Joe Comartin

[The Environment, April 4th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, the government's response to the U.S. decision not to ratify the Kyoto agreement has been vague and inconsistent to say the least.

Last week the Minister of the Environment chose to criticize the European Union instead of the U.S. Last Friday and this Monday the Minister of Natural Resources refused to answer a simple question on whether or not they would ratify. Yesterday the Prime Minister indicated that he intends to respect our agreement on Kyoto. He is quoted as saying that.

Will the Prime Minister, once and for all, commit to the House, to all Canadians and to the international community that Canada will ratify the Kyoto protocol as scheduled in 2002?

[The Environment, April 2nd, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, perhaps the Minister of Natural Resources could take some instructions from the Minister for International Trade and get tough with the Americans, condemn them for their position and ratify the treaty. The Caribbean countries have all indicated that they will do it. Will the government show some courage and follow suit?

[The Environment, April 2nd, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, over the weekend the European Union took the position that it was going to ratify the Kyoto protocol. Over the same weekend the Minister of the Environment was in Montreal and was wishy-washy on the issue.

Could we have a position from the government? Will it ratify Kyoto in 2002 as scheduled, or not?

[Financial Consumer Agency Of Canada Act, April 2nd, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, the answer is obvious. What bothers me about those huge recompenses we give to CEOs and several other layers of bank executives is the competitive position it puts us in internationally. We always hear from the private sector about the need to be competitive internationally. If we compare those incomes with others around the world, the reality is they are almost unheard. About the only other place we see them is in the United States.

Senior bankers, CEOs of banks in Europe make nowhere near the same types of incomes or benefits that our CEOs and senior executive people get. They try to keep some kind of a ratio between their employees and their senior people. That is important for morale. It is also important for the financial well-being of the institution.

I do not know how many times we have seen reports, not just in the banking system but elsewhere where CEOs will derive these huge incomes or benefits in stock options, et cetera, when in fact the institution is not doing very well. That is a shame, but it is also something that from a competitive standpoint should not be followed as a policy.

[Financial Consumer Agency Of Canada Act, April 2nd, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I am aware of the legislation, being less than a half a mile from the state of Michigan. It has that type of legislation because of some of the problems it had in its inner cities and its need to force large financial institutions to meet their responsibilities by providing funds to the local communities.

I must admit I have a mixed response in terms of whether that would be of much assistance. My general comment would be to strengthen the credit union movement because it does not need the legislation. The credit unions are already there and doing that. They fund all sorts of endeavours.

I can think of some endeavours in my local area. We badly needed an arena because there was not one in the local geographical area. The credit union movement, in this case the caisse populaire, was instrumental in arranging the financing for the arena. The county could not get it from the big banks. We already do that. I am not sure that we need legislation as far as the credit unions.

Do we need it as far as the banks begs the question. It is obvious that we do. The difficulty I have with that legislation is the lack of interest on the part of the banks to carry it through. Even though we could pass the law that would require and mandate them to spend a certain percentage of their funds, make them available for lending purposes and provide service in the local community, it would be done without any enthusiasm on their part. It is important that a financial institution be committed to the local community in that regard.

If we pass the legislation, I am doubtful about any kind of a positive reaction from the banking institutions. From my talks with some of them in regard to that kind of legislation, they have responded with less than great enthusiasm.

[Financial Consumer Agency Of Canada Act, April 2nd, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I want to speak to the bill particularly surrounding the manner in which it affects credit unions. As my colleague from Regina—Qu'Appelle has already indicated when he addressed the House, we have serious reservations about the bill generally but do support it to the degree that it deals with credit unions. Some recommendations for additions to the bill have not been accepted by the government.

It is really important to set in context the role the credit union movement from our viewpoint and that of the government's needs to play in the country. That role is one of the only alternate systems of financial services we have. Those services unfortunately are spotty across the country because of the history of the development of the credit union movement.

Although the bill is designed to provide some strengthening of the movement to allow and permit for some expansion of the credit union movement, it simply does not go far enough.

It would allow for the development of what is being called a national services entity, or potentially even more than one. It would allow credit unions from various provinces to come together in a strengthened position. It is still fairly late in the game. They are at a distinct disadvantage with the banking system as it exists because of all the privileges and rights the banking system has been given historically in Canada.

