit is gone. Why is the gas tax, that unnecessary 1.5 cents per litre gas tax, still there? It was introduced to get rid of the deficit. The deficit has gone. The tax is still there despite the fact that 47 Liberal backbenchers recommended its elimination. It is one of the times that I actually agree with my colleagues opposite that the gas tax should be gone.

We have called for a national highways infrastructure program. There are great disparities between the provinces in terms of their ability to afford to upgrade their highways as opposed to some of the other provinces.

In Nova Scotia we are facing significant financial constraints and infrastructure deficits at this time. Highway 101 in my riding is a death trap. There have been over 50 deaths in recent years on that highway. It has the highest level of traffic in the province and is one of the most dangerous highways in the country. We are looking for, and the federal government has said there will be, a federal-provincial cost sharing or twinning on that program.

The difficulty is that the province is not in the fiscal position to participate on a 50:50 basis from day one. We are looking for a front end loading program where the federal government would in fact pay the lion's share of the cost upfront but, over a five year period, the province would pick up a greater part of the contribution. This would make a lot more sense, particularly given the fact that this is a life and death issue and should be viewed as such.

This type of initiative would, in a reasonable way, facilitate the commencement of that project in the short term. It would save lives and lead to greater levels of economic development in that fast growing area of the province, the Annapolis Valley. It makes a great deal of sense.

I will comment now on a different area of the petroleum issue. The premier of Nova Scotia has been campaigning vigorously on this issue, on behalf of all Nova Scotians, regardless of partisan politics. I direct my comments to the member for Halifax West, who I am sure at this point supports the premier's initiative.

The campaign for fairness, which Premier John Hamm has initiated, is a very important debate in which we need to be engaged. The federal government is currently taking the lion's share of offshore petroleum revenues from Nova Scotia. We are not receiving the benefits. Nova Scotia needs those revenues in order to bootstrap itself into the 21st century and afford the education and transportation infrastructures needed to compete in a hypercompetitive global economy. At the same time, it needs those revenues to reduce its fiscal burdens, particularly its tax burdens, which inhibit growth and prosperity in this very difficult time.

[Canada Foundation For Sustainable Development Technology Act, February 19th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, we should make note that this is probably the first time in the history of Canadian parliament that a Conservative updated the lexicon of a New Democrat in terms of environmental phraseology, otherwise known as buzzwords.

Turning to the notion of internalizing the externalities, the externalities are those products that are produced unintentionally by any level of production. To internalize those externalities means to incorporate in the cost of production the unintended production costs. In this case, environmental costs are incorporated into the cost of products that the consumers pays at the time, also known as whole costing. I appreciate his update of my lexicon in areas of the environment in a more simple and holistic way.

The notion of whole costing and addressing the total cost of production is difficult to do. The methodologies for doing this are not easy to implement. However, I think it is very important that we start doing that.

Again, bad environmental policy is ultimately bad economic policy because both disciplines deal with the management of scarce resources. Any economic argument or any pricing arrangement that ignores the true cost, wihtout the whole costing as put forth by the hon. member for Winnipeg Centre, is in fact bad economics. We have to become more rational in the way that we allocate both environmental and otherwise economic resources.

[Canada Foundation For Sustainable Development Technology Act, February 19th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Winnipeg Centre says that it is too little, too late. As with so many things, I share his views on that. He was speaking earlier about some of the omissions in the legislation, including the fact that the government is not addressing the important potential of decentralization of research and policy development in terms of this very important area of the environment.

With the death of distance as a determinant in the cost of telecommunications and with companies around the world decentralizing and putting research and policy development out in the field, it is the people making the decisions and researching the policies that are close to the people that are ultimately affected.

It is not just in terms of the foundation. That same rationale could be applied to the Department of Fisheries and Oceans and the Department of Agriculture and Agri-Food. Instead the government continues to fill office buildings in Ottawa and continues to cut down on its commitment to the regions to develop the sound policies close to the people ultimately affected in the regions. This is again a missed opportunity by the government.

My colleague from Winnipeg Centre also referred to the process of appointment in terms of the board members of the foundation. I share with him his concerns. The government has an unfortunate record of cronyism when it comes to the appointment process.

The member for Winnipeg Centre also referred to the habit that the government has of appointing failed Liberal candidates to senior positions. While I share his concern, I would remind him that the only thing worse than a failed Liberal candidate is a successful Liberal candidate. In many ways we should at least be thankful that there are still some failed Liberal candidates. We hope that we will add to their ranks in the future.

