Dick Harris

[Division No. 363, March 25th, 1999]

They deny it, Mr. Speaker. Why would they admit to such a disgusting display as laughing at a bill as important—

[Division No. 363, March 25th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I move that the eighth report of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, presented on Friday, May 15, be concurred in.

I am pleased to rise today to speak to the debate on this motion. It is particularly a pleasure to do so, as a result of the most disgusting performance I have ever seen in my life that happened in the justice committee yesterday when the member for Mississauga East had her private member's bill destroyed by a bunch of sheep Liberals who were following orders from their justice minister and from the Prime Minister.

This was on Bill C-251, a bill that was overwhelmingly passed in the House. It was approved by all but one Liberal member of the government; all but one voted for it to go to committee. In a matter of five seconds, following the orders of the government and the Minister of Justice, Bill C-251 in the name of the member for Mississauga East was destroyed.

Shall the first clause pass? No. Shall the second clause pass? No. Shall the title pass? No. It was destroyed by her own people, stabbed in the back by her colleagues, joined by Bloc members and NDP members. In disgusting solidarity NDP, Bloc and Liberal members voted down a very acceptable private member's bill.

I will read Bill C-251 for the pleasure of the Liberal government that destroyed it yesterday and for the interest of the Canadian public that is watching today. Her bill read as follows:

This enactment provides for the imposition of consecutive sentences where a person commits sexual assault and another offence arising out of the same events or where the person is already serving another sentence at the time.

The enactment also provides that a person sentenced to life imprisonment for first degree murder or second degree murder is not eligible for parole until this person has served, in addition to the portion of sentence that the person must serve for murder, one-third or a maximum seven years of any other sentence imposed on the person in respect for an offence arising out of the same events or that the person is already serving. The mandatory portion of each life sentence imposed on a person who is convicted of a second murder must be served consecutively before the person is eligible for parole.

In other words, the bill was presented to take the discount out of sentencing which the Liberal government supports. We are talking about getting rid of the discount sale of the government in its justice system if one commits more than one serious offence like murder or sexual assault. That is disgusting.

The Liberals destroyed private member's Bill C-251 by the member for Mississauga East in five seconds and then laughed. They laughed and joked in committee about how easy it was to destroy a colleague's bill in committee. They laughed and the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice laughed as well. She laughed and all her colleagues laughed. They thought it was funny.

[Bank Act, March 24th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, if I was a rabid socialist I probably could support that idea very well, but the fact is that I am a free enterpriser, always have been and always will be.

To place those types of requirements on Canadian business of any kind, whether it is a bank, Magna Industries or Bombardier, is a profound intrusion of government into free enterprise and I could never support that.

Let me point out to this member that it is Canadian business which provides millions and millions of jobs in this country. Those members may think that it is government that should employ everyone, but the fact is that Canadian business is the number one employer, always has been and always will be.

As this economy grows we can look to Canadian business, which is employing workers who support that party and other parties. Canadian business writes the cheques for this country and keeps the economy going.

[Bank Act, March 24th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I am afraid the member is completely wrong in that assessment.

I believe that our big Canadian banks are among the finest bankers in the entire world. They are leaders in the way they run their operations. They are leaders in making prudent business decisions that will benefit not only their companies but also the Canadian economy.

I think it is irresponsible to compare our Canadian bank structure and our Canadian bank expertise with those of the banks that ran into trouble in Asia and in some third world countries.

We can compete and we can lead in the industry with any bank in the world. I do not believe for a moment that our Canadian banks are in any danger of making decisions that would lead to anything like what happened during the Asian flu.

The fact is that the finance minister and this government since 1993 have been dragging their feet on making changes to the financial industry that would allow Canadian banks to get even stronger and have more opportunity to be leaders in the global economy. That is what they have to do. They know it, and this is just one small step.

[Bank Act, March 24th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his question. It is a good one.

