Scott Brison

[Kosovo, April 12th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, there is unease within NATO among some of the 19 member countries. Countries like Italy, Greece and the Czech republic are committed, but there has been a certain trepidation in their commitment. The commitment of ground troops would further strain what is already a commitment with significant concern and reservation.

Relative to the issue of voting in this House to determine whether we should send ground troops, the issue of committing to air strikes is quite different for many Canadians than the issue of committing to ground troops. There are Canadians who feel it is appropriate that we are committed to participate through NATO in air strikes, but they would question our participation with ground troops.

The hon. member opposite suggested that my position on this was foolish. It is not as foolish as the position of the current Prime Minister at the time of the Persian Gulf crisis when he said that it was all right to send Canadian forces into the Persian Gulf, but it was very important that they all come back the first time a shot was fired, which was at best illogical, and at worst ridiculous and idiotic.

It is important to reflect on what the Prime Minister said earlier today. He said that we did not have to have votes in the House of Commons about these issues. In fact, it was more democratic to give members the opportunity to talk, but not to vote. I suggest that the Prime Minister deliver that message to Canadians and suggest to them that in the next election they would be much better off if they did not have a vote but were given a few minutes to talk. They would not be allowed to elect anybody, but they would be allowed to talk about it. That was the Prime Minister's suggestion earlier. The logical corollary would be that we would have 30 million Canadians in the next election talking but no one actually voting.

These are complex issues and I really believe that we owe it to Canadians to debate them and vote on them in the House of Commons. In fact, there are some countries, prior to intervention, which require voting on the commitment of military resources and ground troops. I do not understand the rationale for the Liberal opposition to democracy on this or many other fronts.

[Kosovo, April 12th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, it is with great concern that I rise today to speak about the important issue of Canada's involvement in NATO's intervention in Kosovo.

This intervention is one of the riskiest ventures that NATO has ever participated in. The air strikes against Bosnian Serbs in 1995 were successful in many ways. In due course a treaty was signed which has since then worked fairly well. I visited Bosnia with the foreign affairs committee in the fall of 1997 and was able to see some of the success of the Dayton accord and the post-Dayton situation is relatively stable.

Canadian peacekeepers are respected globally. I saw first-hand the professionalism of the Canadian peacekeepers who were participating in the S-4 intervention in the former Yugoslavia. It really made me very proud to be a Canadian.

Periodic air attacks in Iraq by the U.S. have helped to prevent Saddam Hussein from committing some atrocities. He has still continued to flare up periodically and to commit atrocities against his own and other people, but the air strikes have helped somewhat.

This time, however, it is different. This is the first attack on a sovereign state that stands accused of vile behaviour not to its neighbours but to its own people. Where was NATO for instance when Russia tried to squelch the Chechnians at a cost of 100,000 lives? What did we do to try to prevent genocide in Rwanda in terms of significant interventions?

How would the west respond, for instance, if China were to carry out air strikes against an Indian government that was fighting to prevent a Muslim majority province such as Jammu-Kashmir from seceding, or if one country were to intervene in an other country's internal debates about issues of human rights or ethnic cleansing?

In Serbia, we are dealing with a better armed and more militarily sophisticated group than the Bosnian Serbs. It is in fact more militarily equipped and more sophisticated than latter day Iraq.

Hopefully, the smart bombs and the missiles can achieve victory without the use of ground troops. However, I think that is naive. I think the Canadian government, in creating an expectation that is possible, has misled many Canadians. Many military experts, including the supreme general of NATO and the U.S. military experts, have agreed with the view that ground troops will be necessary.

In Kosovo and Serbia the military targets and the civilians are inextricably linked. As my hon. colleague from St. John's East mentioned, the terrain in Kosovo is not conducive to effective air strikes.

NATO members are becoming increasingly uneasy. The goals of the air attacks were to end Serbia's brutalities against the ethnic Albanians, who make up nine-tenths of the population of Kosovo, and at the same time not break up the country. Yet in the first four days of NATO air attacks the number of Kosovars driven from their homes had risen to 500,000, one-quarter of the population. Up to 100,000 Kosovars have been killed.