With regard to the direction of the foundation to have a greater level of private sector participation, I do share the notion that we could do more to incorporate the private sector in the delivery of products that are actually beneficial to the public good.

Look at the general trends in terms of medical technology or biotechnology. A lot of these cutting edge technologies can provide immense societal gains and benefits. Many of the developments are actually coming from the private sector. Therefore, I do support the notion of leveraging some of the government investment. In this case it is a very small investment of $100 million into $400 million, which is a fairly small amount of money, but it is still positive that there is a leveraging effort.

I can point to another example in recent days. It was the announcement on the human genome project. One government funded group had spent 10 years encoding the human gene. Another group, which was a private sector group, completed much of the same work in three years. There are some private sector advantages developing these types of cutting edge technologies. We can, through public policy, effect and create greater levels of interest in developing these societally beneficial technologies.

There are some tax credits currently for research and development in Canada, but we could possibly develop a more advantageous set of tax credits to apply specifically to sustainable development technologies. For instance, research into alternative energy sources and the whole emerging industry of wind generated power comes to mind. Certainly, during question period we would have no shortage of mega watts coming from the government side of the House. Even the House of Commons could potentially be powered by wind generation in such a scheme and perhaps some of this money may go in that direction. That would be parliamentary reform that would have long term benefits.

The issue of private sector participation in this is going to become increasingly important in Canada. Whether it is an environmental policy or almost any new area of technology, we can demonstrate to private individuals and companies in Canada that good environmental policy is good economics and good economic policy is good environmental policy. For far too long we separated environmental policy and economic policy. In failing to incorporate the two, we did a great disservice to both disciplines and to the public in general.

If we do more, such as internalize externalities of production at the time of production and ensure that the cost borne by consumers of particular products or services reflect not just the cost of production but the environmental cost of production, we would be far better served. These are the types of regulatory reforms that can effect changes. It might be actually more significant than that which is presented in this legislation.

This legislation is very vague on how it would address the long term issue of sustainable development. Again, it is only $100 million. A few months ago, anything dot com could have raised that in an IPO anywhere and those companies only took a few months to burn through that. With government involvement it may take less time. However, I have some real concerns about the scale of commitment of the federal government. Again, it is not a huge commitment. It will allow the government to point toward this very vague and cosmetic approach to this very serious issue and claim that it has taken action. In fact, it really is not a significant level of commitment to such an important global issue.

I would urge the government to be more responsive to this issue and incorporate a more effective regime of tax based incentives to reward and encourage private sector development of new technologies for sustainable development, as well as to encourage consumers to make choices, whether it is in their own homes or the fuels that they choose for their automobiles, to be more sensitive to environmental issues.

A positive thing that has happened in recent years is if one goes to a high school, speaks to a class and asks how many of the students feel environmental policy is of great priority, almost every one of them will put up their hands.

Ten years ago or fifteen years ago, if we had asked the same question to a group of school students probably most of them would not have said that. I do not think the environment was of huge importance to me when I was in high school. However, education has effected change in that direction and that is very positive.

We have now an emerging group of young adults who are environmentally sensitive and intrinsically interested in environmental issues. They may be more responsive to tax based measures which encourage sustainable environmental policy and greater levels of sensitivity as consumers. These Volvo vigilantes can make a huge impact on the future of the country, regardless of the car they choose to drive. It is important that we recognize more creative means by which to develop approaches.

Canada in so many areas, particularly in environmental policy, has failed to research best practices around the world of other jurisdictions and governments in terms of policies which apply in this case to environmental policy, but in so many other areas, whether it is in tax policy or social policy. We could have tried a little harder in this case to be somewhat more creative.

The government has almost a franchise like approach to policy development and the creation of these foundations. It names a bunch of Liberals to the board. Then, it sends it off to ultimately die a natural death and spend some money. In some cases, by hook or by crook, and I do not mean crook as in the stuff that has been alluded to in question period over and over again or in a criminal reference, sometimes a positive thing will come out. By and large the results have been less than substantial.

The fact is we could do much better. I was the co-chairman of the Progressive Conservative platform committee for the recent election. All three Canadians who read that document thought it was an excellent document. It was supported across the country by these people. They all voted for us.

