Dick Harris

[Prebudget Consultations, December 10th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, time and time again presenters came before our committee and talked about the tax regime, and how in many previous years it was onerous and burdensome.

Let us not forget that until the year 2000 when the former finance minister, who does not show up much, brought in those tax cuts we had six years of incredible tax burden placed on Canadians as individuals, as families, as small business, as medium and large corporations, to wring those tax dollars out of them.

This is a favourite Liberal trick. If individuals were starting across a desert with a full canteen of water and before they were a quarter of the way across someone would come along and take all the water. They would make it just about to the end, and before death someone would show up with a little bit of water and save them. That person would be thought a hero. That is the same trick the Liberals have been doing with taxation. They just about killed the economy with their tax burdens and now they are giving some back and they expect to be looked upon as heroes.

That trick is the oldest political trick in the book. The Liberals know it well. They have been doing it once again. If we do not stop them soon, they will do it again.

[Prebudget Consultations, December 10th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I certainly am pleased to rise and speak in this prebudget debate. In beginning my presentation, I would like to talk a bit about the truth of the prebudget consultations, in which I was involved for the fourth time in my nine years in Parliament. The member for Hillsborough also was involved . In fact, I honestly think that a lot of people have a misconception about the prebudget consultations.

With all due respect to the chairman of the finance committee, who I believe is doing an admiral job and who really has her heart in it, and to many members of the finance committee who have travelled around the country trying to do their jobs, the sad fact is that, like so many other reports and so many other bits of input that committees give to cabinet ministers and the Prime Minister, the prebudget report is quite irrelevant. The dirty truth is that the government agenda has already been carved in stone before the prebudget committee hearings even get off the ground.

It is a sham on the part of the government. It sends members of Parliament across the country year after year, season after season, in this case prebudget after prebudget, to get input from the Canadian people, which is put in the form of a report, along with the minority reports, and the government has no intention of following up on anything that has been presented.

In the four years I have spent on the finance committee, and if I had about an hour, I could list all the things that the finance committee has recommended to the government as priority items and upon which the government still has not acted.

This budget could better be described as a fudge it considering how the government has been manipulating the taxpayers' dollars in the way it spends money, in the way it hides money, in the way it misrepresents its programs and in the sheer incompetence of some ministers and their departments as they are handling taxpayer money.

This party, since it came here and before it came here, believed that a government had the responsibility to regard taxpayer dollars as a sacred trust. The terms Liberal and sacred taxpayer dollars is certainly a conflict in terms.

When we talk about this budget, the promises of the government and the way it sometimes tugs at people's heartstrings when it talks about Canadian values and wanting to reflect what it is doing, Canadians are asking themselves the question, who in their right mind in this country, given the performance of the government since 1993, not even in particular to this last year where we have uncovered billions of dollars in mismanagement, waste and downright stupidity, can really trust the Liberal government?

Can we trust any more that it is telling us the truth? Can we trust that it will use our tax dollars in a prudent fashion? Can we trust that it will understand what the priorities of Canadians really are?

Can we trust it to follow its own agenda, notwithstanding what the Canadian people hold as priorities, and regard the priorities of Canadians as something that is foreign to an agenda that is already set and carved in stone? Yes, we can trust it to do that.

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Edmonton--Strathcona.

The member for Hillsborough just mentioned the finance minister. By the way, Mr. Speaker, I have not seen the former finance minister lately. Is he still in the country? Oh, that is right, we are talking about Kyoto these days and this is a period of no commitment for the member for LaSalle--Émard.

The member for Hillsborough asked if anyone remembered the former finance minister's promise of $100 billion in tax cuts. The key word there is promise. We would have believed that statement if he had put it on the table the day he made the statement in the form of a cashable refund cheque to Canadians. One year between budget to budget is a lifetime for the Liberal government and things can change as the mood changes across the way. We have seen that often enough.

Let me say what the member for Hillsborough maybe should have said. Does anybody in the House remember the former finance minister promising $100 billion in tax cuts? The member should have carried on by saying “which followed six years of massive tax increases in over 60 areas of taxation, including bracket creep, CPP premium increases and withholding cuts that would have been responsible, such as in the EI program”.