By last week about 1.1 million of Kosovo's 1.8 million people had been driven out of their homes. NATO seemed unprepared. There was a chaotic response to the refugee issue. The response from Canadians at the grassroots level who wanted to help was very warm. I saw it in my own riding. To see Canadian non-governmental organizations such as the Red Cross and the Salvation Army coming forward and individual Canadians offering to help reaffirmed my belief in the Canadian people. However, at the same time NATO and this government's participation in NATO did not seem prepared for the inevitable issue of the refugees.

While NATO has carried out the bombing, the Serb forces in Kosovo have continued ethnic cleansing. In fairness, this ethnic cleansing, these killings, would have taken place anyway. They would have taken place perhaps at a more leisurely pace than they have, but they would have taken place.

I received a petition today in my constituency office from a group in Wolfville. The petition states:

We want an immediate end to the bombings and a return to diplomacy and negotiation with the active involvement of the UN.

This group generally feels that the bombings have heightened a sense of nationalism and in fact have strengthened Milosevic. The group is right in a way because the bombings have strengthened the resolve of the Serbians and Milosevic's popularity is up. However, I believe that sustained bombing over a period of time could serve to sap morale and lead to the Serb population questioning Milosevic, making it more difficult for him to lead and defend what is an untenable position.

Perhaps Milosevic will give up the ungovernable province of Kosovo anyway, in the same way that he has given up territories in the past which he had previously said he would not give up. Part of Milosevic's strategy has always been to create a sense of martyrdom with the Serbs, to revel in this martyrdom and past defeats. He almost celebrates these defeats. It is possible that at some point he will give up at least some of his demands in relation to the Kosovo issue.

It is possible also that the Kosovar guerrillas will be effective on the ground against Serb soldiers in the same way that the Croat soldiers were during the NATO air strikes against Bosnian Serbs in 1995. We do not really know if the Kosovars have an effective soldiery now, but there is a risk that the Kosovar ground troops could get an upper hand. It will be very difficult for NATO to stop the Kosovar troops from butchering the Serb minority in Kosovo and declaring independence. That is an issue we have to look at as well.

The west does not want that. It does not want to break up Yugoslavia. It is not there for either side to win. It just wants security for the Kosovars, the ethnic Albanians.

Ground troops may be necessary. NATO currently has 12,000 troops in Macedonia. The Serbs have 40,000 troops in Kosovo. NATO would need about 150,000 troops for a decisive victory.

There would be many casualties and as mission creep evolved there would be comparisons with Vietnam. There are several NATO countries which might back out. Greece, Italy and the Czech republic are already lukewarm at best.

I believe that NATO was right in principle to intervene. We should not hide behind the antiquated 19th century notion of national security solely as a foreign policy imperative. The evolution of human security in the post-cold war environment is a very important evolution. There have been 100 conflicts in the post-cold war environment. Most of them have been interstate conflicts and most of those have been between governments and their own people.

We have seen the evolution of an international criminal court. We see cases like the Pinochet case. Leaders simply cannot get away with atrocities against their own people as they were able to do in the past.

We only need look back at the film footage of the liberation of some of the concentration camps at the end of World War II to realize that there were times in the past when we should have intervened and did not. Today more than ever, in the post-cold war environment, with the evolution of human security, there are times when we must act and I believe that this is one of those times.

However, there must be a new global framework that can work to avert crises by addressing them earlier through a concerted effort by the UN. I heard one member speak earlier about the involvement of the IMF and the World Bank. We could use diplomatic and economic levers and evolve some of the institutions, such as the Bretton Woods institutions, which need to be reformed to reflect current realities. Canada should play a leadership role in these fora and I am concerned that Canada is not maximizing its leadership as it should.

Even if we accept human security as an imperative, where do we draw the line? Where do we intervene and where do we not intervene? Are we prepared to intervene in the inevitability of ground troops? Is our Canadian military prepared? I fear that is not the case. The government has allowed the Canadian military to reach a crisis situation of its own in terms of equipment and personnel.

The bottom line is that these types of debates are very important. They should be accompanied by a vote. Certainly before we send ground troops to Kosovo it is very important that we have a full debate in the House, with a vote, to demonstrate unequivocally that not only are the members of the House unanimously committed to this very important humanitarian effort, but that Canadians value democracy enough to protect it within their own borders.

[Canadian Human Rights Act, March 25th, 1999]

I always agree.

[Canadian Human Rights Act, March 25th, 1999]

I agree.