The fact is that when the merger proposals were put forward, because of the government inaction in making changes that would allow more competition in the financial services sector, the Minister of Finance basically painted himself into a corner. Under the current regime the merger of the banks would have indeed created a lessening of competition because the Minister of Finance and Liberal government have not taken any steps since 1993 to allow the opportunity for more competition in the banking industry.

With this step, this very important but still small step, we will have foreign branch banking in Canada that will be able to compete head-on with the big banks for commercial business. It may fill a void. There may be some switching of business between domestic banks and new foreign banks. Yes, this is more competition indeed.

There are a few more steps, and this is a good one, that the government could take to increase competition. Then we should let those bank merger proposals come forward to be viewed in an entirely different light, in a more competitive environment.

The banking industry is going to go through a number of changes to compete in the global economy in the next few years. It has been doing it now, but there are some big changes to be made. One of those changes may very well be that our domestic banks will have to get together in some sort of marriage to take advantage of all the opportunities there are in the global economy.

Yes, this is a good step and it will create more competition, but there is more to be done. This government is the only thing standing between a fully competitive banking industry in Canada and what we have right now. It is time that it stopped its foot-dragging and brought Canada into the 21st century where we can compete with big foreign banks in other countries.

[Bank Act, March 24th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak on Bill C-67 as the official opposition party's critic for banks and financial institutions.

We have been following the government's lack of progress on bringing in changes to the financial services sector that would put us on a level playing field with other countries around the world, specifically with the OECD countries. Of the OECD countries, only Canada and Mexico do not presently allow foreign branch banking.

For the information of Canadians viewing this debate today, I will give a little description of what this bill is about.

Until now, a foreign bank that wanted to establish an operation in Canada was required to set up an autonomous separate corporation in Canada with its own board of directors, its own accounting firm. It would operate for all intents and purposes a Canadian company with an asset base that was established at the time of its being set up. In many respects this presented a lot of difficulties for foreign banks that wanted to do business in Canada and participate in the economy through lending, deposit taking and various other operations that banks pursue.

As far back as 1996 the then secretary of state for banks and financial institutions, Mr. Peters, told the House that the government was going to make provisions for what we have come to know as foreign branch banking. A change in the Bank Act through legislation would allow foreign banks to simply establish branches here once they have met certain criteria. Their branches would have the benefit of being able to operate in Canada, plus be able to draw on the full asset base of their parent company.

That was 1996. It is now 1999. The question to ask is why it has taken the government so long to bring this plan to fruition. In our opinion, not only has the government been dragging its feet on this issue, but it has been doing some pretty heavy foot dragging on the whole issue of the changes to the financial services industry. This has created a lot of confusion. Quite frankly, it has left the Canadian owned banks that are operating in Canada as well as consumers at somewhat of a disadvantage. The banks' point of view is that they have not been able to pursue opportunities on a global basis to the extent they would like to. Our consumers of bank services have not had the choices they are entitled to and which they deserve.

In November 1998 I produced a report for the Reform Party entitled “Competition: Choices You Can Bank On”. It was quite a lengthy report. We went through most every phase of the financial services sector. We examined it and we put forward recommendations which our party supports.

I am happy to see the Liberal government is following one of our recommendations which deals with foreign bank entry. We said very clearly in the report that the federal government must end its long delay in allowing foreign branch banking. Foreign branch banking legislation must offer foreign banks that wish to have a branch in Canada the same regulatory and taxation regime encountered by domestic banks.

We also said that foreign branch banking must be in place before the government considered the merits of any merger proposal. As we saw last year when four of our major domestic banks put forward their merger proposals, because the government had been dragging its feet on introducing changes that would allow for more competition in the banking industry in Canada, it had no choice. The government dug itself into a hole with its foot dragging and had no choice but to turn the mergers down.

Had we had changes in this country's financial services sector where Canadians had more choices on where they did their banking, perhaps the mergers could have been looked at in an entirely different light, in a more competitive light, in a more competitive environment here in Canada.

