House of Commons photoWon his last election, in 2015, with 56% of the vote.
Defence Construction Canada February 15th, 2012
Mr. Speaker, serious allegations have been made regarding gross improprieties of Defence Construction Canada. These allegations include financial irregularities, glaring technical incompetence and a soft landing pad for retiring forces personnel.
Will the government support my motion to study this matter at committee and will the minister commit to attend the meeting and explain what actions her department is taking?
Financial System Review Act February 14th, 2012
Mr. Speaker, I will pursue some of the themes pursued by my colleague in a somewhat different way.
One of the things I have noticed in the debate today, and I have listened to Conservatives and New Democrats, is a kind of triumphalist tone, that everything about the Canadian banking system and the economy is not only wonderful, but every job created has to be because of the economic action plan and no job loss has anything to do with the policies of the government.
As my colleague pointed out, this is totally ridiculous. As he pointed out, do the Conservatives really believe they are responsible for the oil and minerals in the ground and the high commodity prices around the world today? Obviously not. Do the Conservatives really believe they are responsible for the strong fiscal position which they inherited and, in large measures, squandered? Evidently not.
The third area, which is where I will focus the rest of my remarks, is the banking system.
I believe I can speak about the banking system because I am a former banker. I was involved in the debate on the proposed bank mergers.
We can say that today's banking system is robust, but that this is not due to measures taken by the Conservative government or the Conservative Party. On the contrary, the banking system remains strong in spite of the Conservatives' actions.
I would like to talk about three areas that prove this point.
The first of these areas is the area of bank regulation. As we know, in the 1990s there was a strong trend toward bank deregulation in the United States. The Liberal government of the day, in the 1990s and early 2000s, resisted the temptation to go the route of deregulation. It may be true, as my colleague from Winnipeg Centre pointed out, that Tom d'Aquino wanted to go that route, but Tom d'Aquino was not the government. The government was a majority Liberal government and the Liberal government of the day decided not to go that route notwithstanding the statements by Tom d'Aquino or by certain Reform Party politicians.
That is the first point because there is a consensus view that the 2008-09 global financial crisis was in large measure the result of this deregulation, this idea that we now know to be false, that if we just allow the banks to regulate themselves, everything will be okay. Canada said no to that under the Liberals. The U.S. and the U.K. said, yes, and that is a big part of the explanation for why we are where we are.
The second area is bank mergers. I must admit that when I was the chief economist at the Royal Bank, I supported the proposed merger. I had to support the merger if I wanted to keep my job.
To be honest, I was also in favour of bank mergers because at that time, in the late 1990s, I had been persuaded that the benefits of bank mergers were greater than the costs. At that point, before I went into politics, I was aligned with the Reform Party, which was pushing for bank mergers with the banks and with Mr. Thomas d'Aquino who was also pushing for bank mergers. Perhaps he was not because he had to play both sides of the banking field. I do not remember that. In any event, that is how it was.
Then fast-forward 10 years and we have the global financial crisis. I realized at that point that I had been wrong. For Mr. Chrétien to say no to bank mergers was the right decision. I only realized that after the world financial crisis. When I think back to when I was at the Royal Bank, the mentality of the day within the bank was that it wanted to grow up fast, kick global butt and grow up to be like Citibank or Citigroup. We saw what happened to them. Having observed the financial crisis, I became completely converted to the view that Mr. Chrétien was right, that bank mergers were bad for Canada and it was in spite of the Reform Party, not because of it, that Canada said no to bank mergers.
If I can admit now that I was wrong and that the government was right about bank mergers, perhaps members representing the government could stand one day and make similar admissions, that they were wrong back then to advocate bank mergers and that what Mr. Chrétien did was the right decision.