[Homelessness, March 25th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, that is just more talk and what the homeless need is more action from this government. The finance minister mentioned the word homeless in his budget speech but no funding was actually provided to deal with this very serious problem. Since then we have seen the appointment of a new minister for the homeless and she has not been provided with the resources needed to get the job done.

Why does this government only talk about the serious issue of the homeless instead of doing something for the homeless?

[Homelessness, March 25th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, on Tuesday the Prime Minister appointed a new minister for the homeless yet this new minister has been given no program budget and no research budget. Can the Deputy Prime Minister explain why the Prime Minister appointed a new minister for the homeless and failed to give this new minister the tools to get the job done? Is this just window dressing?

[Bank Act, March 24th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, to explain the government's position on this, the Minister of Finance has been very busy lately. He has had a lot of things on his plate. He has this leadership thing coming up and everything. He was walking along one day and one of his staff asked what he was going to do about this Tobin tax. I think the minister thought it was a Tobin attack. He was thinking of the premier in Newfoundland and he said, “I support any attack on that guy because he is going after the same job I want” and ultimately this changed things very quickly.

On the issue of speculation, the southeast Asia meltdown occurred partially because governments were operating monetary policies that were inconsistent with their fiscal policies. They had pegged currencies, and that could exist only for so long. The speculators saw a huge opportunity. The only time there is a huge opportunity for speculators to make a lot of money is when governments operate fiscal policies inconsistent with monetary policies, and that is not sustainable anyway.

Effectively, if the speculators had not done what they did in southeast Asia, it is kind of like someone who is injured and is lying on the sidewalk bleeding to death. The difference would be getting hit by a bus and being taken to the hospital as opposed to lying on the sidewalk and slowly bleeding to death. Those economies ultimately were not sustainable with that.

The way that kind of speculation occurred, sometimes can be considered to be very negative. The other kind of speculation that occurs every day and is an operating mechanism for floating exchange rates is not a negative speculation. Even the Prime Minister who calls the speculators the guys in red suspenders would probably agree that it is not so bad.

The bad thing about a Tobin tax is that it would punish the good speculation, but would not inhibit the bad speculation because the margins on the good kind of speculation that we need if we are going to have floating currencies, or floating exchange rates, are minute. The margins are very small. The Tobin tax would discourage that, but it would not stop the Soros type of speculation because the margins are so big.

The only way a Tobin tax would ever be able to work is if every jurisdiction in the world signed on. Even if we had every OECD country sign on, and for instance a Singapore or a Cayman Islands opted out, we would be creating havens there or increasing the level of tax havens those countries would have. With the death of distance as a determinant in the cost of telecommunications, we cannot afford to do that to our Canadian financial services sector because there would be an exodus.

The other issue is these new financial instruments. For instance, derivatives have become so complex that they cannot be traced. It is almost impossible. One of the issues we have in terms of safety and soundness issues in Canada is how the heck can OSFI which is already overburdened deal with all these financial complexities in the global environment, plus the complexities in the instruments?

Look at what happened in Orange county, California. I think the treasurer of the county was actually a hero for years because he had been investing in derivatives and making copious quantities of quid on behalf of the people of Orange county. Ultimately, when the derivatives he was participating in went down, Orange county faced bankruptcy.

It is very difficult and we have to be very careful to watch those kinds of things. When there are failures, those are not failures of speculators; those are failures of regulatory authorities within our countries.

[Bank Act, March 24th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his typically erudite intervention. The foreign banks have significant incentives in the Canadian market and there are opportunities. As I mentioned earlier, Wells Fargo in a one year period went from 10,000 customers to 120,000 customers. One of the ways Wells Fargo succeeded or is succeeding in Canada is by lending to small businesses and individuals with fairly wide margins, fairly wide spreads, for instance lending sometimes at prime plus four or five. A lot of small business people can go to a bank and the banks in Canada are reticent to that type of high margin lending because I think part of it is the political stigma of doing it. They do not want to be seen as loan sharks.

For a lot of small business people if they cannot get any capital they will pay a premium to get capital. Wells Fargo has discovered a niche in that area.

The differences between the Canadian banking system and the U.S. banking system have had a real impact on the growth of our economies. I read a study about 12 years ago that compared the concentration of wealth in Canada to the concentration of wealth in the U.S. In the early 1900s in Canada wealth was fairly concentrated with a few families. In the U.S. it was concentrated similarly, the Duponts, the Kelloggs, the Vanderbilts.

