Joe Preston

[Procedure and House Affairs, February 17th, 2012]

Madam Speaker, I know that the item has been before the Board of Internal Economy, but, of course, because members of the House do not know what that is, we would not know the answer to this question until such time as it is referred to the procedure and House affairs committee.

[Financial System Review Act, February 14th, 2012]

Madam Speaker, I know the member works very hard on U.S. issues, being in a border community. I thank him for that work.

My answer to the question is, if it is affecting Canadian consumers, we should look at it. If at all, we should be working as much as we can in a collegial manner with the Americans. We will continue to discuss with them the problems Canadians have and, hopefully, they will bring to us problems Americans have and we can work together on a solution.

[Financial System Review Act, February 14th, 2012]

Madam Speaker, I am not certain I can speak for the whole world as to what I think the natural percentage of unemployment is. I know that in my area of the country, even during the best times when things were really booming, there was unemployment.

However, I will tell members what my personal views are. Any person who is unemployed, looking for work and wants a job, should find it. If that person cannot, then there is one too many people unemployed in our country.

[Financial System Review Act, February 14th, 2012]

Madam Speaker, I thank the member for York South—Weston for his attention today during this debate. He has asked many questions.

The first part of the question was about how simple banking fees affect consumers, whether it is the cost of mortgages, fees on a chequing account or ATM fees. Those are consumer-driven costs and are not covered by this Bank Act review. Consumers have the choice to go from bank to bank to find out what the fees are.

The other part had to do with whether the banks can put mortgages and other lending into one pile. Some of the act does cover how the banks deal with mortgages in that way. It certainly is a reason for review every five years. If new items like this do come up, they could be reviewed.

[Financial System Review Act, February 14th, 2012]

Madam Speaker, to you, my wife Geri, and all members, happy Valentine's Day.

Madam Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the great member for Yukon.

I truly appreciate the opportunity to lend my voice to today's debate in favour of the timely passage of Bill S-5, also known as the financial system review act. While very technical, this is a critically important piece of legislation.

This bill is the right thing for Canadians and the right thing for Canada's economy. It builds upon and complements the range of initiatives our Conservative government has introduced and will continue to introduce to improve the security of our financial system and to strengthen consumer protection for Canadians.

Indeed, Bill S-5 supports those principles in many important areas, including modernizing, strengthening and clarifying the consumer provisions in the Bank Act, the Cooperative Credit Associations Act, the Insurance Companies Act, and the Trust and Loan Companies Act, as well as others.

Members can rest assured that our Conservative government understands the importance of protecting consumers and the importance of protecting the larger financial system. During the global financial crisis, we came to appreciate the very real consequences of poor financial sector regulations around the world, especially in the United States and in Europe.

In particular, we saw that the interconnected structure of global finance demands a comprehensive and effective regulatory regime able to prevent problems in one area from spilling over into others. We also saw that ignoring these problems may bring unpredictable and often catastrophic results to a country's economy.

For this reason, it is important to take into consideration the strength, effectiveness and security of the broader financial sector in the regulatory framework when we discuss the positive attributes of Bill S-5.

Our Conservative government recognizes the importance of a stable and well-functioning financial system to the overall Canadian economy. Indeed, Canada has received high praise for our well-regulated financial system during a time of global economic turmoil. Even the Toronto Star was forced to admit:

Canada has won international accolades after the World Economic Forum ranked its banking system as the soundest in the world....Canadian banks...have largely skirted the worst of the turmoil. Unlike in the United States and Europe, no banks collapsed or had to be rescued in Canada during this financial crisis.

The Irish Times declared:

Canada's policy of fiscal discipline and strict banking supervision was a reason why it was one of the world's strongest performers during the recession.

In my remarks, I would like to highlight the housing market in particular. The housing sector warrants particular attention in light of its role in the 2008 financial crisis and the ongoing pressures arising from the U.S. housing bubble that are still being felt by the American financial system and have slowed that country's economic recovery.

