Val Meredith

[Young Offenders Act, March 19th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to start by congratulating my colleague and friend from Surrey North for putting this private member's bill before the House.

I think back to the days when I sat on the justice committee and the hon. member for Surrey North and his wife appeared before that committee when it was dealing with Bill C-37, a bill to amend to the Young Offenders Act. I remember comments that were made after the hon. member and a number of other individuals brought to the attention of members of the justice committee the end results of the behaviour of young offenders. It caused me a bit of concern when a Liberal member of that committee said to me after the hearing that these people brought nothing to the debate other than sentiment.

I think it is very important that all Canadians, including Liberal members, understand that the feelings of Canadians are very important when we talk about legislation. Canadians must feel that they can support the legislation that is put before them by the government.

The private member's bill which the hon. member for Surrey North has introduced is really quite simple, straightforward and easy to understand. He is merely asking that section 7.2 of the Young Offenders Act be made a hybrid offence. That means that there can be a fine imposed or incarceration as part of the sanctions.

Section 7.2 of the Young Offenders Act deals with the responsibility that someone assumes in order for a young offender not to be locked up; in other words, posting bail or whatever we want to call it. It is interesting that the Minister of Justice has obviously seen the merits of this argument. I understand it is part of the new youth criminal justice bill. Therefore, I have to assume, because the government has put it into its own legislation, that it will be supporting this amendment to the Young Offenders Act.

The reason it needs to be supported now and not put on the table until the youth criminal justice bill is passed is very simply this. It is extremely important, knowing the timeframe that some of this legislation takes to get through the House, to have this amendment in place sooner rather than later.

I would suggest to government members who may be looking for an excuse not to support this bill because it is in the government's legislation to deal with the issue. It is obviously supported and it is obviously an important amendment to be made. I am hoping that when the time comes to vote on this bill governments members will be there to support the hon. member for Surrey North.

As I mentioned, the amendment deals with the issue of accountability. People sign undertakings or bonds. There is an acknowledgement or a responsibility for them to live up to what it is they have signed.

It is not just criminal matters where this happens. We run into this situation in immigration. People agree to sign a document indicating that they will sponsor an individual and that they will assume financial responsibility for a person coming from another country, and then they walk away from that responsibility.

This issue is more of a justice issue in that it is a person signing a document which says they will be responsible for the actions of a young offender and that they will make sure the young offender meets the conditions that have been imposed as a condition of their release.

What this private member's bill is doing is showing that if a person has wilfully failed to comply with the conditions they agreed to, then something should happen. There should be some responsibility laid upon them for having failed.

If a parent or guardian is unable to enforce the conditions that are spelled out in section 7, then basically the young offender should not be allowed to remain at large. That is the contract which they have signed.

When a parent or guardian knows that they are not able to control or make sure that the young person is where they are supposed to be, or staying away from friends whom they are not supposed to be mixing with, then the onus should be on the parent or guardian to notify the authorities, who would then take the young person into custody or control them in some other manner.

There is an obligation for parents or guardians to do that. The obligation which they undertook was that if they could not handle the individual they would turn the young person over to the control and authority of the courts.

It really is a question of differentiating. I would suggest that this bill is not trying to nail all parents because they are unable to know where their kids are 24 hours a day. It is aimed at the people who have entered an agreement, a legal understanding, in order that the young person not be incarcerated or held until the court case is heard. It is really earmarked or geared to that specific situation. I do not think that anyone should misunderstand that it is a broader brush, that it tries to deal with all parents in all circumstances.

Canadian taxpayers, the parents and guardians of young people, should realize that we are encouraging and supporting what the youth criminal justice bill or the Young Offenders Act offers, that young people can be released into the custody of parents or guardians.

In most cases that is perfectly all right. It works out fine. However, in those cases where somebody takes on that responsibility and then does nothing to make sure their undertakings are being fulfilled, there is something that can be done about it.

The reason the hon. member is asking for it to be treated as a hybrid offence is to give the courts the ability to put some meat behind their decisions, to put some emphasis on the responsibility that they are handing over to the parent or guardian.

As it is now, because it is a summary conviction and there is not any real penalty or sanction, it is too easy to walk away from that responsibility.

I commend my colleague for bringing this weakness in the legislation to the attention of the House. It is obviously a weakness that the government has accepted needs to be addressed, as it has done exactly that with the youth criminal justice bill.

Again I want to ensure that my colleagues understand that if it is good enough to put in a new act, then it is good enough to support now so that it can at least be in existing legislation rather than waiting for future legislation. We have no idea how long it will take for the new legislation to pass through the House and then the Senate after we have dealt with it.