It is important to draw to the attention of the country the role credit unions can play. Last week I asked one of my colleagues in the Bloc Quebecois about the role the Desjardins movement has played in Quebec in solidifying a financial service sector that is broadly based in response to the needs of its communities. In Quebec, and to a somewhat lesser degree in British Columbia, it has been very successful.

I also draw attention to something that I do not think is fully appreciated: the small and medium enterprise area which it has been of great of assistance to these communities. There have been a number of surveys which have shown that small or medium size businesses get much better services from the credit union movement. Unfortunately, with probably the exception of Quebec and maybe British Columbia, in the rest of the country's small and medium sized enterprises simply do not have sufficient services available from the credit union movement and institutions to meet their needs. These amendments in the form of Bill C-8 will go some distance in strengthening the movement across the country. However, as I indicated, it is not enough.

The other area where I think it is really important to note the strength that the credit unions have provided is direct services to individuals. In that regard, it brings to mind the movement by the big banks to close local branches. Of course, we have heard protests and opposition to the banks when they do this.

An area where the credit union movement helped was in one of the western provinces when one of the big banks was closing a large number of local branches. I think it was 13 or 14 branches. The credit union movement moved in and in effect bought the services, took over those branches and kept them alive and open for a number of small communities in western Canada. That, in smaller scales, has occurred right across the country.

One of the recent credit unions in my home province of Ontario got started specifically because the big banks were pulling out of a small community in southwestern Ontario. Nobody was going to be there to provide services, either to individuals or the small local businesses. As a result of a movement on the part of that local community, a new credit union was formed and is flourishing after several years of operation.

It is important to acknowledge those types of endeavours by the credit union movement at the same time this bill is passing through the House.

Again, it does not go far enough. I will not take up my full 20 minutes, but I want to make a few more points with regard to perhaps encouraging the government to look a little into the future at other programs and policies it might implement to facilitate the further development of the credit union movement, in particular, outside of the provinces of Quebec and British Columbia where they are already quite strong. However, in the rest of Canada, the maritimes and Ontario in particular, if endeavours were made and policies implemented, they might very well be able to duplicate the success and provide alternate services we so badly need in the financial services sector.

In that regard, I draw the attention of hon. members to one of the things the province of Quebec did to assist in expanding the caisse populaires and the Desjardins movement. It recognized the need for additional funds to be available to the movement and to be used in the community to foster local business and allow the development of smaller communities. It turned the pension funds traditionally controlled by the government over to the Desjardins movement. That put at its disposal a huge amount of additional liquidity.

Although one can argue that no system is perfect, it certainly had the effect of making that movement in that province very competitive with the big banks. Small and medium sized enterprises had alternatives. A financial service was available to get better services than they traditionally received from big banks.

I am aware of another area that could be considered in terms of enhancing the strength of the credit union movement. That has been to allow them to provide to their members insurance services such as home insurance, auto insurance and others. This has been done to some degree in the province of British Columbia. From my personal knowledge of the experience in British Columbia involving some very large institutions, they have been able to use the insurance financial service sector as a profit making centre, one that in the smaller credit unions and smaller branches has made them financially viable in small communities.

This allowed a small branch of a credit union to continue to function by providing all the other financial services such as mortgages, personal loans et cetera, as well as house and auto insurance. By combining the two, they were quite viable as an economic institution. They could service the community by providing all those financial services. This is something the government should look at as a way of providing some incentive, initiative and strengthening of the credit union movement across the country.

We recognize the resistance the government has in allowing banking institutions to deliver insurance services. The same need not be true for the credit union movement. The credit union movement is dedicated to its members and its communities, not just to the bottom line. The authority for credit unions to move into that area would be a boom for them and a very large plus for their communities.

In conclusion, it is obvious that the bill is going to pass with the form being proposed at this time. Some of the suggestions I made with regard to credit unions need to be pursued by the government. It is very important to Canada that an alternative source of funding for the financial sector be available to both small and large communities. Some of the proposals we made as a party and that I recounted today would take us somewhere down that route.

[Financial Consumer Agency Of Canada Act, March 30th, 2001]

Madam Speaker, I have worked extensively with the credit union movement in Windsor and across Ontario. Looking at the legislation I cannot help but wonder if more could have been done to facilitate the development of the credit union movement outside Quebec in a way that mirrors the success the Desjardins movement has had in that province.