Since then in the U.S. wealth has become very much disbursed, whereas in Canada it remains fairly concentrated. This study was basically positing that the Canadian banking system had played a role in that because frankly it is awfully difficult in this country to get capital to grow our business without actually being a part of one of those families or knowing somebody who is or getting a guarantor. Banks are not that entrepreneurial.

I believe there is a significant market in Canada for more entrepreneurial banks if these foreign banks will pursue quite aggressively. I have heard from a number of constituents in small business who have been receiving letters from Wells Fargo. Probably every member of parliament has received letters from MBNA on credit cards. Maybe members of parliament typically do not receive those types of solicitations because we are considered a bad credit risk with no job security and that sort of thing. In any case, I think foreign banks will grow their markets in Canada because they will pursue them aggressively and smartly.

[Bank Act, March 24th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I enjoyed the spirited discussion between the member for Winnipeg—Transcona and the members opposite. When I hear the member for Winnipeg—Transcona, I have a great deal of respect for him. This House is a better place due to his presence. As he was saying, he has been here for 20 years.

One of the things I respect about the New Democrats, even though I disagree with them on particular issues, is their consistency on these issues. There is a set of core values. Even though I disagree with them fervently on a number of them, it is like the quotation that was falsely attributed to Voltaire: “although I disagree with what you are saying I will fight to my death to protect your right to say it”.

I will also say that the member for Winnipeg—Transcona has a terrific oratorical flair. I guess that comes from his time in the clergy. He makes me very proud to be a member of the United Church of Canada. If he ever decides to leave this political life and re-enter the clergy on a full time basis, I would probably move to his community just to hear him on Sunday mornings. He is a terrific orator even though I disagree with an awful lot of what he says.

The legislation before us today on the liberalization of the regulations for foreign banks in Canada is a very important piece of legislation. It is part of Canada's compliance with the WTO agreement on financial services.

It is also part of an ongoing trend, a global trend of significant changes in the financial services sector and in every sector. Much of this change that is occurring is technologically based. For instance, in the financial services sector and in the banking sector, many of the changes have been developed through technology. There has been the death of distance as a determinant in the cost of telecommunications. There have been the advent of the bank machines and the automation in banking, which have changed and revolutionized banking.

Some would say, and there is some credence to the argument, that it has depersonalized banking, that it has made banking services less friendly, that there are not as many tellers in the communities. Others are saying that in fact there are some positive developments: we can now withdraw money at a grocery store with a bank card, which effectively makes a grocery store like a bank, to a certain extent, due to the fact that we can withdraw or deposit money.

One of the members opposite in the Liberal Party says this can be done at liquor stores too. I do not frequent those establishments, but I certainly would not speak judgmentally of anyone who does.

In any case, the fact is that there are many changes occurring in terms of trade and commerce and there are changes that are technologically driven.

In the banking sector, we have seen a great deal of merger activities around the world over the past several years. This week there were announcements coming out of Italy, where there has been significant merger activity. There has been activity in Switzerland and in the U.S. Banks are getting larger, partly to develop economies of scale in order to afford the types of technologies necessary to be competitive in the global environment.

In the Canadian banking sector, one of the difficulties that has occurred over the past 50 years is that there has not been enough competition in the Canadian banking sector, particularly in terms of lending to small business.

I spent some time living in the U.S. One of the things I noted when doing business there was that the banking sector was far more entrepreneurial. For instance, if you lived in Maine and were turned down as a small business person by the Bank of Bath, one could go to the Bank of Bangor. If one lived in Georgia and were turned down by the Bank of Loganville, an actual bank that has been there for about 150 years, one could go to the Bank of Snellville, an actual bank in Snellville, Georgia.

In Canada, the banks used to do something called character lending, which was very positive in some ways. They would lend to people because they knew them and trusted them. They knew they would get their money back, regardless of the financial situation. Banks stopped doing that a few years ago. Effectively it is all ratio lending in Canada now. If we do not match one bank's ratios, we do not match any of them. It is very difficult for small business to attain financing.

We do need to move to increase competitive factors in Canada in the banking sector, in particular to improve lending to small business. In this legislation, the government has made a baby step to address this. Having more foreign competition in the Canadian banking sector, for instance creating more competition in small business lending, will help somewhat. The fact is even before this legislation we have seen players like Wells Fargo introduce services in Canada. In 1997 Wells Fargo had about 10,000 customers in Canada. By 1998 that had grown to 120,000. Much of that is in small business lending.