The fact is the Sierra Club actually recognized that platform for its sound environmental policies. It also recognized the New Democratic Party. If there is an area of policy that I would be quite proud to stand beside my colleagues in the New Democratic Party, but not all policies, it is the environmental policy. There is a level of commitment that is consistent and of vigilance in areas of the environment that I have a great deal of respect for.

In another area and on another topic, the Canadian Alliance of Students Association, not to be confused with the other Canadian Alliance, said that the Conservative platform was the best in terms of student policies and education policies. Those are two areas that may not be recognized widely as cornerstones of conservative policy, but they certainly are cornerstones of Progressive Conservative policies, of which we are very proud.

We need to do more than simply institutionalize lip service to environmental and other important issues. We need to work with the provinces to develop meaningful tax and regulatory incentives to encourage a greater level of commitment from all Canadians, from the business community and from individual citizens. This is our legacy that we are leaving to future generations of Canadians.

We should not talk just about Canadians when we talk about the environment because this is a global issue. There are no borders when it comes to environmental policy. The legacy we are leaving to future citizens of the world is a very sad legacy.

I believe it was last week that there was another report on the whole global warming issue indicating that the worst fears of global warming are coming to fruition. We are seeing it in many of the natural disasters occurring in all parts of the world. The fact is that we in the developed countries which have led and created much of the problem are better insulated to survive during these crises than some of the developing countries.

There are some real issues of equity that we as a developed country, as a country that has in the past been a leader in environmental and foreign policy, can play in a greater role than the size of our population would typically dictate in leading greater co-operation globally on environmental policy.

Some people are talking about the issue of intergenerational equity. When they talk about that they are talking about the issue of the national debt which future generations are going to have to pay. That certainly is an issue of intergenerational equity. People your age, Mr. Speaker, leaving that kind of equity on people like me, the next generation, is indeed unfair. That is a career limiting move.

However, a more damning legacy and on intergenerational equity issue is that of the environment. We will at some point have to pay off the national debt. I would argue we should pay it off more quickly than some would argue. The damage we have inflicted on the environment is a debt that we may not be able to ever repay. That is a scientific fact.

We need to become increasingly vigilant. We have been asleep at the wheel for far too long on environmental policy. That is not a legacy that as policymakers in the House we can afford to leave for future generations of Canadians.

[Canada Foundation For Sustainable Development Technology Act, February 19th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, it is with great pleasure that I rise today to speak on the sustainable development technology foundation legislation Bill C-4.

Like so many initiatives of the government, this initiative represents a baby step in the right direction, a glossing over of a very major issue with what some would describe as a cosmetic approach in order that the government can say that it has in fact done something to address the issue of sustainable development and climate change. However, it is very much a baby step.

The Liberals have had an abysmal record on environmental policy.

I have in front of me a quotation from David Boyd, a senior associate with the eco-research chair of environmental policy at the University of Victoria, in the riding of the Minister of the Environment. Mr. Boyd, who is an expert on the environment, has said that “ in two terms the Liberals have yet to pass a single significant new piece of environmental legislation. Many green promises from the Liberal red book remain unfulfilled”.

That is a damning description, to have seen this level of demise, of two terms of Liberal government, a party that has historically had strong principles relative to environmental issues. The principles and values of environmental policy in the Liberal Party is indeed unfortunate.

The notion of a sustainable development technology foundation should have been addressed and developed before Kyoto. Instead the government's plan in terms of the Kyoto agreement was basically written on the back of an airplane napkin on the way to Kyoto. There was no long term planning. There was no real negotiation with the provinces or with industry sectors. In fact it was a last minute, hastily drafted agreement.

The federal government was not responsible for developing, in advance, a long term strategy on how to meet the terms of the Kyoto agreement. It was left scrambling after the Kyoto agreement. This legislation is a band-aid approach to make up for lost time years later. That is highly unfortunate.

[Financial Consumer Agency Of Canada Act, February 12th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, it is with pleasure today that I rise to speak on Bill C-8. Since it is my first time rising in the House for an actual speech since the resumption of parliament, I would like to take this opportunity to thank the people of Kings—Hants for the honour and privilege of representing them again. I also thank them for their unswerving support in the fall byelection when my leader was elected as their representative during a very critical time in the history of our party. I do not think they wanted me back. I think they wanted to keep my leader just a little bit longer but the unnecessary fall election precipitated changes for which we were not in control.

The global financial services sector has undergone more changes in the last 10 years than in the previous 150 years. No major regulatory reform has occurred in the financial services sector for the last 10 years.

