Dick Harris

[Committees of the House, June 5th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to clear the air because there have been some anti-bank rants by the member for Winnipeg North Centre and other NDP members.

The issue of bank mergers and how to facilitate them, if at all, was given to the finance committee to discuss and come up with a set of recommendations. That mandate was very clear.

The finance committee did meet. We had extensive discussions with witnesses who appeared before us, including the heads of the major banks in this country. They explained their position as to why banks might want to merge in this country. They explained how their position in the global marketplace was shrinking insofar as financial institutions.

The banks clearly said to the committee that they wanted the committee to lay out a path for them, so that they could have the ability to present their proposals. Once they presented their proposals they would expect that the committee and the finance minister would look at them and tell them yes or no whether they could have a merger.

The finance committee came up with a number of recommendations that for the most part were what the banks were looking for. There was a dissenting opinion filed by the NDP. There was also a supplementary opinion filed by the member for Kings—Hants on behalf of the Progressive Conservative Party. However, overall there was a broad consensus that the committee had for the most part achieved its mandate in coming up with 11 recommendations for the Minister of Finance to respond to.

I have said in the House that we trusted the minister to respond within the time period. As a matter of fact, I have stated in the House that it would be far better for everyone concerned if the minister could respond sooner than the maximum of 90 days that was requested of him. I agree with the member for Kings—Hants who had asked for an earlier response as well. Another point the member for Kings--Hants made was to take politics out of this decision.

This is unlike 1998 when the issue of mergers first appeared and the decision to not even allow the banks to make merger proposals was made by the former finance minister, who at that time, in the view of most people who were looking at this issue, made a purely political decision in saying that there will be no bank merger proposals received by that finance minister and the Liberal government. That was a most disturbing way to respond to the banking community in our country, on purely political grounds.

It has been five years since that merger situation first appeared. The government has had a lot of time to respond to the whole issue of mergers. The finance committee has now presented 11 recommendations. We on this side of the House and in this party implore the finance minister to recognize the seriousness of this issue. We ask that he respond as quickly as possible and even before the 90 day period is up because it is a most important issue.

The banks have a number of recommendations. They understand what the committee said. They will ensure, to the best of their ability, that when they make their proposals, those proposals will respond in an acceptable manner to the recommendations put forward.

We do not know if a merger will be put forward, but if one does come forward, if it passes by the Competition Bureau and by the Office of the Superintendent of Financial Institutions and if it meets the criteria and the wishes expressed in the recommendations, I hope the Minister of Finance will look at its substance and its merits. If it meets the guidelines of the public interest, I hope he will put aside the political reasons the government used back in 1998 and deal with the proposal on its merits.

It is absolutely critical that politics play no part in however the minister may respond to the recommendations in this report or to the bank merger proposals themselves should they be presented.

There is not much sense in responding to a lot of rhetoric presented by the fifty party in the House, both in committee and in the House today. The facts are clear. The recommendations are out, we are waiting for the minister to respond, and I hope he responds as soon as possible.

Banks have a clear understanding of the recommendations. They will make their proposals if they wish on an application to merge. That is when we can debate the merits of the proposals. It is as simple as that. Anything said now is a bit ahead of time because we are waiting for the minister to respond to the report. We also want to see if there are any banks that do want to make merger proposals.

[Committees of the House, June 5th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, it was our understanding that it would be a 10 minute extension at the most. It is unrealistic to think that the House would allow the member for the NDP to have unlimited time on this subject. That party is using it as a delaying tactic for another bill it wants to postpone. We would never have given unanimous consent for unlimited speaking time. That is just not realistic.

[Committees of the House, June 5th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, it was surprising to have the NDP put forth this issue today. I imagine there was more than one reason to start talking about bank mergers and I guess we will find that out as the day goes by.

It is very easy to stand here, as the NDP does in so many cases, and tell everyone that the sky is about to fall if those big, bad banks have a merger. There are a couple of points he made with which I really must take issue.

The banks, operating under the charter, of course have an obligation to the population of Canada, like the hon. member said. They also have an obligation to the Canadian economy, and it is absolutely critical that our banks remain as strong as they possibly can to support our economy.

Over the last number of years, because of mergers around the world, our Canadian banks have lost their standings from an asset base and the ability to take advantage of opportunities in the global market. While other banks around the world have grown in size through mergers and acquisitions, our banks have not had that opportunity. They are getting left behind and have been unable to participate in financing opportunities in the global marketplace. That has a direct bearing on the ability of banks to solidify and increase their strength right here in Canada. It is a trickle-down effect which is certainly a reality.

The member talked about the difference between interest rates here and in the U.S. That is true, our rates are somewhat higher, but the interest rates are at the lowest point they have been in many years. Many Canadians are taking advantage of the low mortgage rates, for example, that are offered by our banks. They are able to buy houses a lot easier than they could before. They are able to buy other consumer products, large ticket items like cars and recreational items like boats.

The banks were here and made presentations before the committee. They made commitments. Where does the member want to go with this? The banks are waiting for a response from the government which will be forthcoming. They have said they are ready to do whatever it takes to facilitate these mergers.

[Lobbyists Registration Act, June 4th, 2003]

Madam Speaker, all rhetoric aside, the fact remains that these Liberals unfortunately have been in power now for almost 10 years. When they arrived, this mess was predominant. The very same situation we are talking about today in which we are trying to make some changes was predominant and in fact it was overwhelming the system. That was almost 10 years ago.