In order to protect our housing market from the worst excesses seen abroad, our Conservative government has acted repeatedly and decisively to ensure its stability, especially with regard to mortgage financing.

Mortgage financing plays a key role in providing a reliable source of funds for prospective Canadian homeowners. Prudent mortgage lending standards and mandatory mortgage insurance for high ratio loans allowed Canada to avoid the housing crisis that occurred in other countries, especially the United States.

Since 2008, our Conservative government has taken prudent and measured steps to ensure that this system remains stable over the long term while maintaining economic growth.

In July 2008, February 2010, and January 2011, we announced a series of sensible adjustments to the rules for government-backed insured mortgages. The measures include: reducing the maximum amortization period for new government-backed insured mortgages to 30 years; requiring a 5% minimum down payment, and a 20% down payment on non-owner occupied premises; lowering the maximum amount lenders can provide when refinancing insured mortgages to 85% of the value of the property; requiring buyers to meet a five year fixed rate mortgage standard; and withdrawing government insurance backing on home equity lines of credit.

These adjustments will significantly reduce the total interest payments Canadians make on their mortgages, promote long-term sustainable home ownership, and limit attempts by banks to repackage consumer debt into mortgages guaranteed by Canadian taxpayers. Taken together, they would go a long way toward strengthening the regulatory oversight of the mortgage insurance industry. Many of these improvements to the mortgage insurance guarantee framework have helped to encourage Canadians to use their homes as a way to save responsibly for their families and their futures.

This would help to ensure that Canada's housing market remains strong. It has been applauded by numerous commentators and economists. Credit Canada's executive director, Laurie Campbell, called the most recent moves a “step in the right direction because it means more money in consumers’ pockets ”.

An editorial in Waterloo's The Record added, “The federal government has done the right thing in tightening up the rules for mortgages in this country”.

In a similar vein, a recent Calgary Herald editorial applauded the government's proactive approach and added, “It's good to see the government continue to be vigilant on this file”.

Furthermore, as the Minister of Finance has said repeatedly, our government will continue to monitor the housing market very closely and take further action if it is necessary.

We all recognize there is always work to be done to ensure the continued stability of the Canadian financial system and that ongoing vigilance is vital. That is why we are pushing for the timely passage of the financial system review act. The bill would provide the framework that would benefit all participants in the financial services sector, not only financial institutions but, more importantly, everyday Canadians. It would maintain the long-standing practice of ensuring regular reviews of the regulatory framework for financial institutions, a unique practice that sets Canada apart from almost every other country in the world.

Bill S-5 would play a key role, together with other strong links we are forging in areas like mortgage insurance, in protecting consumers and building a more efficient, effective, sound and competitive financial system for all Canadians. Renewing the Canadian financial institution legislation on a regular basis has resulted in a robust and effective financial system that is aligned and responsive to developments in financial markets and the broader global economy.

In summary, I would encourage all members to join in our efforts to ensure the strength and stability of Canada's financial system and support the financial system review act.

[Business of Supply, February 9th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I must first correct the record. I mentioned driving by a plant that was 80 years old. No one came forward to tell me I was not 80. I am not. Some 50 years ago I may have driven by that plant with my dad.

Through the whole economic action plan and all we were able to do from an infrastructure and recreational point of view in London, those things were all accomplished and we were happy to have them all; through FedDev's investments, whether it is with the university or junior diabetes programs with London hospitals or even the YMCA.

My friend from London North Centre mentioned a number of projects in London. It is incredible what has happened there. We will go forward. We are doing okay.

[Business of Supply, February 9th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, the member is right. Planning for retirement is a very important issue.

However, as I mentioned more than once in my speech, I am not standing here defending Caterpillar as being a great corporate citizen in this either. However, being a business person and being out there in the workplace, I recognize that negotiation is key. We talked about it this morning at committee that working together is better than working apart. As long as we are still talking, we have a chance to accomplish.