It is occurring and the competition is growing. We would argue as well that part and parcel of the government's response to the MacKay task force recommendations should be that we allow the credit unions to compete more directly with banks. Changing the co-operatives act to allow credit unions to compete directly with banks would help as well.

It is very important that while we do these things to allow more competition in Canada we do not do things that hurt the Canadian banking sector too much. It is very easy to pick on banks. It is like picking on politicians. One of the nice things about the bank merger discussions was that there were a lot of bankers in Ottawa and they made politicians feel more popular.

It is very easy for us to attack banks, but one thing we have to realize is that over 50% of Canadians own bank shares, either directly or indirectly through their RRSPs and pension funds. We have an RRSP policy that basically forces Canadians to invest 80% of their retirement savings in the Canadian equities markets or in Canadian investments, which represent about 1.5% of global equities markets. At the same time, it is hard to invest in Canadian equities markets without buying Canadian bank shares. They dominate the TSE.

We have to be a careful that we do not, in the interest of short term political gain, make decisions that actually hinder the long term growth of Canadian retirement savings plans. All these things should occur as parallel initiatives.

I am looking forward to the government's response to the MacKay task force, which I believe will be a white paper—I hope it is not a whitewash—on the Canadian financial services sector.

We are advocating greater competition in the Canadian financial services sector through more foreign competition and through changing the co-operatives act. It is important to recognize that more competition in the Canadian financial services sector and more efficiency in the Canadian financial services sector, with better services for Canadians, is a productivity issue.

I spoke earlier about small business. For small business access to capital is critical to growth and to getting started. That has hindered economic growth in Canada relative to the U.S., because, frankly, it is easier for a small business person to raise money in the U.S. than it is in Canada.

One of the strengths of the Canadian banking system is that we have five very strong banks that will never go broke. The fact that they never take risks with small business people is one of the weaknesses we have. There is a risk and reward question here.

The U.S. banking system is more entrepreneurial and does contain higher elements of risk, which results in more capital being available to U.S. small businesses when they want to grow and prosper. That does have a significant impact on our productivity in a competitive sense, particularly with our largest trading partner, the giant to the south.

This bill will help facilitate more small business lending. This bill will help foreign banks currently participating in the Canadian market to expand their operations. It will also help attract more foreign banks to initiate lending to Canadians.

During the bank merger discussions, some people who were opposed to the mergers said that foreign competition is really not a factor in the Canadian banking sector, that this was a red herring being used by the proponents of the mergers. The fact is that foreign competition has had and does have a presence in Canadian industry. It has not had a strong presence because the regulatory framework was not conducive to it or supportive of it. That had to be changed. It is changing. This is one step.

There are what I think are some reasonable arguments for the government to move quickly on liberalizing and allowing more foreign competition in Canada. At the same time, it is very important that while we increase foreign competition and allow more small business lending from foreign competitors, co-ops and others, we do not, by some shortsighted political decisions, handcuff Canadian banks or Canadians who are saving for their retirement with their investments in the equities of Canadian banks.

The types of decisions I am talking about can have a significant impact on the savings of Canadians. For instance, the gap between the Dow Jones index and the TSE has grown by about 500 points since December. Part of that had to do with the performance of the Canadian banks in the past several months. Part of that had to do with the decision the minister made in December.

When Canadian bank stocks fall, it is not without an impact on the average Canadian, on ordinary Canadians who through their pension funds, mutual funds and union pension funds have their investments. It is very important. The fact is some of these decisions by this government do threaten the future standards of living of Canadians.

For instance, since 1993 the Dow Jones in the U.S. has grown by about 180%. In Canada the TSE has gained by about 60%. Wealth being a relative thing, we have to realize that if our largest trading partner is getting richer, we are getting poorer. When it gets richer, the price of goods and services due to competitive factors actually will increase and we, as Canadians, can less afford to have them.

I believe now the best selling car in the U.S. is the Toyota Camry and the best selling car in Canada is the Honda Civic. I believe that is the latest factor. I would think that if the government is in much longer the best selling car in Canada will be perhaps one of the old Austin minis or maybe it will be a bicycle.

