House of Commons photo

Crucial Fact

  • His favourite word was fact.

Last in Parliament February 2019, as Liberal MP for Kings—Hants (Nova Scotia)

Won his last election, in 2015, with 71% of the vote.

Statements in the House

The Economy November 23rd, 1999

Mr. Speaker, the Liberal government's combination of a weak dollar policy, high corporate and personal tax rates, and a high level of regulatory burden are reducing productivity, restricting growth and reducing the value of Canadian equities.

Liberal policies are making Canadian businesses particularly vulnerable to foreign takeovers. Referred to by some as Canada's corporate fire sale, the list of Canadian companies being taken over is getting larger every week. Just recently, British American Tobacco bought Imasco for a whopping $17.3 billion. Other takeover targets include MacMillan Bloedel, JDS Fitel, Newcourt, Poco Petroleum, MetroNet, Celanese, Discreet Logic and Groupe Forex.

When will the government listen to the IMF and other authorities and make debt and tax reduction priorities, not just afterthoughts? When will the government realize that we cannot devalue our way to prosperity and that Liberal policies are turning Canada into the Wal-Mart of the world?

Regulatory Budget November 22nd, 1999

Mr. Speaker, again it is a pleasure that I rise to debate Motion No. 207. I appreciate the interventions by the representatives from the other parties.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister raised some concerns relative to my motion and to the notion of a regulatory budget. I want to clarify a couple of things. I should clarify what this motion is not, what we are not representing with the regulatory budget idea.

We are certainly not saying that there will be times that we would be opposed to all regulations. In fact, there are times that we would still support regulations although the government borne costs of implementation and compliance and the citizenry borne costs actually exceeded the benefits provided by the regulation.

Earlier I used the example of bicycle helmets. In dealing with a priceless issue in terms of the safety of children against head injuries, it could be very difficult to quantify that. Even if we were to assess some level of cost it could very well be the case that the elected members of parliament would still support that particular regulation.

There are examples where the House would support a regulation even though the cost benefit analysis numbers did not quantitatively support that regulation. It would provide an increase in the role of the member of parliament in evaluating these very important regulations in the same way that we evaluate taxes and other public policies in this chamber, or at least we should be.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister also said that this could result in a cap on regulations. Nowhere does the motion mention there being a cap on regulations. We believe that every regulation should have a sunset clause. Periodically we should be revisiting pieces of governance or regulations to determine their efficacy in the current context. That would make sense. But in no way, shape or form did we ever mention a cap.

The Reform member initially described me as being a socialist. That is the first time I have ever been described as a socialist. I guess that is why we are a centre right party as opposed to a far right party. I guess most Canadians are somewhere in the centre. Certainly the recent polls indicate that more Canadians are closer to where we are than to where the Reform Party is.

In any case, I was surprised that the Reform Party would be opposed to increasing the role of the member of parliament and increasing the accountability of parliament. I assumed on past utterances by the Reform Party that the Reform Party would support greater scrutiny over initiatives by unelected people in the bureaucracy. I guess that is no longer the case. Perhaps hypocrisy is only half a mortal sin, so a party that looks seriously on those kinds of things may not be as constrained as we would have expected.

I was also surprised that the Reform Party would be so opposed to something that has been endorsed by the Canadian Federation of Independent Business. I am frequently surprised by the Reform Party and perhaps eventually when I become less jaded I will become more inured to some of the inconsistencies over there.

I thank the hon. NDP member for her thoughtful intervention. It is obvious that she considered the issue very carefully and gave a qualified approval of the intent of the legislation. I appreciate her intervention today, and on other days as well. She is a very skilled, adroit and thoughtful parliamentarian. She compared this piece of legislation to something that Pat Buchanan was supportive of sometime ago. Be assured that my intentions with this legislation are far different from what the far right in the U.S. would support, particularly people like Pat Buchanan of the U.S. Reform Party.

If the New Democrats say that I am too far right and the Reform Party says I am a socialist, that probably makes me just right. We like the centre right position. More and more Canadians are becoming increasingly comfortable with where we are at. We certainly expect that enough Canadians in the next federal election will be so comfortable that we will be on the other side of the House implementing this types of visionary legislation that will improve the quality of life for Canadians and the competitiveness of Canadian enterprise as we move bravely into the 21st century.