What happened here was that the two sides were not talking, and that is truly the answer of what needs to happen. As I said, I am not pleased with the employer's behaviour in this either. We had jobs we could have saved if we had just talked to each other.

[Business of Supply, February 9th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, my friend and I have had great discussions about the great city of London and his relatives who live there.

The answer is that foreign investment is reviewed often. As a government, we are always open to any suggestions that members may have, if members have suggestions as to what we might be able to look at the next time.

I have real difficulty trying to handcuff corporations, which might want to come to my area to locate and create jobs, with regulations before the fact as to what they might do to come here to create those jobs. As I stated, as a very young boy I drove with my dad in front of the GM diesel plant and some 80 years later these events are taking place. Are we suggesting that 80 years worth of good jobs somehow must be limited or that we should make them stay another 20 years? I understand what the member is trying to do in creating a regulation. It is like trying to rope a horse and it is not very easy.

[Business of Supply, February 9th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, as a member representing the great area of London in southwestern Ontario and as a small businessperson, I am happy to take part in today's discussion.

First I want to say how disappointed I am with the decision by Progress Rail and its parent company, Caterpillar, to close the London facility, and I express my sympathy and empathy for the families involved at that workplace.

I am going to attempt to discuss a couple of areas today and would like to share some thoughts about my home and paint a picture of London and southern Ontario, a picture that is far different from the doom and gloom of my colleagues opposite. I would like to set some records straight also, because in this place and back home some stories have been told that do not reflect reality. I would also like to share a vision of positive actions that are taking place and the support for jobs that this government has brought to London and southern Ontario. Southern Ontario is my home. I grew up in London and my kids went to school there.

This motion, much like everything else the party opposite has done, is pretty negative. If we were to listen to the rhetoric coming from the other side of this House, we would think that London had a great big grey cloud over top of it and it rained all day long, every day in London. That is just not true. My Canada, my Ontario, my London, my area of southern Ontario is often full of sunshine. It is full of smiles and hard-working people and full of people who go to work every day and are happy to do so. Unlike the member for London—Fanshawe, I believe in thinking positively toward solutions. London smiles. Londoners are proud of the job they do. Yes, the global economic recession has had a significant impact on southern Ontario, including London and the area where I live. However, southern Ontario has been there before.

I was a small business owner in bad times in the early 1990s when an NDP government caused a provincial recession in Ontario. It made being an employer and a job creator very difficult, but we grew. We put an effort into economic growth and passed into one of the greatest times of prosperity my province has ever seen. We have done it before and we are doing it again. We have people who are well trained in our work force. We have great skills training for those who still need it. We have land and facilities for businesses to grow and new enterprises to locate, and many are doing just that. Kongsberg, a company from Norway, through its great relationship building, decided it would come to London. Dr. Oetker, a food processor from Germany, has decided to locate in London. It is not all doom and gloom; there is sunshine out there.

We have infrastructure, great roads and highways, water and energy. We have close access to the United States by land through both Windsor and Sarnia within an hour or two of London, with the Great Lakes surrounding us and rail services and air cargo facilities available. Thanks to a forward-thinking city and to the help of this government, the London airport has a new air cargo facility to facilitate new enterprises looking to locate in London.

I would like to move to some of the mistruths and misinformation that I suppose my opposition friends feel they must use, because if they stick to the facts they cannot make the same political points or grandstand.

This government has helped business in many ways during this world economic downturn. Just a few examples are its lowering of corporate taxes, creating retraining opportunities and effective work-share programs and trade. The Prime Minister is out of Canada right now, doing some great things on trade with another country. We are looking for new customers because our largest customer, the United States, is suffering too. When a customer who purchases about 80% of everything bought in southern Ontario is hurting, we hurt too. These are just a few examples of what we are attempting to do as a government.

This government has also invested in London's infrastructure. Why? Because it creates immediate jobs and gives our area lasting assets for our children and my children's future.