Could my hon. friend from the Bloc suggest improvements to the legislation that would help the credit union movement across Canada duplicate the successes that have occurred in Quebec with that movement?

[Natural Resources, March 30th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, since we cannot seem to get an answer from the Minister of Natural Resources, let me address my question to the Deputy Prime Minister.

Environment ministers and leaders from around the world have been vocal in their condemnation of the U.S. for its repudiation of Kyoto, yet our environment minister and our Prime Minister remain silent.

Will the Canadian government join the international community, repudiate the American rejection of Kyoto and commit to a 2002 ratification of an effective protocol? Yes or no.

[Employment Insurance Act, March 29th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I rise to reiterate the points made by my colleague from the Progressive Conservative Party about the inadequacies of the legislation being proposed, specifically the short list of the amendments and changes that would be made, depending upon the outcome of the vote. Many more issues need to be addressed and I will draw them to the attention of the House at this time.

One issue that has been of particular import to my riding in the last few months is the change concerning the 85% rule that is required in one of the regulations under the act. It establishes that if an employee does not return to work in a strike lockout situation, the reason must be because of lack of work and not because of lack of work or production generated as a result of the strike lockout.

The rule is wide open to abuse on the part of employers if after the strike lockout they wish to be vindictive. The offensive part of the regulation is that the employer is the one who is sought out and asked for information on whether the 85% rule is being met.

I wish to make a side point here. The 85% rule is not only with regard to 85% of the employees being called back to work but also 85% of production being restored. It is a double opportunity for the employer to have the final decision on whether individual employees will qualify. We had two recent situations in Windsor where this specific situation arose.

The interesting part is that as a result of work done by the CAW union and my office, the department reversed the original decision disqualifying all those workers. Literally hundreds of them were disqualified. I still have not had a response from the minister in terms of the interpretation placed on the rule, but there seems to be some policy where during certain periods of time the rule is not enforced. Our party's position is that the rule should be done away with completely. The general application of the act and the regulations should flow once a strike lockout situation has terminated.

Another concern I have, and one that I run across in my riding repeatedly, is with one of the penalties under the legislation. It is in regard to individuals who know that they will be unemployed and they make arrangements in all good faith to seek retraining.

The government is actively pressing individuals who are unemployed to upgrade themselves. It constantly publishes figures about the need for people to recognize that in the course of their working career they will be repeatedly required to return to some educational or retraining program in order to maintain full employment.

In spite of the figures that we have all seen, and the position that the government is taking, individuals who wish to return to work by way of upgrading their skills and knowing that they will need to do that in order to get favourable employment situations, are in effect penalized by being required to go without employment benefits for a full two week period. They leave the workforce, usually not voluntarily, and then they are without any form of income for a full two weeks while in an educational program.

It is particularly offensive to single parent families with children who rely on that income to have a waiting period of two weeks. It has a very negative effect, particularly for women in the workforce, as it forces them to go on social service benefits rather than get the retraining that they really require. Retraining would be much better for them as it would enhance the overall economy and it would be good of society. That is another change that is required and we see no signs of the government moving on it.

My final point deals with the inaction on the part of the government to deal with the taking of the money that has been paid for by both employees and employers to the tune of $35 billion. It has also refused to even acknowledge a responsibility to replace those funds.

If the government returned those funds, there is no question that the amount the employer or employee would have to contribute would be significantly reduced. We need those funds available in case of a significant economic downturn, which we may be confronting at this period of time.

We need action on the part the government on each one of those items. As Bill C-2 and the proposed amendments show, we are not getting it at this time.

[Freshwater Exports, March 28th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, Canadians have always been able to depend on our plentiful supply of freshwater but now this precious resource is being threatened by the inaction of the government.

In British Columbia, there is an outstanding chapter 11 action under NAFTA. There are ongoing attempts in the Great Lakes to export bulk water.

Yesterday, Roger Grimes, the premier of Newfoundland and Labrador, announced that his government will reopen the issue of the bulk export of water, a move that under NAFTA would eliminate the ability of other provinces to ban the exportation of bulk water.

In fact, the government has brought forward legislation, Bill C-6, which would facilitate the export of our most precious water supply.

It is time the government showed some leadership and accepted its responsibility to protect our supply of freshwater. It is time we have federal legislation that would ban absolutely the bulk export of our freshwater.