Regulatory Budget November 22nd, 1999

moved:

That, in the opinion of this House, the government should implement a “Regulatory Budget”, parallel to the traditional spending budget, which would detail estimates of the total cost of each individual regulation including the government enforcement costs as well as the cost of compliance to individual citizens and businesses; and include a risk/benefit analysis of each regulation, to enable cost/benefit analysis of regulation by parliamentarians.

Mr. Speaker, it is with pleasure that I rise today to debate my private member's Motion No. 207 concerning the introduction of a regulatory budget which would achieve a great deal in a number of realms.

First, there has been a secular decline in the role of the member of parliament over the past 30 years and a reduction in the meaningful role that private members play in conducting and legislating those things that are really important to Canadians. This regulatory budget would go a long way toward restoring some of the traditional authority which members of parliament had back in the days when the estimates were debated on the floor of the House of Commons and before the days when there was such tremendous control and concentration of power, in particular in the PMO and to a certain extent within the cabinet. This would help reverse a certain amount of that. It would also redistribute power that is currently with the bureaucracy and put more of that power in the hands of elected representatives. That would achieve a great good on behalf of Canadians, Canadian parliamentary systems and democracy.

There are two ways the government can change the way Canadians do things. For instance, if a bureaucrat determines that it is in the public interest to have a lawn sprinkler on every lawn in Canada, there are two ways the bureaucrat can achieve that. One way is to whisper in the ear of a cabinet minister that this is a good thing and that the government should buy those lawn sprinklers and distribute them to Canadians, which would entail a tax. Of course, the government would increase taxes, buy the lawn sprinklers and distribute them to Canadians to put on their lawns.

The second way, which is far less transparent and more concealed, would be for the government to introduce a regulation which would force all Canadians to buy lawn sprinklers with their own money and put them on their lawn.

What is the difference? The only difference is that of transparency and accountability, because effectively the same result is achieved with either alternative. Canadians are forced to sacrifice some of their scarce resources in the interest of a public good which is somehow determined by the bureaucracy. Somehow it is determined by big government and by this nanny government state that something is in the interests of Canadians and the government has made a decision that this will be done.

When a bureaucrat believes it is in the public interest that a certain end be achieved, there needs to be transparency and accountability in parliament prior to that change being effected.

Effectively what would occur with a regulatory budget would be that each new regulation introduced by a bureaucrat, before it was actually implemented, would have to pass once a year through a regulatory budget in the Chamber. We would be debating the efficacy or importance of each regulation in the House of Commons in the same way that we debate provisions within the budget.

A regulation is virtually the same as a tax. While we debate tax issues in the House all the time, we rarely debate the regulatory burden that is playing such a significant role in Canada and to a considerable extent is reducing the efficiency and competitiveness of Canadian business and individuals.

I will give some examples. Between 1973 and 1996 federal government regulations grew significantly. In fact we have seen in recent years, during the 1990s, 650 to 1,000 new regulations introduced every year, requiring 4,000 to 5,000 pages of detailed explanation. Furthermore, in the past 20 years there have been over 100,000 new federal and provincial regulations passed. The average, combining federal and provincial, has been about 4,000 new regulations per year in the past 20 years.

As the number of regulations continues to expand, so do the costs of designing, implementing and administering these regulations. The expenditures on federal regulations over the past 20 years have grown in real dollar terms from $2 billion to $2.5 billion, an increase of 26%.

What do these regulations mean to consumers? It is very important to recognize that there are three costs with every regulation. The first two costs, which are borne by the government, are the implementation costs and the enforcement costs. The third cost, the largest cost, which is borne by consumers, is the cost of compliance. These regulations for consumers have cost the average Canadian family about $11,000 per year, federal and provincial regulations combined. That has been an increase in real terms from about $10,000 20 years ago. Total compliance costs to the private sector have increased from $58 billion in 1974 to about $84 billion in 1995-96. That increase has a significant impact, in particular on small business.

Studies suggest that escalating regulatory costs are responsible in part for our lagging productivity growth in Canada relative to the U.S. and other OECD countries. The 1994 small business working committee set up by the federal government shared these thoughts: “Too many regulations are developed and administered with little consideration given to the impact on the competitiveness of small business. Government must regulate less, simplify paperwork, limit information requirements and get out of the way so that small businesses can focus on creating wealth and jobs”.