When the member for Hillsborough and other Liberals talk about how great they were to balance the budget, we must not forget that they balanced the budget through increased taxation and through inflated EI premiums in which they built a surplus of some $35 billion or $40 billion. It would not take a rocket scientist, much less a Liberal, to balance a budget if they could simply pull a golden lever and have cash come out every time it was needed.

The government put the Canadian taxpayer in a vice and every time it needed money to balance its budget, it pulled a lever and squeezed the last drop of income out of the Canadian taxpayer.

Back in 1993 one parent from a single income family would stay at home to look after the kids because that was their choice. Through increased taxation, that choice was taken away from thousands upon thousands of Canadian families because of the insatiable appetite of the Liberal government to squeeze the last tax dollar out of Canadians.

As you know, Mr. Speaker, because you were here when it was debated time and again, from 1993 until 2000 disposable family income shrank dramatically and disposable income for single working Canadians shrank dramatically. What was the benefit of that? It did not benefit Canadians who wanted to provide the basics of life for their families, such as food, clothing, and maybe in a good year put a down payment on a new car or do some renovations. There was no benefit to the Canadian taxpayer.

The government benefited because it was able to wring the last tax dollar out of the Canadian taxpayer in order to satisfy, not only its sort of sneaky way of balancing its budget, but also to spend money yearly on new programs. The government had to get its money from someplace and it received it from the Canadian taxpayer. That is sad but true.

While we debate the prebudget report the prebudget committee consultations could at best be called “a dog and pony show” because the government's agenda for tax and spin had already been carved in stone. Yes, there would be a few crumbs thrown on the side to pacify some but the thing was a sham and the government knows it.

[Finance, December 6th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, the problem is that no one really regulates these white label ATMs and as a result consumers are not protected from fraud artists. The federal laws that govern the same operations of ATMs of the financial institutions do not apply to white label ATMs.

We have to ask the question, why is the government making it so easy for ATM fraud artists to operate in Canada?

[Banking Act, November 21st, 2002]

Madam Speaker, the presentation made by the member for Hochelaga--Maisonneuve may sound like a good thing to a lot of people but it is fundamentally unrealistic to even consider a bill that would impose upon our banks an obligation for them to do business with people who have either no credit history, very little credit history or even a bad credit history.

Institutions like banks are not in business for that in the same way that other companies like Bombardier, Air Canada, Sears, Wal-Mart and caisses populaire credit unions in the province of Quebec are not in business for that. These companies are in business to make a profit for their shareholders or for the owners of a privately held company. They prosper providing they implement sound administration and financial management practices.

Bill C-229 is very confusing because it says that branches of banks to which this part applies, while respecting sound administration and financial management practices, should get involved in granting loans to people in many cases who would be poor credit risks to pay them back. To get into that type of experience is a conflict of sound financial management practices.

I also feel that this touches on some type of affirmative action where a company is required to do business with certain groups of people who under normal circumstances would not be part of its business day or its business plan.

It is simply not the government's place to impose this on a private or public business that has grown. Banks have grown to quite an enormous size by doing business in a sound financial manner. It is not the government's place to penalize them by telling them they have to deviate from the practices that brought them to where they are today. They pay dividends to their shareholders and dividends to pension funds that have invested in them. They cannot be penalized because they are successful and told that they have to do things in their business that they would never consider in a normal business practice.

I take exception to the fact that the member indicated that banks do not, as part of their normal practice, become involved in community reinvestment. Canadian banks and the financial services sector are probably the largest contributors to charities in every community across the country where they have branches. They also make hundreds of thousands of loans to small and large businesses in every community across Canada.

They take that money, expand, create more jobs, contribute to the local economy and improve the quality of life for people who work in small businesses which have been able to expand because they have received loans from financial institutions and have run their businesses well. Some started at zero and built their businesses up through sound financial management.

Banks already invest in communities in a huge way, far more than any other industry sector in the country, I believe. To suggest that they are somewhat lacking as community corporate partners is totally misleading.

I know that in the town of Prince George where I live, the Royal Bank, the Scotiabank, TD Bank and CIBC put tens of thousands of dollars into the community for numerous charities and projects in the city, and they do this as part of their corporate community responsibility. To suggest that banks are the big, bad guys with vaults full of money and that do not care about the communities they do business in is quite wrong.