In 1993 Canada was ahead of the U.S. in terms of regulatory reform affecting the financial services sector. Today we are far behind the U.S. in this critical area of our economies, particularly with the last vestiges of the Glass-Steagall act being gone now from the U.S.

The government has dilly-dallied, dithered and delayed at every opportunity. It has really been dragged to this point, kicking and screaming, to actually address some of the issues of the financial services sector.

In 1998, when the MacKay task force came out with a comprehensive set of recommendations, which balanced consumer interests as well as competitiveness issues for Canada's financial services sector, it represented what should have been considered a recipe, not a buffet.

Instead of taking that report, working with it, treating it respectfully for its tremendous contribution to the debate of this important public policy area and implementing many of the recommendations, the government chose to cherry-pick some of the more politically palatable recommendations of the MacKay report.

In fact, the government made public policy based in many cases on perception as opposed to dealing with the realities. Public policy and changes in public policy should always be based on reality and not on perception.

Before I go further, it is important that I declare I have involvements in the financial services sector. I have an involvement with an investment bank, not one of the chartered banks but with an investment bank. As such, while there is no direct linkage or effect of the legislation on independent investment banks, it is important that I do declare that as an interest.

Currently Canadian chartered banks are delivering on the whole, if one looks at it from a realistic perspective, reasonably good value to Canadians. We have a stable and an efficient system with among the lowest service charges in the industrialized world. We have 500,000 Canadians working for banks with a payroll of $22 billion, and exports of $50 billion per year of services. Ultimately, at the end of the day, over seven million Canadians actually own bank shares directly or indirectly.

It is important that we balance consumer interests, which are essential and need to be adhered to, and the interests of bank shareholders because in most cases they are the same people. Many of the investment vehicles that Canadians are relying on for their future post-retirement financial well-being, such as pension funds or mutual funds, have been invested in banks.

It is very difficult to invest in a mutual fund in Canada without investing in a bank. The percentage of the TSE that is consumed by banks in terms of investment capital is significant. We are fooling ourselves if we try to divide consumer interests from shareholder interests consistently because the two can be balanced, and the MacKay report demonstrated that.

It is also easy to bash banks, with the possible exception of politicians. Bankers are probably the least popular group in Canada. We should remind ourselves that it is not a legitimate reason to attack banks. We should actually base our attacks on some specific issues as opposed to simply doing it because by bashing banks we can make ourselves as politicians marginally more popular.

There are several positive features in the legislation. A negative feature, however, will be that it will lead to a dramatic increase in the level and layers of bureaucracy. The legislation will give the finance minister unnecessarily great and sweeping powers to intervene. It will require banks to publish information that arguably is of no practical purpose except to appease some of the advocacy groups.

On the positive side, the ownership and capitalization rules will be less restrictive. It will be easier to start a small bank. That is very good for the level of choice that Canadians will have ultimately in their banking services. Banks will have wider investment powers.

I am looking forward to changes in the co-operatives act, which will enable credit unions to compete more directly with banks and improve the competitiveness factors and services available to Canadians particularly in rural communities.

Foreign banks will have more flexibility in Canada. While that is a positive feature from a consumer's perspective, and we are supportive of foreign banks having greater access, we should recognize that foreign banks are gobbling up market share in Canada. Whether it is an MBNA or an ING, whether it is in the credit card business, small business lending or Internet banking, foreign banks can come in here without the impedimenta of bricks and mortar or legacy costs of bricks and mortar and compete directly with our Canadian owned banks on very specific areas of niche businesses.

By cherrypicking those businesses it expose the napes of our Canadian banks to a lot of competition. These foreign banks are not necessarily playing by the same rules in terms of commitments to communities, reinvestment and that sort of thing.

While we are supportive of greater levels of foreign competition from the perspective of individual consumers, we have to be careful that we do not handcuff our Canadian banks, expose them to this competition, and at the same time jeopardize the returns of many Canadians who are investing in these banks.

There will be greater access to the payment systems for life insurers, securities dealers and money market mutual funds. That will lead to greater levels of products and services and a greater variety of products and services for Canadians.

There will be a more transparent merger review process. It is still lengthy and demanding, but at least a basic set of ground rules is established by the legislation. At the end of the day the finance minister will still have the final say. I believe that the competition bureau should at the end of the day be able to rule on this matter.