There are going to be basically two types of foreign branches in Canada. One will be what they call a full service branch, which will be able to operate primarily in the commercial sector, in the business area. I am sure that will be their target. They will not be permitted to take deposits of less than $150,000, but they will be able to lend money to Canadian companies, to small, medium and large companies that wish to start up or expand their operations in Canada. I am sure that this new access to financing will be of huge value to the Canadian business sector.

The other type of banking they will be able to do is what they refer to as a lending bank, in which there will be no deposit taking. It will simply be a branch of a foreign bank that will be lending money primarily to businesses that want to expand, develop or otherwise increase their services in Canada.

We do not want to mislead Canadian consumers, the retail consumers. It is very clear that foreign branch banking will really not have much of an impact on their lives. They will not see foreign branches established on different street corners in their communities or in their cities.

Foreign branch banking will primarily be setting up in Canada to service the commercial business. There may be a trickle down effect on Canadian consumers, because by providing increased access to financing for business, perhaps there will be some new start-ups of businesses for which individuals may not have been able to get financing from existing domestic banks or other sources. There may be easier financing available for companies that wish to expand in Canada, and this will create more competition in the marketplace. Whenever competition is thriving, consumers always do well. We see it in the big megastores that have been established in Canada, the big box retailers, the grocery stores, the superstores. Consumers are really, in my opinion, getting a huge benefit from having more competition in Canada at stores and in places where they want to spend money.

We will support Bill C-67. Not only do we think it is good legislation. We cannot go without saying that it is about time the Liberal government brought it in. We also question why this government took so long to bring in this legislation, which was promised back in 1996 when the former secretary of state talked about it in this House.

The current secretary of state for banks made some comments in his speech that I think bear response. He said, for example, that a considerable number of foreign banks have cut back on Canadian activities or have pulled out of Canada altogether, that between 1990 and 1998 the number of foreign banks with subsidiaries in Canada dropped from 57 to 45. It is no wonder. The government has been negligent in making changes to the legislation that would allow these foreign branches to come into Canada and service the needs of Canadians who require their services. That legislation simply was not in place.

I did a survey among some 30 very large foreign banks and asked them what changes to the environment in Canada would make this marketplace most attractive to them. The number one answer was to bring in the long overdue legislation that would allow foreign branch banking.

I am happy to see, finally, that the government is doing something that is truly needed in this country. That is a rarity in itself. I can certainly say that.

In our opinion, all the supervisory checks and balances of the regulatory structure are in place to ensure that this is to be a secure system for foreign branch banking in Canada. We are satisfied that Canadians who deal with these new institutions will be able to deal with them in a very confident fashion, considering the criteria that these banks must meet before they are allowed to establish here.

The secretary of state also said “I want to put on the record very clearly that I could not be prouder than to be the secretary of state dealing with Canada's financial institutions”. I am sure he is very proud of that. I suggest that we could all be prouder of him if he would keep encouraging the Minister of Finance to take some of the steps that have to be taken to make Canada a leader in the world banking industry, not just a follower.

For example, we believe that there should be a regular review of the regulations put in place by the Office of the Superintendent of Financial Institutions and the Competition Bureau, the guidelines they operate under and the demands they make on the financial services business, to ensure that the regulations are effective and cost effective. Canada, as we know, can be best described as a very overregulated country to do business in. In so many cases overregulation costs Canadian consumers and businesses a lot of money.

About three years ago a survey was done on all the types of regulations that were in place in Canada. The bottom line of the survey was that overregulation and useless regulations in this country cost Canadians about $5 billion a year. Cost effectiveness in regulations is something that we should look at.

There is another thing the government has been dragging its heels on. We talk about the constitutional division of powers as we deal with the regulations that govern the financial and securities sectors. There is a profound overlapping of federal and provincial regulatory structures, where the regulations are exactly the same but there are two different bodies doing the regulating. This is very costly and very confusing to people who operate under these regulations.

