Debates of March 9th, 1998

The Budget

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault)]

The question is on the following motion: Mr. Martin (LaSalle—Émard), seconded by Mr. Gray (Windsor West) moved: That this House approves in general the budgetary policy of the government.

Shall I dispense?

[Some hon. members]

No.

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault)]

Mr. Manning, seconded by Mr. Solberg, moved: That the motion be amended by replacing all the words after the word “That” with the following:

“the House of Commons reject the budget statement by the Minister of Finance because it denies Canadians debt and tax relief by spending away the federal budget surplus, thus killing opportunities for job creation and economic growth; it leaves Canadians saddled with the highest personal income tax rates in the G-7 countries resulting in a systematic brain drain to jurisdictions with lower taxation levels; it allows interest charges on the national debt to consume one-third of every tax dollar collected by the federal government and to exceed spending on health care, education and old age security combined; it continues the steady decrease in real disposable income for the average Canadian through tax hikes; and it does not keep the government's promise of committing 50% of the surplus to new spending and the remaining 50% to some combination of debt reduction and tax relief”.

The question is on the amendment. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the amendment?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Some hon. members]

No.

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault)]

All those in favour of the amendment will please say yea.

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault)]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault)]

In my opinion the nays have it.

And more than five members having risen:

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault)]

Call in the members.

During the taking of the vote:

[Peter MacKay, Progressive Conservative, Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, NS]

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order.

The motion moved too quickly and we did not get up in support of the motion and it then reverted to the no. We wanted to register our vote in favour of the motion and it moved to the opposite side on the no vote before we had an opportunity to rise.

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault)]

Does the hon. member have unanimous consent of the House for the votes of the members of his party to be recorded now?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

(The House divided on the amendment, which was negatived on the following division:)

Division No. 96

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault)]

I declare the amendment defeated.

A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38 deemed to have been moved.

[John Solomon, NDP, Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, SK]

Madam Speaker, in question period on February 2 I asked the finance minister what proof he could give the House that the monster merger between the Royal Bank and the Bank of Montreal would be better for small businesses, farmers and Canadian communities. I asked at the very least if he could promise it would not make things worse. The minister replied that the government had asked the task force on financial services to address service to small business in its deliberations.

His answer offers little reassurance to small business owners or farmers in my riding and in other parts of Canada. No one believes the task force should be allowed by the Liberal government to consider anything other than the interests of Bay Street and the agenda of the big banks. That is why the NDP has been calling for a parliamentary inquiry with full cross-Canada public hearings so the people of Canada can speak to elected MPs about their concerns regarding the bank merger.

It is pretty clear from the Canadian Federation of Independent Business study entitled “Credit Where Credit is Due” that small business is pretty close to fed up with the treatment it is getting from the big six. CFIB president Catherine Swift told the Globe and Mail that “the proposed merger between the Royal Bank of Canada and the Bank of Montreal is worrisome to small businesses because they want more, not fewer financial institutions to choose from. The prospect of reducing the already few players to even fewer is not a happy one”.

Eleven per cent of small business loan applications were rejected by banks last year. This is up from 9% ten years ago, a full 2% increase. Other studies show that only 3% of bank loans granted by the big six are under $100,000.

In addition the CFIB found that small business loans are priced well above loans to their larger counterparts and the gap is widening. Big loans to big business equal small service charges to big business, whereas small loans to small business equal big service charges to small business. Is this fair? I think not.

The greatest problems for small businesses occur when they have to deal with the very high turnover in account managers at the big six banks. Many firms deal with three or more managers in as many years. This situation is unlikely to improve if the monster merger and others like it are approved. The banks seem to be more interested in chasing risky international commercial loans than in servicing their small business customers in Canada.

We have no reason to believe that foreign banks will provide any more than minimal staff in our country. Meanwhile the bank merger could cost up to 30,000 Canadian jobs.