We have to be very careful because with public policy the law of unintended consequences can wreak havoc. When we do not really realize it, sometimes the decisions we make here can really have a tremendous impact on Canadians.

One of the things we felt very strongly about and we were not in support of was the bank mergers. What we were in support of was the government's using an opportunity that it had from the merger proponents who were seeking approval for something to engage in a discussion and negotiate on behalf of Canadians, to stand up for Canadians and to get from the banks commitments on things like a reduction in service charges, more customer service staff, continued service to rural Canada, creation of new banks for small business lending, increased bank branch access and that sort of thing. Those are the types of things that are very important to Canadians.

There was a Maclean's poll done in November that indicated that 53% of Canadians were opposed to the mergers based on the information they had. Some 57% said they would be supportive if the government were to negotiate commitments from banks and the banks were to make specific commitments on particular areas.

The fact is that the MacKay task force actually recommended making these commitments legally binding so that the banks would have to make good on these commitments. It could not just be a marketing ploy. They would have to actually keep the commitments or ultimately directors would end up going to jail or facing legal penalties.

What was interesting was that during that process some of the bank merger proponents, for instance the Royal Bank and the Bank of Montreal, said they would reduce service charges by 10%. They would increase customer service staff and they made specific commitments in numbers. They would continue their services to rural Canada.

For instance, they committed to doubling their small business lending. I believe it was from $25 billion to $50 billion. That is $25 billion more for the Canadian small business sector as a result of this and a new bank for small business.

One of the terrible things about being in small business, particularly in small town Canada, is that they change the bank managers every few years. We just get to know one manager and then they switch him or her. It is a real problem. That was one of the things they were willing to address with a small business bank where they would keep people in the same area for longer and it would create better relationships. I think that a lot of that stuff was positive.

Unfortunately we kind of lost our opportunity to get these commitments because we sort of shut the door before the negotiation even began. Now we are seeing banks closing branches. It is happening all the time. Last week in Nova Scotia I believe two communities lost bank branches, their only bank branches. We are seeing on an ongoing basis services threatened.

Right now in some ways the banks are trying to do the right thing because they have a responsibility to their shareholders and when they were willing to make those kinds of commitments the minister kind of shut the door. I hope the minister has not made a shortsighted decision that would prevent Canadians from having received the best possible banking services that they could have achieved and at the same time not necessarily handcuff our banks. We will see how well that decision ages.

I suggest that the Dominion Bond Rating Service's downgrading of the Canadian banks a few weeks ago is one of the indications that the minister's decision was a little shortsighted.

Unfortunately when that kind of downgrading occurs it means that for Canadians there will be higher borrowing charges ultimately for banks. The cost of the banks' money for capital goes up. The banks will pass that on to consumers. When Dominion Bond Rating Service downgrades the Canadian banks and the cost of capital for the Canadian banks goes up that means for Canadian consumers the cost of services will face increased pressure and interest charges will face increased pressure. The effects could be quite significant. I am quite concerned that we in the future study these issues as parliamentarians and do not just make shortsighted decisions that may be politically expedient in the short term but in the long term are very deleterious to Canadians.

On the legislation to reduce the regulatory impediments to foreign banks in Canada we are supportive of this direction. We believe that if we are serious about increasing and improving competition and services for Canadian consumers as a parallel initiative we need to ensure greater access to the markets by foreign competition.

We believe there should be greater efforts by the government to make it possible for more domestic competition to grow through changing the co-operatives act so that the credit union can compete with banks or through what the MacKay report suggested in terms of changing the ownership rules such that small banks could actually start up in Canada as long as they meet the safety and soundness regulations of OSFI. We could actually see more small banks start up for instance by changing the ownership rules.

All these things have to occur quickly. The government has had since 1993 full knowledge of the global competitive forces in this very important sector and has sat on its hands for a long time not doing a whole lot. There were two things that pushed the envelope. One was the WTO financial services agreement that the government signed on to. The other was those proposed bank merger announcements. It kind of pushed the envelope and brought this debate forward.

Unfortunately it is another example of where the government only deals with these complex long term issues that are on the horizon when they are directly in front of the government and they have reached a crisis proportion. We need to develop these issues or these policies a lot more quickly in response to issues not as they evolve today but as we see them evolving tomorrow and well into the future and into the next millennium.

[Government Services Act, 1999, March 23rd, 1999]

Fishing.