John Herron

[Shipyards, October 5th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, we will try to bring some reason to this debate. The government's inaction in modernizing financial instruments for Canada's shipyards has devastated Canada's shipyards and their coastal communities.

My question is for the industry minister. Will the Government of Canada be making any formal announcement through legislation within the finance minister's economic statement, or in a stand alone statement on its own, on enhancing financial instruments for Canada's shipyards within the next 21 days?

[Emergency Service Volunteers, October 4th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to participate in the debate on this simple but very important private member's motion. It will have an enormous impact on recognizing the contributions that take place on a pan-Canadian basis, from coast to coast to coast in every rural community.

I would like to preface my comments with the remarks of the finance minister who stated in 1998:

As witnessed over the past year in floods and the ice storm, it is important to recognize the extraordinary service provided by the thousands of Canadians who register as volunteers in our communities, mostly rural, and who provide essential emergency services like firefighting and first aid.

To be clear, the Progressive Conservative Party applauds the initiative taken by the finance minister at that time. But the current situation is that emergency service volunteers, including volunteer firefighters and emergency volunteer ambulance drivers as well, receive a $1,000 tax deduction if they receive an honorarium from the municipality. This is punitive to those smaller municipalities that do not have the financial capacity to provide an honorarium in the first place. That is the issue at hand.

The approach taken by the Liberal government during the debate this evening has been nothing less than shameful. It is shameful in the regard that it equates different volunteers, as opposed to emergency volunteers and volunteer firefighters.

The comment was made that we would not want to give a credit to someone who responds only once or twice a year. The volunteer firefighters in my riding of Fundy—Royal, whether they be those in the community of Upham, the volunteer firefighters who participate with the professional firefighters in Rothesay, the volunteers in Hampton, New Brunswick, the volunteers in Cambridge Narrows, all of them volunteer time and time again. They put themselves at risk. They are skilled professionals as well.

This is the minimum that the House should be doing. I applaud the member from the New Democratic Party who spoke from his heart saying that this was the right thing to do. Quite often when it comes to financial initiatives the NDP does not quite get it right. He wanted to actually raise it to a $1,000 tax deduction for everyone. The Progressive Conservative Party is advocating is a $500 tax credit for all emergency service volunteers, including volunteer firefighters. This credit is worth more than the $1,000 deduction.

I am advocating that we recognize the immense contribution made by volunteer firefighters and ambulance drivers throughout the country. It is the minimum we owe the brave foot soldiers in our communities.

I also want to mention that volunteer firefighters go beyond just responding to fires. They volunteer for activities that fire departments get involved in, such as fundraising initiatives and being on hand for large public events, parades and community affairs. Having first aid training is also immensely important.

I applaud the previous efforts of Scott Brison, the former member for Kings—Hants, who will also be the future member for Kings—Hants. I also applaud the current right hon. member for Kings—Hants for bringing this forth on behalf of his constituents. It has been a pleasure to participate in today's debate.

[Supply, September 21st, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I compliment the Leader of the Opposition on a number of his remarks and, in particular, his commitment to lowering taxes. We in the Progressive Conservative Party know that is how to grow an economy.

I want to clear up something that happened yesterday. When the Prime Minister referred to the fact that he was the Minister of Finance at the time that gas taxes were increased 9 cents per litre, was he or was he not a member of that government and did he support the budget that actually increased gas taxes during the Getty regime?

[Taxation, September 19th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, give me a fuel tax break. Will the finance minister lower the tax on low sulphur gasoline? The minister knows that when we did this with lead Canada increased its pace to unleaded fuels. Will the minister lower the tax on low sulphur gasoline to improve the environment, human health and give Canadian taxpayers the break at the pumps that they deserve?

[Financial Consumer Agency Of Canada Act, September 18th, 2000]

Madam Speaker, as I said to the hon. member before, that is something we can flesh out during the clause by clause process as the bill goes to committee. That is why we are supporting actually sending the bill to committee so that we can start analysing these 900 pages since the government is not interested in debating them in the House.