The government can take a giant step by getting rid of the overlap. One regulation covering the same subject, with two different bodies administering it, can be very costly and very annoying to Canadian business. In the banking system, there is overlap and there is regulatory structure that can be made a lot simpler. Maybe it could be overseen by either the province or the federal government. It would be a cost saving step.

One of the things that a lot of politicians will not dare talk about is the subject of taxation and how it applies to banks. I am not afraid to talk about that for two reasons. Canada is an overtaxed country, whether you are a worker or have a business or a large megacompany like a bank.

The New Democratic Party constantly talks about banks not paying their fair share of taxes. Incidentally, for the interest of the New Democratic Party, banks are a business, a business like any other business in Canada, and they are required to pay a fair share of their taxes, but they alone are one of the most overtaxed segments of Canadian business.

For that reason, in the November report that I presented to our party I recommended that a comprehensive review of the taxation regime encountered by Canadian financial institutions be required with the aim of improving competitiveness. The Canadian financial institution taxation regime must be brought in line with the taxation levels of their domestic competitors and other Canadian businesses. That has to be done.

This government also has to take some very serious steps to examine alternative financial institutions, like the proliferation of credit unions. The government could make a lot of changes that would allow credit unions to expand and to serve Canadian consumers' needs. Eliminating provincial trade barriers in that area would be great, as would allowing credit unions to pool their capital so they can take advantage of financing opportunities.

One of the other ways the government can take some steps to improve the industry in Canada is in the area of the clearing and settlement of cheques, better known as the Canada payment system. We need to have the Canada payment system opened up to more players than simply those that we know as banks. Large securities companies do not have access to the payment clearing system and must deal second hand through a bank in clearing their cheques.

I want to talk briefly about improving the role of the national ombudsman, who oversees all banking operations. We believe that when the ombudsman investigates an alleged infraction by a bank, he or she should have increased powers to go in and do a very thorough investigation and, if that institution is found to be in contradiction to the regulations, to actually name names and assess penalties. There is a system like that in the U.K. which we understand works very well. We would like to see that addressed as well.

We are supporting Bill C-67. We think it is long overdue and is needed. The only question we have about the bill is what took them so long. What took this Liberal government so long to bring in this bill that will allow foreign branch banking? It talked about it in 1996. The then secretary of state he said he would do it. It is 1999, almost four years later, and we are finally seeing it. We are happy about that.

[Building Contracts, March 23rd, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I want to go back to the Prime Minister.

Mr. Duhaime bought a money losing hotel from the Prime Minister. Subsequently he received a grant from the federal government for about $1 million. We want to know whether Mr. Duhaime owed the Prime Minister any money on that hotel sale when he got the $1 million of taxpayers' money in the federal grant. Yes or no?

[Building Contracts, March 23rd, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister's spin doctors claim that the Prime Minister did not know that Pierre Thibault was under criminal investigation for embezzling money when he got a wad of government cash.

Now that we all know that Thibault has admitted to misappropriating funds, will the Prime Minister demand that Mr. Thibault do the right thing and give the government money back?

[Criminal Code, March 17th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, if the member for Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke believes he is a horse's ass I will grant him that.

Getting back to Bill C-219, it was obvious the member did not understand what he was talking about. The concept of this bill put forward by the member for Wild Rose originated in August 1996 at the annual meeting of the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police. One of the resolutions that came out of that meeting was the unanimous consent to add a minimum jail sentence when a stolen vehicle is used in the commission of a crime.

Bill C-219 would amend the Criminal Code to provide for a minimum sentence to be levied when someone used a stolen vehicle in the commission of a crime. There is not rocket science about that but the Liberals have a hard time understanding what this bill is about. This would simply put the police chiefs' resolution into practice.

The member for Wild Rose did receive a letter from the Canadian Police Association. For those Liberals who do not know, these are the frontline workers who deal with crime on a daily basis and are witness to crime committed using a stolen vehicle. They say to the member for Wild Rose: “The measures proposed in Bill C-219 are therefore necessary to address this public safety concern and we appreciate and support your efforts in this regard”.