The government has had 10 years to clean up the deficiencies in the system. In spending the taxpayers' money, the Government of Canada and the people in the bureaucracies who have the power to make decisions and make purchases have had 10 years to clean up the deficiencies in that process and they have not done it. That is what is so upsetting. It is as if the government has considered it a very low priority while all over the country taxpayers have been crying out for years for the governments of the day to recognize taxpayers' money not as their money but as a sacred trust, money that belongs to the taxpayers of Canada, and saying that governments had a responsibility to provide the most fiscally responsible management of that money that they possibly could.

In 10 years we have not seen that. That is why we in the opposition and my colleague from Elk Island welcome opportunities like today's to be critical of the government but at the same time to search out members opposite, like the member from Ancaster, who such a long riding name I cannot remember all of it, and to encourage him and members who think like he does and like we do, to put as much possible pressure on their government and the powers that be in the cabinet that they possibly can. I want to commend the member for his aggressiveness and I hope it will be infectious throughout the backbench members of the Liberal government.

[Lobbyists Registration Act, June 4th, 2003]

Madam Speaker, I could not wait to get to my feet and point out to the hon. member that he was in error when he indicated the member for Elk Island spoke for an hour. In fact he spoke for 30 minutes. I know it is kind of hard when one is a Liberal sitting on the other side of the House, hearing some reasoned opinions and some very logical and common sense opinions coming from the official opposition. The member for Elk Island is eminently equipped to make such pronouncements and statements.

In support of that, the hon. member just spent the last 10 minutes basically concurring with what the member for Elk Island said. He talked about how the government had to start to make a concerted effort to get the best value for the money it was spending overall. That is what the member just said and that is what the member for Elk Island said.

Therefore, I want to thank the hon. member across the way for concurring with my colleague. We certainly wish that member had a ton of influence on his own party that type of attitude toward government procurement would prevail in that party. Unfortunately it does not and that gives my colleagues, particularly the member for Elk Island, ample material to be critical of how the government runs its operations.

I want to thank the member opposite for supporting my colleague. I also want to thank my colleague for pointing out some very reasoned and logical opportunities for the government. We trust that the member opposite will aggressively encourage the government, his party, to adopt a lot or all the recommendations about which my colleague from Elk Island talked.

[Supply, May 29th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, of course nations that value the freedom and safety of their citizens are going to always continue to achieve a peaceful world through negotiations and through multilateral talks with other countries, in particular those countries perceived to pose a threat to peace in our world.

It is one thing to be in denial of the dangers that exist in our world today from nations that obviously do not think the way we do or appreciate the freedoms we do. It is quite another situation to be sort of Pollyannaish about it and believe that everything is right with the world if we just smile and think good things about it.

This missile defence system is not to replace mechanisms already in place, such as our relationships with other countries and the ongoing diplomacy. This is to augment anything we are currently doing in the event that something we are currently doing fails.

When the member talks about going back to another time when the only defence we had was to threaten annihilation of any aggressor, and this still exists, this method alone means that if someone has a nuclear aggression against us we may very well annihilate that country, but at the expense of the tens of millions of lives in our country lost because their missiles got through. I personally would like to try to save some of those tens of millions of lives. While we do not have the technology perhaps exactly right today, there was a time when we did not know how to make a microwave work. The technology, the research, is in progress to make an accurate missile system work.

Incidentally, Mr. Speaker, I am sure that members in the House do not appreciate some of the anti-American rhetoric present in that last member's statement.

I just want to ask the member, as I asked the previous member, does she really believe that by just being nice to people who are by nature not nice we can preserve peace forever in this country or in this world?

[Supply, May 29th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the member what type of plan North American should adopt to defend a missile strike against our continent that would enable us to deter or destroy any incoming missiles before they reached our continent. Does he have a suggestion of an alternative? Is he hoping that if we ask all potential aggressors against our continent to please not fire anything at us, they will not? Is that good enough for him and the government?

[Petitions, May 26th, 2003]

The next two petitions, Mr. Speaker, call on the Parliament of Canada to recognize the democratic vote that was taken in the House regarding the state of marriage. The petitioners pray that Parliament legislate the definition of marriage passed by a motion in the House on June 8, 1999 as the union of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others.

There are several hundred signatures on these petitions.

[Petitions, May 26th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, it is my honour to present three petitions to Parliament today. These petitions represent the voices of the constituents of Prince George--Bulkley Valley.

The first petition is from several dozen people who are concerned about the fact that the government may allow the use of embryonic stem cells in medical research despite the fact that non-embryonic stem cells, known as adult stem cells, have shown considerable significant research progress.

The petitioners call upon Parliament to focus its legislative support on adult stem cell research to find the cures and therapies necessary to treat illnesses and diseases of suffering Canadians.

[Supply, May 8th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. House leader is talking about doing what is right and says that they will do what is right. What sheer hypocrisy. The member has been in the House as long as I have been here, and even longer, and since 1993 he has continued to stand in the House and crow about the vast majority of Canadians who elected him and his government.

When it comes to the Liberals being elected to form the government, it is okay, but when a vast majority of Canadians are asking the government to remove all the loopholes that would allow any form of child pornography to exist, they will not. When the vast majority of Canadians are offended by the fact that prisoners, murderers, rapists and child molesters have the right to vote because some level of court said so, and the vast majority of Canadians want that fixed, the government will not do it. All of a sudden the majority does not count any more.

When the government can use the majority, it is okay, but when the majority of Canadians want it to do something that is against its philosophy, it says that it will not.

I have a question. Just where does the House leader believe the ultimate decision on how to run this country should be, in this Parliament, the Parliament of Canada, or at some court around the country? Who has the supreme--