For those of us who are close to the member for Surrey North it is obvious why this is important. The failure to pass this and put it into legislation can cause situations such as that which happened to the hon. member for Surrey North. His son was murdered by a young offender who was in the custody of his parent. The conditions of his release were not fulfilled. We are all very sympathetic with the reasons this bill was introduced and we certainly support its intention. I urge all government members to support this private member's bill when it is voted upon.

[Transitional Jobs Fund, March 19th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, the government's claim that the Prime Minister was acting just like any other ordinary MP is ludicrous. As the Minister of Transport can attest, that argument did not hold water three years ago and it does not hold water today.

If the government is certain that the Prime Minister did not act in any improper fashion, will it release every document relating to this grant, or is it hiding something?

[Transitional Jobs Fund, March 19th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister's apologists say that he was just acting as an ordinary member of parliament when he helped Yvon Duhaime secure a federal grant, but everybody here knows that the Prime Minister has more power than all the backbenchers combined.

Three years ago the current Minister of Transport had to resign from cabinet when his staff intervened in an immigration case because he was a cabinet minister and not just an ordinary member of parliament.

Why did the Minister of Transport have to leave cabinet for interfering on behalf of a friend, yet the Prime Minister seems to think he can get away with the same thing?

[Bank Act, March 19th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, we will not be seeing foreign banks on every street corner as we do our Canadian banks. The new full service foreign banks are restricted to taking deposits of $150,000 and up, so that will eliminate the everyday person who does not have that kind of deposit to make. Basically that is out of reach for the vast majority of Canadians. They would cater to those individuals who receive the largesse of the government.

New lending banks will not be permitted to accept deposits or borrow except from other financial institutions. It is hoped that these foreign banks will serve as sources of funds for both small business and credit card users.

Both the full service and lending branches will be allowed access to Canada's clearing and settlement system with the approval of the Bank of Canada. An analysis of the bill would show that there will be more choice, but for the most part choice is limited to businesses and wealthy Canadians.

The reality is that few foreign banks have any interest in coming to Canada to set up expensive brick and mortar branches on the main streets of our communities. In today's world of e-commerce banks want to compete electronically. However the average retailing banking customer will benefit from the trickle down effect.

More banks will be fighting for business customers which means that more money will be available for customers. If the banks lose some of their small and medium size customers they will be more competitive going after the average private consumer.

Most other countries in the world allow direct foreign banking. The Liberal government has been promising the same for Canada since February 1997. It has taken two years to introduce the legislation. We are pleased to see it is finally here today.

As mentioned the World Trade Organization has been the impetus for these measures as there is a June 1999 deadline to comply with the agreement.

Some of the most ardent protectionists believe that we must protect Canadian banks. They believe that Canadian businesses cannot compete without protection. This attitude has been one of the factors in the drop in Canada's productivity over the last 20 years. In today's global economy it is crucial for all sectors of the Canadian economy to compete internationally. That includes facing foreign competition at home.

It was less than 20 years ago that foreign banks were allowed to have any access at all to the Canadian market. However these banks have had to set up separate Canadian subsidiaries that were not connected to their parent banks in terms of capital, governance and accounting.

There has not been a steady growth in foreign banking activity in Canada. In 1987 there were 59 foreign banks operating in Canada. Last year there were only 45. In 1990 foreign banks had a 12% share of total banking sector assets. Last year that was down to 10%. This means that Canadians and Canadian businesses have been deprived of a large pool of capital. How will foreign banks react to the legislation? Only time will tell.

While the protectionists rail against the entry of foreign banks, we in British Columbia have been living with the largest subsidiary of foreign banks for over a dozen years. The Hongkong Bank of Canada was incorporated in Canada on July 1, 1981. It rose to prominence in western Canada in 1986 when it acquired the Bank of British Columbia. With this acquisition the Hongkong Bank of Canada went from being the 20th largest bank in Canada to the 9th largest bank.

In 1988 the Hongkong Bank of Canada bought Midland Bank Canada and in 1990 it acquired the Lloyds Bank Canada. These last two acquisitions provided the Hongkong Bank with retail branches across most of the country.

Despite the name, the Hongkong Bank of Canada is a subsidiary of HSBC Holdings of London, England, the fifth largest bank in the world. The Hongkong Bank of Canada is the largest bank in Canada and is headquartered in British Columbia. Both the chief operating officer and the senior executive vice-president were educated at the University of British Columbia. Thus many British Columbians have more attachment to this bank than they do to the Canadian banks headquartered in Toronto.

The Hongkong Bank of Canada is a good corporate citizen. In British Columbia some of the events it sponsors include the Whistler Winterstart Festival, the Okanagan Wine Festival and the Yuletide Lights of Hope fundraiser for the B.C. Children's Hospital.