The last Liberal member who spoke said that support from the Canadian police chiefs and the Canadian Police Association did not exist. I am happy to inform him that it does exist in a letter of support for this bill.

Let me deal with another statement. The member for Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke said we should not be hard on someone who has had a minor indiscretion and steals a vehicle and goes for a joyride. I have never heard such a ridiculous statement in my life. Does the member know that there are many people killed in this country by people who have had, in his words, some minor indiscretions? They have stolen a vehicle, gone for a joyride only to wipeout some pedestrian on a street corner, or on a crosswalk, or slam head on into another vehicle and kill someone. Does he understand that when he makes that statement? I find it pretty hard to take statements like that considering the consequences of this so-called minor indiscretions.

He also says the Canadian judicial system does not want or does not need an amendment to the Criminal Code like this. He says that in his opinion and in the opinion of the government Canadians are well served by what is in the Criminal Code now. The Criminal Code does not, even in Bill C-41 which he talked about and which I do not think he understood either, provide for an additional sentence to be levied against someone who commits a crime using a stolen vehicle. It does provide for an additional minimum sentence for someone who uses a firearm in the commission of a crime.

Threatening with a firearm, using a vehicle or using any other type of device in a commission of a crime and being a threat to public safety, should there not be a provision to address that and to provide not only a penalty but perhaps deterrence? Stolen vehicles in this country are at an epidemic stage. Around 20% of all vehicles stolen are stolen for the purposes of committing a crime. They are used as get away vehicles or for whatever purpose.

While the government may make light of the member for Wild Rose's private member's bill, I think it is a little misinformed about the statistics. It is also misinformed about the opinion of the police who are out there on the streets every day. It is also misinformed about the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police and the support it has for the bill.

Since 1988 auto thefts have grown about 80%, another 9% in 1996 alone. This is the eighth straight year of dramatic increase in the theft of vehicles.

The primary motivations for stealing cars or trucks are joyriding, transportation for criminal purposes, breaking and entering, robbery, drive-by shootings, or they simply strip the vehicles for parts.

This costs in the hundreds of millions of dollars every year to the provinces. I think the government has an opportunity here to provide not only a penalty but perhaps deterrence. Deterrence and penalties are foreign words to the Liberal government. We have seen it and are seeing it in its approach to the impaired driving issue.

I want to go to that because we are talking about deterrence and penalties. The justice committee has a mandate to amend the Criminal Code to enhance deterrence to impaired driving and ensure the penalties reflect the seriousness of the crime.

Yesterday, I understand, someone was arrested who was drunk. The person was handcuffed and put in a police car. Somehow the person got the handcuffs in front of them, stole the police cruiser while intoxicated, took off down the highway, smashed into another car and killed two people. This was in Quebec. Under the Liberal philosophy on how we should treat this person, it is not their fault. They were obviously discriminated against in their childhood and it is society to blame, not the person.

I just hope the mandate received by the justice committee to amend the Criminal Code to enhance deterrence and assess appropriate penalties to impaired drivers is somehow recognized in the next few weeks. I do have my doubts, given what has happened thus far.

I think it was absolutely highly irresponsible of the member for Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke to refer to the stealing of a vehicle for the purpose of joyriding as some sort of brief indiscretion, considering the carnage that has been caused by just such an act. He should apologize to the families of the victims who have been killed by joyriders and those who have been left with permanent injuries as a result of minor indiscretions by joyriders. He should be ashamed of himself for making a statement like that in the House. It proves that if we look at something long enough we will take on the characteristics of it.

[Criminal Code, March 17th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to Bill C-219 today on behalf of my colleague from Wild Rose. I listened to the rant of the member for Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke. It was very clear he had no understanding of what the bill is all about. As I listened to him I was reminded of an old saying from many years ago that if you stare at something long enough and hard enough, you begin to take on some of the characteristics of what you are staring at. Considering the long career in harness racing of member for Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, I see there is a lot of truth to that saying. He has obviously spent a lot of time staring at the back end of a horse.