Ultimately I think a higher ratio is probably a natural progression as smaller banks move into becoming medium banks.

[Financial Consumer Agency Of Canada Act, September 18th, 2000]

Madam Speaker, I think the hon. member asked me two questions. I have a problem with moving it from 10% to 20%. I am not as concerned by that aspect given the fact that the Canadian banking sector has indeed far more foreign investment, far more foreign competition, far more foreign involvement than it had before. If that is a result of the situation then in order to maintain our sovereignty we need strong Canadian banks. My initial reaction to 20% is that I am not overly concerned about it. That is something that we can flesh out during the clause by clause process.

To address the hon. member's second question, I think the 65% issue is a very real concern. Perhaps it is potentially something that should be discussed and addressed at the committee level, particularly relative to the National Bank or the Laurentian Bank. It is something that warrants further debate. I am not at all close to investigating the 20% ratio to the same degree, but I can see where 65% is an area of concern as a start.

[Financial Consumer Agency Of Canada Act, September 18th, 2000]

Madam Speaker, the member for Vancouver East brings forth a very interesting issue but something that would have perhaps been even more difficult to do in a modern context even a few years ago.

Banks sometimes may be the only visible financial institution within a small town. They obviously would benefit from revenues from profits from Visa cards, small business loans, mortgages and all the financial products they sell. It is very difficult in this modern context to look at companies such as Citicorp, ING Direct or many other companies that are basically virtual banks which provide their products by electronic media. Obviously their direct investment within those communities or even in the country would be essentially nil.

This has provided Canadians with more competition and more choice. I support categorically being able to put a ratio in terms of what their investments would actually be. This is why I am a little reticent from my perspective to merely bank bash. The issue is far more complex than it use to be.

When we deregulated financial sector institutions on February 14, 1997, we said it was okay for Citicorp, MNBA and ING to have access to some small business loans, profitable mortgages, personal loans or even credit card business. Yet the banks were losing some of their most profitable dollars. Now they are in a situation where they are hard pressed to find new products to deliver to maintain their position.

As I said before, bank bashing is not in anybody's interest. One out of every two Canadians owns a bank stock in some way, shape or form. The role of parliament and the role of legislation is to keep financial institutions in check and to define roles and regulations that are responsive to consumers.

I compliment the member for Vancouver East on her commitment to having a regime that would ensure that low income Canadians are not discriminated against at our banks.

[Financial Consumer Agency Of Canada Act, September 18th, 2000]

The hon. member from the Alliance has just asked where I would get the idea that the Progressive Conservative Party wants to pay down debt and lower taxes. I will read from a note of earlier today which in fact says that in many instances the policies of the Progressive Conservative Party and the reform alliance are almost identical. This is definitely the case when it comes to one of the most important issues for Ontarians which is fiscal policy, including taxation, debt reduction and the overall management of Canada's pocketbook. I ask the member for Brandon—Souris if he knows who actually wrote those words. It was the Canadian Alliance MP from the riding of Markham who endorsed the Progressive Conservative economic plan. That is where I get those particular ideas that he referred to.

I would like to be able to ensure that we pay down debt in a legislative way to ensure that those individuals who want to invest in the Canadian economy will do so because they are not doing that today.

That is why the Canadian dollar is at a mere 66 cents. That is why it is perhaps at its lowest levels in a modern era compared to our principle trading partner, this time being the Americans.

My concern is that it is a very clear signal that foreign investors are challenging whether investing in this country is the right thing to do in the future. We need to send out some signals that we will not threaten any provincial profits by excessive rates of taxation, both from a personal income tax perspective and from a corporate tax perspective, and that we will get our economic fundamentals in order by paying down debt.

The high dollar helps our trade ratio to some degree, but in the long term it is a signal that Canadians as global competitors are becoming poor. Our capacity to buy goods in the global market has indeed been weakened.

Obviously the government has very little vision or interest in the legislative agenda of the great nation of Canada. There are 900 pages and so far we have heard from one government speaker. I do not know whether this has ever been done to this degree in the history of the parliamentary process. It has been amazing to watch it unfold. There have been 900 pages and one government speaker.