As well, the member talked about the big, bad banks that closed branches to rationalize their business. Would any company in Canada continue to operate a branch in the event that it was losing money on a continuous basis? I think not. That is how companies become successful. They make good, sound business plans and they stick to them. When things are not working, they do whatever they can to turn it around. If it does not turn around, they have to take other steps, and sometimes that involves closing branches.

As the member pointed out, banks are under some responsibility to give notice and to try to implement whatever relief they can to ensure the impact will be as little as possible.

To suggest that the bank should pay into a special fund an amount equivalent to 5% of its income for the financial year is like another tax. That is totally unrealistic. That takes operating capital out of the bank. Banks are already hit with a capital tax. Unfortunately, the government has still not done away with it.

While the member believes in this bill, and I respect the fact that he does, I find it is quite unreasonable to consider implementing something like this.

Microcredit or microlending is not appropriate for banks. That comes more into the business realm of perhaps smaller financial institutions or companies that may see that as an opportunity. It might even be considered an entrepreneur's dream to someone who had $25,000 which they wanted to invest and they saw an opportunity to lend out $500, or $1,000 or $300. Given sound financial business practices, that could be an opportunity for someone who wanted to get into that type of business.

However to suggest that our chartered banks get into that business and that if they do and they violate one of the many rules in the member's bill, they would be fined or sanctioned or drawn and quartered in some way is not realistic.

We cannot accept this bill like our friends across the hall. Banks are there for a purpose. They are there to serve their investors. They are there to contribute through their dividends to pension funds. It requires that they be strong, that they be profitable, that they continue to operate under very sound, stable and secure business practices. Quite frankly, lending money to people who may not pay them back does not fit into that criteria.

[Queen's Jubilee Medal, November 21st, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, last week I had the honour to present 19 Queen's Golden Jubilee Medals to some very great people in my riding. Those people included Noreen Rustiad, Lily Chow, Ray Kandola, Donalda Carson, Tom Masich. Debbie Byl, Dick Voneugen, Johnny Flatt, Charles MacDonald, Bob Stewart, Gladys Goode, Bob Good, Charles Jago, Ivan Anderson, Mona Mark, Dr. Jeffery Cowburn, Jerry Petersen, Jeannette Townsend and Phyllis Gainor.

These are wonderful people who have dedicated their lives to helping their community and the people around them. The communities of Prince George—Bulkley Valley are much the better for having these individuals in them. We all congratulate them.

[Government Spending, November 1st, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, no matter how we cut it, it is another $5 billion up in smoke. While the minister continues to blow smoke with his $5 billion spending program, Canadians are kind of concerned about things like health care, the state of our military and the quality of life for our seniors.

Instead of blowing smoke, when will the government's spending programs reflect the real priorities of Canadians? When will that start?

[Finance, October 31st, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, let us try to get some real clarity on this. Will the finance minister, or whoever speaks for the PMO over there, confirm that the PMO will not interfere again against any future bank merger proposals? Will they confirm today that it will be the finance minister who will deal with it and it will be his decision, not the whim of the Prime Minister?

[Finance, October 31st, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, just two days ago the PMO said that there would be no bank merger proposals considered until after the Prime Minister's retirement in early 2004. At the same time, the finance minister has said that there is no ban on merger proposals.

Will the finance minister confirm today that it is he who has the final say on bank merger proposals, not the Prime Minister?

[Petitions, October 25th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to present petitions containing over 5,000 names of Canadians living in the Prince George--Bulkley Valley riding. They want the House to know that the creation and use of child pornography is condemned by a clear majority of Canadians and that the courts have not applied the current child pornography law in a way that makes it clear that such exploitation of children will be met with swift punishment.

The petitioners therefore call on Parliament to protect our children by taking all necessary steps to ensure that all materials that promote or glorify pedophilia or sado-masochistic activities involving children are outlawed. I support all of these petitions.

[Canada Pension Plan, October 23rd, 2002]

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I am sure other members are finding it abundantly painful that the member is not addressing the subject at hand which is the amendments to the Canada pension plan. That is what we are here to do. We are here to do parliamentary work. I would suggest that the member respect the voters who are looking for some real and constructive changes.