Unfortunately, Ottawa has abandoned its attempt to make compliance requirements more efficient for business. In their first term the Liberals introduced legislation aimed at allowing companies to propose more cost effective ways of complying with regulatory requirements. However, this legislation was redrafted and ultimately scrapped. It is now necessary to revisit some of these initiatives. We must find ways to encourage more innovative market driven responses to the issue of compliance.

The U.S. is having a similar experience relative to regulations. The cost of complying with American federal regulations has risen to 47% of the federal budget, up from 40% in 1988. There has been an increase in the regulatory burden, both in the U.S. and Canada, with our other trading partners. It is important that we also look at the examples of Japan and European countries in the EU which are also moving to reform regulatory burden issues within their countries. It is important to view what is being done in other countries with respect to tax issues, social investment issues and regulatory issues.

We are in a very competitive global environment and we cannot afford to sit still in Canada while other countries adopt more innovative approaches to some of these very important competitiveness issues.

The notion of costing regulations, taking those three costs that I mentioned earlier, the two government borne costs and the private sector compliance cost, and combining them with the actual benefit of those regulations would provide parliamentarians with an ability to actually debate in the Chamber the importance or the efficacy of individual regulations.

The benefit of a regulation could be provided through a risk/benefit analysis, the methodology for which is very sophisticated and exists within insurance companies and underwriting agencies. We could use that type of methodology to determine the actual benefits of a regulation in order to compare the benefits to the costs of implementing that regulation.

It is very important to realize that there would be cases with a regulatory budget where the costs of implementation and enforcement would exceed the numeric value number of the benefit, but we would still pass that regulation.

I will give an example, which is not a federal regulation. Some provinces and municipalities have bicycle helmet laws. How could we put a price on the prevention of a head injury to a child? It would be very difficult to quantify that kind of benefit. There would be a political will and the recognition of a social good to passing that regulation, even though the numbers may not add up.

I have been asked questions relative to environmental issues. Some would say that it is difficult to quantify the benefits of environmental policy. I would argue to the contrary, that any economic policy which ignores environmental impact is bad economic policy. We should be taking into account environmental costs with every piece of regulation. If we fail to do so, the economics simply will not work because we will fail to internalize the externalities and to take into account the real cost to individuals, both consumers and non-consumers.

All these things can be taken into account. The bottom line is that elected members of the House would have the power to pass or to vote against individual regulations as part of this budget. This would lead to greater diligence in the bureaucracy in introducing regulations, greater scrutiny both by the bureaucracy and within the elected Chamber of these regulations, and ultimately a more effective and efficient regulatory burden which would provide greater benefit to Canadians and wreak less havoc with Canadian enterprises.

Last week I received a letter from the Canadian Federation of Independent Business. I will read some excerpts from it:

Numerous surveys of our members carried out over the years have consistently identified government red tape as a major problem for small and medium size businesses.

The recent survey of the Canadian Federation of Independent Business found that 60% of over 10,000 respondents identified government regulations and paper burden as serious issues for their businesses. Government regulations and paper burden were ranked as the second most important issues behind the total tax burden and just ahead of employment insurance and government debt reduction.

When asked to identify what government priorities should improve their productivity, 44% of respondents identified easing burdensome government regulations. The survey also found that one out of four respondents said that government fees and penalties needed to be made more equitable. Both responses were ranked in the top five actions the government should take to improve small business productivity. They were directly behind payroll, income taxes and paying down the federal debt.

Paper burden and regulations that are present at the federal, provincial and municipal levels saps productivity and wastes valuable time and money, not only for small and medium size businesses but also for the taxpayer and for government. A past survey carried out by the CFIB found that 40% of Ontario small business owners spend more than six hours per week simply filling out forms.

The cost of red tape to the Canadian economy is staggering, costing tens of billions of dollars annually. Some provinces have already taken steps to reduce red tape with the full support and active involvement of the Canadian Federation of Independent Business. In 1995 the Ontario government set up the red tape commission which has so far removed or amended more than 1,300 regulations. More recently the Ontario government announced its intention to set up a permanent red tape watchdog that will subject all new regulations to a strict business impact test.

This summer the New Brunswick government announced that it was setting up a red tape review committee to eliminate regulations that are a barrier to economic growth and job creation.