If the government is lacking vision let individuals speak who are ahead of their time. Some people call the Right Hon. Joe Clark yesterday's man. He will be in the House to actually augment the parliamentary system in the next number of months. He is an individual who wanted to pay down debt and balance budgets in 1979 when everybody thought it was a kooky idea.

He may have been yesterday's man because he was ahead of his time yesterday. We need to be able to show the kind of fortitude and leadership that Mr. Clark demonstrated with his budget in 1979. We need to see the same kind of vision and fortitude that we saw with the free trade agreement in 1988. In both instances it was done by Progressive Conservative prime ministers. That is what we need to be able to see to augment and maintain our position in the global community, not just technical bills on banking institutions. We need to get our fiscal house in order by paying down debt, lowering taxes and investing in our priority areas of health care and post-secondary education.

[Financial Consumer Agency Of Canada Act, September 18th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, earlier today when I was preparing for my duties as I have the responsibility for House duty for our party, I was not informed that I would have to speak to this bill but I believe it is imperative that I do so. The bill before us contains over 900 pages. It is of critical importance in terms of updating the banking industry within the country.

Mr. Speaker, you have been watching the debate. I find it hard to believe that over the course of the day the government has put forward only one speaker for one of its bills, a bill that has in excess of 900 pages. When I think that through, it is another signal of the arrogance that the government has for this place and for the democratic process.

The majority of these 900 pages is technical in nature. Very little vision is included within the bill. The bill is not a signal of a fundamental direction that the government wants to take the country in with respect to financial institutions. It is a housekeeping bill.

I know from my critic position on the environment that the government has been in place for over seven years and has yet to pass an environmental initiative of its own. We should not be surprised that the government really has a very empty legislative agenda before Canadians.

We heard that the Prime Minister would like to go to the polls sooner than later, but he cannot find a reason to do it because he does not have anything that would strike the interests of Canadians in order for the Liberals to be returned to another majority government.

I remember when leadership was commonplace by the Government of Canada. My first thoughts are the issue of free trade. Many members across the way actually opposed that initiative in 1988. That bold initiative transformed the country. Our trade with the Americans at that time was at about $90 billion. Today, compliments of free trade and its successor, NAFTA, trade with our American cousins is $320 billion a year. That was the kind of initiative and vision that was taken by a government that knew Canada needed to maintain its competitiveness in this increasingly global world. In contrast, when I look at this particular act it is merely housekeeping.

There are five basic principles that are going to be covered in this bill: the promotion of efficiency and growth within the financial institution sector; measures to empower and protect consumers; initiatives to encourage further domestic competition; the regulatory environment within the financial institution sector; and finally, the bill provides for a five year review of the legislation, as has been the case in the past. Those are the five points we are going to review.

One of the very contentious issues that was brought forth about financial institutions is that it would be permissible for a single shareholder to own as much as 20% of a financial institution as opposed to only 10%. To some individuals that is a major problem but to me it is a reflection of what is required to spur more competition and to bring more individuals within the financial sector.

I think everyone knows that bashing banks is a very popular function. We also know that they have achieved their solid performance and their strength within our society because of a protected environment which we fostered and nurtured over a number of years. At the time that was probably the best financial policy for us to have to ensure that we had a solid sovereign banking system. We only have to look at the commodity crash and the financial institution crash that took place along the Pacific Rim three years ago and what happened to its financial institutions.

Today we have more deregulation. Foreign competitors can come in and offer products to Canadians. The more competition there is, clearly the better.

However, we need to afford the banks an effective way to be able to defend their position within our economy. When people see the record profits in terms of what the banks actually bring in, it is healthy to keep this in perspective.

My learned colleague, the hon. member for Brandon—Souris, who is our party's new finance critic and temporarily replacing another very learned finance critic, Scott Brison, the former hon. member for Kings—Hants, pointed out a very unknown fact. One in two Canadians own a bank share or bank stock. It may be through owning the exact share on a direct basis. It may be through participation in a mutual fund. There is a virtual array of stocks in numerous funds of that nature. It could be due to the fact that they are a contributor to a pension plan. Pension plans invest heavily in our banking institutions.