The finance minister made the bizarre and quite desperate accusation that somehow the NDP has found new friends in the banks. As my leader said, he should look in the mirror. His party accepted a quarter of a million dollars in donations from the Royal Bank and the Bank of Montreal last year, and he himself received a tidy $1,000 from Royal Bank chief executive officer John Cleghorn for his own campaign in addition to another $1,000 from Nesbitt Burns.

The government can make some choices. It can choose to approve the monster merger and reduce competition still further or it can pass a community reinvestment act and require the Canadian banks to do their job and service the credit needs of small businesses, farmers and communities in our country. If these minimum requirements are not met, perhaps issuing a bank charter to Canadians who want to meet these national objectives should be looked at.

If the chartered banks will not do what they are supposed to do for Canadians under their charter, maybe their charter should be given to those who will.

[Tony Valeri, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Finance]

Madam Speaker, this government has supported and will continue to support increasing small business access to financing. However the CRA approach is not the only vehicle under which this can be done.

It is also important to assess the impact this legislation has had in the United States. Overall the legislation has been useful in raising U.S. lenders' awareness of their lending patterns by requiring data reporting and record keeping.

It is also not clear whether a CRA regime would be well suited to Canada. Unlike the regional and highly fragmented banking system in the U.S., we already have a national banking system that transfers resources from savers to borrowers in all regions of this country. My concern is that any policy that requires balancing of lending and deposits within communities could in fact serve to restrict rather than propel economic growth.

It is also important to mention that the House industry committee represented by members of Parliament from across this country has successfully convinced the banks to provide information, without the CRA legislation, on business loans by size, region and industrial grouping. We will continue to monitor this reporting to ensure that the banks continue to do their share in financing of small business.

On the issue of mergers which the member brought up as well, he talks about little reassurance being given by the finance minister and the fact that he calls for cross-country hearings. I would say and we have said time and again that this deal is on hold. It is going nowhere until we have had the opportunity to hear from the task force and Canadians have had their say on its recommendations.

Our bottom line is that in fact until the big questions are answered and unless this deal works for Canadians, it will not work at all. I cannot be any clearer than that.

Once again I thank the hon. member for his interest. I invite him to join the finance committee when in fact we go across the country to hear from Canadians.

[Gary Lunn, Reform, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Madam Speaker, on February 6 I asked the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans a question with respect to Yves Fortier who had just quit as Canada's chief Pacific salmon negotiator.

This is an issue which I have been deeply concerned about. This government has had four years to deal with it. As I stand here in my place and speak today, we are worse off than we were on June 2 when I was elected. I will not say that it seemed to be the height of the crisis because I think it could get even worse, but it was a very tough and difficult time for us, as has been the last four years.

We are worse off today than we were before. At the present time we have no negotiators acting on Canada's behalf. We have heard the minister make statements in recent weeks that they are waiting for the United States to contact Canada to resume negotiations. I would suggest that we have had over four years now, a time of waiting, and we have to get on with it.

The reason I asked the question about Yves Fortier is that he was the one person whom British Columbia fishermen had confidence in and he was acting on their behalf. He has now left and it is arguable why he left. I would suggest he left because the government did not give him the backing he needed. He saw no way out of the dispute without a commitment from this government.

Will the minister tell British Columbia fishermen how they can expect to have any confidence in this government when our negotiator had none?

This is a very serious issue. At present we are only a few months away from the beginning of the next fishing season and we do not have anybody representing our issues. We are not even in discussions. We are not in negotiations. Nothing is happening. Zero. Four years of nothing and it is going downward.

This government has to get on with it. This is a very important issue. Again I ask the parliamentary secretary what his government's plans are. When is the government going to act? When can we expect negotiations to resume? Does the government anticipate having this matter resolved prior to the next fishing season?

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Fisheries and Oceans]

Madam Speaker, I wonder where this member has been for the last while. On February 23 I answered this very same question for the member for Sackville—Eastern Shore.

In any event the resignation of Mr. Yves Fortier as Canada's chief negotiator in Pacific salmon is a matter that we on this side admit is of great regret.