We should not be sucked back into the vortex of the highly politicized merger debate that erupted in the House a couple of years ago when the Liberal caucus witch hunt on banks occurred. They referred to it as the Liberal caucus task force on the financial service sector, but it turned out to be a witch hunt.

The ministerial discretion provided by the legislation in any number of areas is significant, with sweeping powers to approve or reject mergers and order effective changes to the payment system.

I have heard my colleagues in the New Democratic Party refer to the minister becoming a banking czar of Canada with the legislation. I do not think that is far off. With the leadership considerations of the Liberal Party of Canada, the dual role of a finance minister who may be a leadership candidate at some point in the future, the potential for politicization of this very important public policy debate is high.

The last time the minister had an opportunity to negotiate with banks to get conditions from banks such that the interests and concerns of Canadians were met adequately before mergers were to proceed, he simply slammed the door. I believe on December 14, 1998, he just slammed the door on bank mergers for short term political interests instead of negotiating..

At that time the Bank of Montreal and the Royal Bank had committed, if the mergers were allowed to proceed, to a doubling of lending to small business from $25 billion to $50 billion. They also committed to the establishment of a new bank for small business lending, a reduction in service charges and an increased number of staffed outlets. These are some of the types of things that actually could have benefited Canadians if legitimate discussions and negotiations were to have occurred, but they did not because of politics.

The five month approval process for a proposed merger is a long time in the hyper-competitive global financial services sector. We recognize the importance of the process but we also have to recognize the speed with which changes occur and conditions change in this environment.

The cross pillar merger restriction is a matter of government policy but it could, in many ways, be wrongheaded if we look at what is happening elsewhere. In fact it is intuitive to expect that a cross pillar merger would lead to greater levels of security not less, and that it would be beneficial.

As a result of the legislation, the government will have power to intrude to a greater extent in the financial services sector than in any other Canadian industry. Banks and other large financial services firms with equity in excess of $1 billion would need to do public accountability statements on an annual basis describing their contributions to the Canadian economy and to society, such as small business lending practices, charitable donations, community involvement and the location of any branches opened or closed.

I have banks in small and rural communities in my riding. It is very important that we work with the banks to ensure the continuation of services in these communities. We have to be cognizant that banks are not the only necessary service being provided to Canadians by the free market. Certainly financial services are necessary to all Canadians but so is food and shelter.

The logical corollary of the government's arguments, as presented in the legislation, would be that ultimately we would need to force companies like Sobey's and Loblaws to provide free food to Canadians regardless of income. In fact people building apartment buildings would have to build some extra apartments because there will be a need to provide free apartments by the private developers to individuals regardless of income.

We should start first with Canada Post. Certainly Canada Post, as a crown agency, should be giving out free stamps to people regardless of income if the government is to follow its own logic.

We need to ensure that a bank closure in a rural community goes through the same process as a grocery store closure. Surely, food is as important as banking services.

What I am trying to point out is that there are near toxic levels of hypocrisy in the legislation in the way it treats one sector and does not deal with the realities of what we enjoy in Canada as a free market. There are now more banking outlets in Canada as a result of technology than there have ever been. Any one of us can withdraw money at a grocery store with a bank card. We can use also use bank cards to buy groceries.

Technology has made a huge impact on improving banking services for Canadians at the grassroots level. I believe that in areas where the Bank of Nova Scotia has no branch outlet it has been working proactively with the post office in order to provide some level of service. There is nothing at the end of the day, particularly for senior citizens, that beats actually dealing with a human being as opposed to an automated teller.

The credit unions' ability to take over banking services in some of these communities is the type of transition that needs to be encouraged. Sometimes the government's approach to some of these issues is very wrongheaded and is based on the anachronistic notion that somehow governments should regulate and overregulate until eventually the private sector will do everything the government tells it to do. The effect of that over the long term, if we apply it to every sector in the economy, would actually be very negative for all of us.

We will be supporting the legislation because by and large the positive changes are long overdue and simply cannot be delayed further. This piece of legislation was another victim of the early election call.

We are supporting the legislation despite some of the less positive elements of it. Another area of the legislation that on the surface sounds very good but has some real problems is the new consumer agency.

First, there is no reason why the agency could not report directly to parliament as opposed to the minister. The agency would be paid for by the financial institutions. Ultimately this agency, as well as the increased regulatory burden on our agencies, will lead to increased costs for the banks. There is no way around that. The costs will ultimately be passed on to consumers or will result in a lower return for about seven and a half million silent Canadian investors who are depending on the returns for their retirement incomes.