More important, it has generally provided good banking services to its customers, both individuals and businesses, but what is most intriguing about the Hongkong Bank of Canada is that it has gone international with offices in Seattle, Washington and Portland, Oregon. This is the future of banking, banks that transcend borders in a global economy.

In summary, the official opposition supports the legislation even though it took the government more than two years to get it before the House of Commons. We support it because in the long term the presence of foreign banks in Canada will benefit all Canadians. Canadians should never fear foreign competition. We should have enough confidence to realize that we can compete in today's global economy.

If we could just get the Liberal government to dump its high taxation policies, Canadian business could be at the forefront of the global economy instead of trailing along behind. Bill C-67 is a good step in the right direction, but the government has a long way to go.

[Bank Act, March 19th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to be speaking to Bill C-67 which amends the Bank Act to permit eligible foreign banks to establish branches in Canada. The bill also amends the Winding-up and Restructuring Act and a number of acts relating to financial institutions, and makes consequential amendments to other acts. In plain English, Bill C-67 would allow foreign banks to open branches in Canada but under strict regulation.

The bill was required as part of the commitment Canada made to the World Trade Organization. We are happy to support the efforts of the government.

I will be splitting my time with the member for Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca. You will find unanimous consent for me to do so, Mr. Speaker.

[Hockey, March 15th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the official opposition I congratulate Canada's National Women's Hockey Team that was crowned world champions for the fifth consecutive year with a 3-1 victory yesterday over the arch-rival American team.

The U.S. scored first threatening to repeat its Olympic upset, but Team Canada answered with three goals demonstrating its true character and skills. Kudos to Daniele Sauvageau's excellent coaching for Canada's world tournament record of 25 wins and zero losses.

This record is due in large part to Toronto's Sami Jo Small's acrobatic goal tending. In recognition of their excellent play, Small along with Calgary's Hayley Wickenheiser and Kingston's Jayna Hefford were selected as first team all stars.

Once again Canada's women's hockey team has done us proud. It is the guys turn now.

[Member For Edmonton North, March 11th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, this Saturday will mark the 10th anniversary of the election of the first Reform member of parliament, the hon. member for Edmonton North.

Few of us can appreciate the hardship and isolation that she withstood for four and a half years as the sole Reform member of parliament, tucked away in a back corner of this House. But many of us will remember the pure delight she experienced the first time she took her new seat in the front row surrounded by dozens of her Reform colleagues.

This weekend will be a very special time for the member for Edmonton North as she celebrates this anniversary with family, friends, colleagues and constituents.

I can assure Canadians that she will not be celebrating it in the kitchen. They may want to check out the local Swiss Chalet.

[Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act, March 9th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I find it interesting that the hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance brings up the formula when there is admission by the auditor general that it is too convoluted, that the formula is manipulated, that it can be changed and interpreted in different ways. The formula is not that clear. That is the whole problem with this equalization transfer program. It is not clear. It can be manipulated.

I respect that he differs with my opinion on the transfers, that the conclusion that they had under given money or under transferred money to Newfoundland was not political. I appreciate that he does not agree with me. I would not expect him to agree with me, representing the federal Liberal Party and supporting the provincial Liberal Party.

Part of the problem, very clearly, is that we have low income families in British Columbia, Ontario and Alberta that are sending money to subsidize the Irving family in the Atlantic Canada provinces.

It is not fair for low income taxpayers and families in the three have provinces to support very wealthy families and individuals in the rest of Canada.

[Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act, March 9th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I did listen attentively and with interest.

I to the hon. member that we want Quebec to stay within Canada for reasons that are emotional. I did not realize we could buy the support of a province or that we should be buying a province to stay in our country. It is a question of opportunity. It is a question of the ability of a provincial government, through the jurisdictions given to it in the BNA act or the Constitution Act of 1867, to enhance and stimulate an economy, to control its natural resources and to look after its people through health, social services and education. It is not to pass that responsibility on to the federal government. I thought we agreed with hon. colleagues from the Bloc on that issue.

I find it interesting the member would bring in the issue of immigrants from Hong Kong and from Taiwan who have come to Canada. What he has not said is that although people moved to British Columbia and settled there they left their money in the province of Quebec. Quebec benefited from the economic well-being of these people. They invested their money in Quebec and they got $90 million for resettlement of these investor immigrants. They did not stay there. They came to British Columbia. British Columbia ended up using our resources while Quebec got the benefit of their investments. I am glad to clarify that for members of the House.

[Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act, March 9th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, the figures I have for Saskatchewan in the 1997-98 budget are that 12.8% of the provincial budget came from federal transfers.

I suggest Saskatchewan is one of the provinces learning that it is better to have self-autonomy, a good healthy economy and to join the have provinces in an economy that stimulates job creation and sees the benefits of not being reliant on a federal government to provide it with money but rather on its own ingenuity, its own progress and its own economy.