Since 1993 he has worked tirelessly to achieve an agreement with the United States to implement fully the provisions of the Pacific salmon treaty. His negotiating skills, as the member has mentioned and I agree with him on this point, and his dedication to the task have earned him admiration and the respect of ministers, government officials and, most important, Canadian fishermen.

Given the high regard in which Mr. Fortier is held, he is being done a disservice by those who have attempted to use out of context excerpts from his letter of resignation and put a negative spin on his views.

Mr. Fortier's letter to Ministers Axworthy and Anderson describes his experience as chief negotiator over the past five years. He assesses the current situation and he provides advice on the direction we should go. All Canadians share his frustrations on this point.

Mr. Fortier explains why an agreement was not attainable. Primarily it was the reluctance of the United States federal administration to insist that the United States regional interests honour obligations toward Canada under the treaty. This point comes as no surprise to anyone who has followed this file over the past five years.

Mr. Fortier's letter cautions that meaningful change in the United States negotiating position is unlikely. This remains to be seen, but no Canadian is under the illusion that we cannot achieve a negotiated—

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault)]

The hon. member for Sarnia—Lambton.

[Roger Gallaway, Liberal, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

Madam Speaker, on November 25, 1997 I asked the question what are we doing as a government to prepare for the coming NAFTA superhighway.

We often have a habit in this place of saying “well, if it is highway it is not a federal responsibility, it is a provincial responsibility and don't talk to us about it”. I must say I was very pleased to hear the minister's response that there is an interparliamentary group working to ensure that we do monitor activities in the United States and that we are paying attention to this issue.

For those who are not familiar with this concept, the NAFTA superhighway is an American idea whereby they are going to build a trade corridor. This is not simply a transportation issue, this is an issue of trade between two countries. This is an issue which is of great concern in a number of border crossings in Ontario because highways are not just places where people drive trucks and cars these days, but they are trade routes. They are, by way of analogy, the railroad passage way of another era.

It is very important that we as a country, particularly when in southern Ontario at one crossing there are exports of more than $200 million worth of goods per year, ensure that there is an adequate highway system. It is going to be more than a highway system, it is going to be a communications system. When these goods are exported or when goods are imported, it will be done in a timely fashion and there will not be interference. For Canadians this is a massive project for trade. Jobs and trade go hand in hand.

I am pleased to know that the government is monitoring this and that in the future the Department of Transport will be ready to move in concert with out American neighbours.

[Stan Keyes, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport]

Madam Speaker, given the hon. member's intervention, I guess there really is no need for an answer of any kind.

The hard working member for Sarnia—Lambton raised an important question concerning trade corridors in the national highway system. The member's question demonstrates his keen awareness that transportation is a strategic asset that can drive a country's economy. To capitalize on continental trade links we need not only the right rules and regulations, but we also need to have the right infrastructure.

Transport Canada certainly recognizes the importance of north-south trade corridors, but also the critical importance of their productivity with east-west highways. In this regard the department is currently working, as the member is obviously aware because it was stated in the House moments ago, with the provinces to update a national highway system study.

Highways in Canada are under provincial jurisdiction. Nevertheless, the federal government has assisted the provinces with highway construction since 1919. Future cost shared programs must consider highways important to our trade, whether north-south or east-west.

Federal departments are also actively promoting trade and traffic through co-operative efforts with counterparts in the U.S. to enhance the efficiency and operation of border crossing facilities. In this regard the federal government is well aware of and closely monitoring proposals being considered in the U.S. for funding in areas such as trade corridors and border gateways.

In summary, there are a number of cross-cutting issues which affect trade and transportation corridors. We must recognize that while there has been strong growth in north-south trade the east-west dimension remains critically important and we must co-operate in and co-ordinate the deployment of intelligent transportation systems in order to enhance trade and reduce congestion. We must pursue standards harmonizing under the NAFTA. Finally, we must explore the trade benefits which may be possible through the maximization of modal efficiencies and inter-modal linkages. There may also be important environmental benefits inherent in this total approach.

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault)]

The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed adopted. Accordingly, this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 10 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).

(The House adjourned at 7.06 p.m.)