Garth White, senior vice-president of national affairs for the CFIB, said in his correspondence to me that the CFIB applauded our initiative and urged the federal government to take swift action to cut unnecessary regulations and red tape which hamper productivity and competitiveness and kills badly needed jobs.

We have the support of the small business community in this regard. If Canadians were aware of this initiative we would have the support of the majority of Canadians who understand quite clearly that a regulation is nothing more than a tax. As such we should be debating in the Chamber the importance and effectiveness of individual regulations. I look forward to the comments of my hon. colleagues on this important issue.

Division No. 54 November 18th, 1999

Mr. Speaker, my question is a very simple one. If the hon. member had his choice, would it be his opinion that Canada would be better served without our charter of rights?

Division No. 54 November 18th, 1999

The Onex partner.

Supply November 4th, 1999

Mr. Speaker, I really did not expect the parliamentary secretary to have his facts straight. In fact, I suggest that his facts on this issue are probably as wrong and that he is as misinformed as he was when as an opposition member he was one of the most vociferous opponents of free trade.

Supply November 4th, 1999

Mr. Speaker, it is with great pleasure that I rise today to debate the New Democrat opposition day motion. It is a wonderful time to recognize the success of one of the most forward thinking and innovative policies to be introduced in the 20th century by any government in Canada, the free trade agreement.

It is interesting for me to recognize today the Liberal position on this issue and how it is diametrically opposite to what the Liberal position was during the 1988 election. I often wonder what it would be like to be able to float through one's political life without being burdened under any of the impedimenta of values, principle and consistency on policies. That is exactly what the Liberals do on almost every issue.

The only thing worse than their stealing our policies would be for them to implement their own, and that is what we are a little concerned about at this juncture. They are starting to implement their own policies and we are a little afraid about the impact of them in the long term.

The free trade agreement in Canada, liberalized trade, has been a winner for Canadians across the country. The

Economist

magazine in its 1998 year preview said specifically that the ability of the Liberal Government of Canada to eliminate the deficit was based largely on the free trade agreement and on the GST, both of which were vociferously opposed by members opposite. However the fact is that the policies worked.

We rise today to debate the opposition motion of the New Democratic Party on trade. Unfortunately New Democratic Party members are confusing a number of issues relative to trade. There is within the New Democratic Party a belief that environmental issues and trade issues cannot co-exist comfortably. I believe they can. We may agree on the ends we want to achieve in terms of an environmentally sustainable and economically sustainable global economy, which can co-exist. The ends are very similar, but the means to get there are quite different.

Good trade policy can mirror sound environmental policy. The World Trade Organization recently came out with a paper that recognizes both the pitfalls of trade in terms of environmental policy and some of the strengths and opportunities. There is a movement now for a world environmental organization which would mirror the World Trade Organization but would focus specifically on environmental issues. I think that would be very positive.

Trade as an economic vehicle helps improve the lot of all countries. In fact it helps improve the lot of the poorest countries. Let us look at what has happened in Mexico since the free trade agreement or the North American Free Trade Agreement. It has made significant advancements economically. In terms of democratic reform and in terms of environmental reform there has been significant advancement.

Wealthier countries and countries enjoying relative prosperity can better afford to have sound environmental policy. Some of the worst environmental policies and disasters existed in closed economies before the end of the cold war in eastern Europe. To somehow say that free market economies, trading economies and integrated economies somehow will lead to bad environmental policy is counterintuitive.

I would argue that the environment is essentially and intrinsically a global issue. Pollution does not stop at borders. Nor does trade. As a result these issues need to be dealt with globally. Increasingly I think trade can be an extraordinarily successful lever in achieving a greater level of global commitment to environmental policies.

The issue of labour standards is raised frequently. Some point to trade as exacerbating the problem when the opportunities provided to some of the developing economies by trade will ultimately provide greater levels of economic opportunity and flexibility. What happens in countries that take advantage of trade opportunities is that ultimately they prosper economically. Their economies become integrated, as do their political systems. Quite frequently the people enjoying better levels of economic success will ultimately see opportunities too and demand greater democratic reforms.

The issue today is how we can best embrace trade opportunities to provide a greater commitment to environmental or labour policies. It certainly is not by putting a relatively weak trade minister in the position of the ambassador to the WTO.