The return on investment is not exorbitant for banks when we look at the size of the financial institutions themselves. The ROI for banks may not be much greater than a lot of other successful companies on a percentile basis, but the record profits that show up are related to their actual size.

There is one comment that was brought forth by our cousins in the NDP. Usually when it comes to money issues, financial initiatives and issues related to taxation or the like, I disagree with the socialist wing of the House on almost every single occasion, with the exception of what was brought forth in the comments made by the hon. member for Vancouver East. She touched on something very appropriate, that we need to ensure that banks must open accounts for any individual to cash federal cheques for non-customers, provided that identification is provided. A minimum deposit and employment cannot be a condition of opening an account.

We see discrimination of Canadian citizens who are indeed at lower income levels. The more we can do to ensure that the banks do their part and that they are much more welcoming for individuals of lower income, the better. Banking institutions have to be open to all individuals. The comments made by the hon. member for Vancouver East were dead-on on that aspect.

This is an initiative to ensure that the banking institutions modernize and recognize the very fact that how we bank today is drastically different from what we did only five or ten years ago, even only two years ago. I suspect many members of the House now bank via the Internet. I started to do that about six months ago. We pay our banks en masse through telebanking. We use ATMs to do the majority of our banking functions. How we deal and interact with our banks has changed. That is why it is imperative we have legislation which reflects that reality.

We also have to understand that the government has missed out on one aspect in particular. That is with respect to how it would potentially deal with the issues of mergers. There was the fracas when the finance minister claimed that he learned the Royal Bank of Canada wanted to merge with the Bank of Montreal over the news while he was brushing his teeth or while he was drinking his morning coffee and reading the newspaper that day. This finance minister has probably been the most connected to Bay Street in the history of Canada, yet he was not plugged in enough to be able to know what was going on in the financial sector. To be quite honest, I find that very hard to believe or an incredible event.

The finance minister missed an enormous chance to upgrade the financial institution sector within Canada during the merger debate. I remember the CEOs of the Royal Bank, the Bank of Montreal, the TD and the CIBC were willing to make blood promises in terms of how this would benefit Canadians to permit the merger process to proceed. I am not advocating a position by any means on whether to permit the mergers at that time was right or wrong. However, it was definitely wrong to cut off discussions at that point in time.

For instance, they were willing to make a blood promise on maintaining the number of rural banking institutions. They were willing to make a blood promise in terms of increasing and augmenting the risks of lending funds to the small business sector. I remember reading that they were willing to make another blood promise in terms of holding the line, if not rolling back, en masse, service charges to customers.

Whether those blood promises would have been in the best interests of Canadians or whether to permit the mergers are questions that Canadians and legislators never had a chance to publicly debate because the finance minister chose to be a populist. He said that banks were unpopular. He was not going to proceed to give them anything because it may jeopardize his leadership aspirations down the road. I suspect that was likely the greatest issue during the debate at that time.

We are here to talk about improving and modernizing the banking sector, the financial institution sector. I hope we see legislation in the near future that will augment and increase the fundamentals of the economy. If we look at our rates of taxation, Canada has the second highest corporate tax rate as a per cent of our economy of all G-7 nations. We know that as a per cent of our economy our personal income taxes are the highest of the G-7 nations. We also know that as a per cent of our economy, the dollars we spend paying down the interest and not really addressing the national debt is an immense drain on our economy.

Instead of a 900-page bill, which the government does not care to have its members defend or even talk about its attributes, I would like to see some vision to get our economic fundamentals in order. Let us do what the Progressive Conservative Party has advocated and pay down our national debt in a legislative way. We need to lower taxes.

[Petitions, June 14th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to present the petition I have before me requesting the introduction of new legislation that would provide a $1,000 tax deduction to all volunteer emergency workers so that the current inequality that exists would be addressed.

It has been my pleasure to present this petition on behalf of citizens of my riding of Fundy—Royal.