The member for London—Fanshawe was all too quick to grab a great big cheque and stand in front of a construction site and say, “Hey look at me, this is great, my city is getting great jobs”. In true hypocritical fashion, when the cameras were off, she came back to Ottawa and voted against all of those things for London. That is just not right. When looking through some old photos last night, I found a picture of that event and discovered people celebrating London's growth under the economic action plan. The member for London—Fanshawe was right in front, funnily enough with a Caterpillar loader in the background. Apparently it is okay to use Caterpillar when it is about her job.

Speaking about being hypocritical and misleading, we continue to hear stories from the party opposite about some phantom investment given to Electro-Motive Diesel. Again New Democrats just cannot make points on the facts. They just twist them until they work for them.

Here is how the practices with the capital cost allowance work. First, in 2008 the entire industry committee, including the NDP member for Windsor West, unanimously recommended an increase in the capital cost allowance rate for rail equipment. This change was effective for new locomotives acquired on or after February 26, 2008, as well as for reconditioned locomotives and the refurbishment costs incurred. This benefit went to the customers of Electro-Motive, not to Electro-Motive. My office received no calls during that time demanding that we stop getting more customers for the plant.

Let me now move to another piece of truth that will just not make the story if told correctly. When I grew up on Fairmont Avenue in east London, I remember the GM diesel plant. I remember the big, brown buses it made for the City of London. GM Diesel from 1950 on was a very fine employer in London; it employed a lot of people. GM Diesel, just for those who are not catching on yet, is General Motors Diesel, a fine American company operating in London since 1950.

The myth involved here is maybe best explained by Andrew Coyne in the National Post. He stated:

It’s a compelling story—foreigners buy “our” plant, steal “our” technology, and all with our money! Except:

EMD is not a Canadian company, and never was. Caterpillar bought it from a pair of American private equity firms in 2010; they bought it from General Motors in 2005, who bought it from its Ohio-based founders in 1930. Since 1935 it has been headquartered in La Grange, Illinois. The London branch plant was opened in 1950.

Caterpillar didn’t buy the London plant. It bought the whole company, including its La Grange operations, which is where EMD does its design and engineering work, as well as making parts. It seems unlikely it would have stashed its most valuable intellectual property at a far-off final assembly plant. (Incidentally, as the economist Michael Moffatt points out, GM moved all final assembly work to London from La Grange shortly after the Free Trade Agreement went into effect. The jobs we’re worried about losing to the States are jobs we took from them.)

Even if it were a Canadian company, and even if it possessed a Valhallah of patents, it still wouldn’t belong to “us”. It would belong to them: its Canadian owners, who shelled out good money for it, presumably in anticipation of selling it one day. Caterpillar didn’t steal the company: it paid for it. If its proprietary technology had any value, its previous owners would be just as capable of realizing this—

In every labour dispute, the answer lies with two parties getting together for a solution. As I have said before, I feel that Progress Rail and its parent company did not play the role of good corporate citizens in this, but it appears that very little attempt was made to negotiate a solution to this and save the jobs and keep them in London.

I would love to go on to explain all of the things that our government has done and will continue to do to bring those new industries to London. We have made investments in London with many jobs, including the startup of FedDev Ontario, an organization that my party started to look at economic development in southern Ontario. We have been asked many times by the members opposite, and it seems like it is always a one-off, about what we are going to do about something or why can we not do this or that. The one thing this government has been able to prove over time is that it can multi-task: it can do all of those things. It can create trade when our trading partners go away. It can create new jobs and help retrain workers.

I again want to say there are smiling people in London and it is not all doom and gloom. There is sun shining.

[Committees of the House, February 7th, 2012]

Madam Speaker, pursuant to Standing Orders 104 and 114, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the 14th report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs regarding the membership of the committees of this House.

If the House gives its consent, I move that the 14th report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs be concurred in.