The previous ambassador to the WTO, John Weekes, was a professional. He was exceptional and he served Canada very well. I would argue that with the appointment of the former minister of trade, Sergio Marchi, as the ambassador to the WTO we have gone from Weekes to weak. My concern is that as we go into the next round of trade negotiations the global community is going to see an inherent weakness in our representative at the negotiating table.

The MMT legislation that people so often point to in demonstrating a weakness in chapter 11 of the NAFTA was in fact bad legislation. The MMT legislation was poorly drafted and poorly designed. Ultimately it was not a failure of chapter 11; it was a failure of bad legislation. The environment minister responsible for introducing that legislation was Sergio Marchi. He went on to become minister of trade and is now representing our interests at the WTO. In terms of our ability to be represented strongly at the next WTO rounds, Canadians should be very scared because the depth and breadth of knowledge and the understanding of trade issues by that individual is simply not sound.

Beyond that, we are now paying copious quantities of quid to the previous ambassador to the WTO in his new role as consultant. Effectively we fired him as our ambassador to the WTO, but because the guy we hired, the former trade minister, cannot handle it, we ended up hiring the consultant company that the former ambassador works for. Canadians are paying twice the money and getting, I would suggest, half the representation at the WTO. That is the real issue.

The problem is, even when Liberals finally decide that free trade is a good idea, they do not know how to maximize Canada's opportunities in the global environment.

It is extremely important that we recognize, if we are going to be successful in the new knowledge based global economy, that trade and technology go hand in hand. E-commerce is expected to grow to $1.3 trillion by 2002. There are no borders with e-commerce. With or without trade agreements, e-commerce will continue to grow. The only levers that will have any impact on the ramifications of e-commerce and the increasingly interconnected knowledge based economy will be through trade.

I would suggest to members of the New Democratic Party that we begin to accept, first, that we are in a global environment, second, that trade is going to continue to be an engine for growth and a vehicle to achieve greater prosperity for all citizens of the world and, third, that the free market system is the best vehicle to achieve that. We should be working together to find out how we can maximize those opportunities within those parameters.

I would suggest to members of the New Democratic Party that the recent statement from the WTO, recognizing both the environmental pitfalls and strengths of trade and some of the alternatives to achieve better environmental policy in a global trading environment, would be a good place to start. We are heading in the right direction and we look forward to their constructive involvement in that process.

Speech From The Throne November 3rd, 1999

Madam Speaker, I am pleased that the hon. member and some of her government colleagues have finally recognized the brain drain phenomenon. The number of people for instance going to the U.S. from Canada has grown from 17,000 to about 86,000 in I believe the last 12 years. It is very, very important. The fact is that Nortel is losing 300 to 400 software engineers per year to the U.S. This is very, very important.

The hon. member seems to believe with some level of 1970s Liberal economic naivete that all this can be solved with government intervention. This is despite the fact that most of the companies that are affected are pointing to the tax system as having a significant and deleterious impact on our ability to keep people here.

There are three areas that are raised most frequently by the high tech sector. The capital gains tax system is effectively twice as oppressive in Canada than in the U.S. That affects those in the high tech sector because of stock options. Also, our top marginal tax rate kicks in at $60,000 in Canada. The equivalent top marginal tax threshold in the U.S. does not occur until $420,000 Canadian.

I would suggest that some of those stars we are trying to keep are probably in that over $60,000 tax level, so it is very important that we address those issues. I look forward to the hon. member's comments.

Taxation November 3rd, 1999

Mr. Speaker, what we have not heard is the Prime Minister say that it is the responsibility of government to reduce taxes.

The finance minister's economic statement stated that tax reduction was a priority, not an afterthought. Yet in the Prime Minister's recent Speech from the Throne there was only half a page devoted to tax reduction and 24 pages devoted to $32 billion worth of new spending.

The Prime Minister wrote the throne speech. The finance minister wrote the economic statement. The question Canadians are waiting to be answered is who will be writing the budget. Will it be the free spending, 1970s style Prime Minister, or will it be the wannabe, tax cutting finance minister?

Taxation November 3rd, 1999

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister has told Canadians that they should move to another country if they want real tax relief.

Does the finance minister share the views of the Prime Minister that if Canadians want real tax relief they should leave Canada?