The new agency and the regulations could have a less than desirable impact. As a result of the law of unintended consequences, many of the positive impacts that people foresee from this agency and this greater level of regulation may not come to pass. Canadians might see higher costs for banking services as the costs are passed on to them in the end.

I am concerned that we may be further exposing our already disadvantaged Canadian banks in terms of the global environment. We seem to be handcuffing Canadian banks while exposing them to foreign competition.

Under the legislation bank holding companies in Canada would need ministerial approval for most categories of permitted investments. In the U.S., financial holding companies need only notify the federal reserve board 30 days after making a non-bank acquisition. These are some of the disadvantages that could lead to significant problems down the road for the Canadian financial services sector.

I hope that in 10 years we do not look back at this legislation and other policy movements by the government and see that they were in fact the beginning of or the planting of the seeds of a foreign owned Canadian financial services sector.

We all like to complain about the banks. I have done it a lot myself. However, if there is a worse thing for a guy like me from Cheverie, Hants county, Nova Scotia than dealing with one of the big banks based in Toronto, it would be dealing with one of the big banks based in Zurich, New York or Chicago, a bank with no vested interest in the future of this country. The need for strong, Canadian-owned financial entities becomes particularly important in the context of national unity.

I hope we do not look back at this legislation and other decisions that are being made in this place at this time as having been the beginning of the end of a strong, Canadian owned financial services sector.

Some of the Luddite elements of the legislation are at best egregious and wrongheaded. Less generously, I think they are dangerous for the future of the Canadian owned financial services sector and these jobs that Canadians depend on as we enter an exciting 21st century.

The opportunities available to Canadians in the global environment are almost limitless, but we have to ensure that the Parliament of Canada and Government of Canada do not limit those opportunities by trying appease to the politics of the short term.

[Speech From The Throne, February 6th, 2001]

Madam Speaker, I would like to ask my hon. colleague if he shares with me a certain excitement about the future of Atlantic Canada.

If we look at Ireland 10 years ago and compare it to Atlantic Canada today, I think the House would agree that a lot of comparisons that can be drawn. The fact is that a tax based strategy, largely based on the transfers from the EU, allowed Ireland to transform itself over that period of time.

We could change the equalization to make it more effective and enable provinces such as Nova Scotia and Newfoundland to keep more of the offshore revenue to lower taxes and debt. Would the hon. member agree that transforming Atlantic Canada by using economic development strategies we know work in other parts of the world would be a great legacy? Can we not change equalization to work now instead of dilly-dallying and doddering around and dealing with old economic development strategies that have failed?

[The Economy, February 6th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, Canada's equalization system is a cornerstone of our social policy. In fact it is the only constitutionally enshrined spending program.

The stated goal of equalization was to provide approximately equal levels of taxation and services across the country, regardless of province. Yet today the provinces that have the greatest need for economic growth are also suffering under the highest levels of taxation. As such, clearly Canada's equalization system is broken.

The premier of Nova Scotia, John Hamm, is in Ottawa today, leading a crusade to fix Canada's equalization system, starting with eliminating the clawback of offshore revenues which denies provinces like Nova Scotia and Newfoundland the opportunity to use offshore revenues to lower taxes, to lower debt and to create greater levels of economic growth for their people.

I urge all members of the House, regardless of province or party, to support John Hamm, premier of Nova Scotia, in this legendary crusade on behalf of all Canadians.

[The Economy, February 1st, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Prime Minister and the finance minister stated that our economy is doing just fine and that action is not required now and will only be taken if necessary.

However, this morning's StatsCan figures for November show zero growth and we are hearing of thousands of layoffs at Nortel and DaimlerChrysler, among others. Americans have adjusted their interest rates to try to counter the slowing of the U.S. economy.

We have now lost the glorious Montreal Canadiens because taxes are too high and the Canadian dollar is too weak.

Yesterday we lost a national symbol of pride, the Montreal Canadiens, to American interests, due largely to high taxes and the weak dollar policies of this government.

Canadians understand the need for a budget. Members of the opposition understand the need for a budget. Liberal backbenchers understand the need for a budget. The time for action is now. We need a budget.

[Banks, June 13th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, Canadians have waited seven years for this government to introduce its financial services sector reform package which will not see royal assent until at least a year and may in fact be derailed by a general election.

With the changes in the global financial services sector occurring at web speed, why is this government moving at a snail's pace?