Finally, I come to mortgages. We have a more modern and recent example of the current government's tendency to favour deregulation. What did it do in 2006, soon after being elected? Before it was elected, the rules for mortgages under Liberal governments were that they could be no longer than 25 years with a 5% down payment. What did the Conservatives do? They went from 25 years to 40 years with a zero down payment. Imagine, this is like U.S. sub-prime mortgages. That is what they did in 2006.
Essentially, it is like deregulating mortgages, just like they wanted to deregulate banking. Potentially, this is a very bad and risky decision. If we go back to 2006, we find that no less than 60% of first-time home buyers took advantage of these rules and had a 40-year mortgage. Now that we have this high level of debt, now that we have talk of the housing bubble possibly bursting, people who took out those 40-year mortgages with zero down payment, thanks to the actions of the current government in 2006, may be seriously at risk.
We do not know if this housing bubble will burst. We never know if a bubble will burst or whether it is even a bubble until after it has burst. No less a magazine than the The Economist has suggested that Canada is first among the countries eligible to experience that. It has pointed out that Vancouver has the highest housing prices-to-income-ratio of anywhere in the English speaking world.
Then, on the other hand, CMHC comes out with a rosy projection that housing prices will continue to rise over the next two years.
Therefore, we do not know whether this will come to pass, but based on our knowledge of history and what we see in other countries, that there is a risk. If it does come to pass, if the housing bubble does burst, if we see banks having major losses and Canadians suffering because of major foreclosures, then a part of the reason for this will have been that decision taken by the Conservative government in 2006 to allow 40-year mortgages with zero down payment. If that comes to pass, I think Canadians will legitimately lay part of the blame for that at the feet of the government.
In closing, I basically said that Canada is in a relatively strong position, but not a perfect one as they sometimes claim. This relatively strong position has nothing to do with the actions of this government and the Conservative Party. On the contrary, this success is the result of the actions taken by the Liberal governments in the 1990s. The actions of the Conservative government, particularly with regard to mortgages, have created more problems, not solved our problems.
Financial System Review Act February 14th, 2012
Mr. Speaker, as a former banker, I can certainly agree with the hon. member that our banks are in good shape, although I may take a bit of exception to his somewhat triumphalist tone.
However, my main point is to suggest that to the extent our banks are in good shape it has everything to do with previous Liberal governments and nothing at all to do with the Conservative Party. For one thing, it was the Liberal government that resisted the trend to bank deregulation which was evident in the U.S. and the U.K. It was the Liberal government that said no to bank merges which the Conservatives favoured. And it was the Conservatives who introduced zero down payment, 40 year mortgages in 2006.
Would the member agree that while our banks are in good shape, it really has nothing to do with his party, which has been more a cause of the problem than a solution?
Financial System Review Act February 14th, 2012
Madam Speaker, as someone who used to work for the Royal Bank, I can agree that the Canadian banks do very well and are the envy of the world, as I think the member said.
The point I would make is that this favourable position of our banks is not because of the Conservative Party. It is in spite of actions by the Conservative Party. For example, in the nineties the Liberal government prevented banks from going down the path of deregulation. The Conservatives wanted to take that path. The Liberal government said no to bank mergers. The Conservatives wanted the banks to merge. Under the Liberals, people could have a mortgage for 25 years with 5% down. In 2006 the Conservatives made that 40 years and 0% down.
Does the member agree that the favourable situation of Canadian banks is in spite of positions taken by the members of his party rather than because of them?
Financial System Review Act February 14th, 2012
Years. Is he putting it forward at the last minute in order to avoid debate on banking, which would put the Conservative Party in a very bad light? Is that his motivation?
Financial System Review Act February 14th, 2012
Madam Speaker, this is a bill about banking and banking is obviously extremely important. I suspect the Conservatives want to avoid prolonged debate on this matter because, should we have that debate, it would make clear that the Conservatives were part of the problem in terms of having a solid banking system rather than a part of the solution. Back in the 1990s, they were in favour of bank mergers and deregulation.
My question to the government House leader is this: He knew for many months and weeks that this was a time-sensitive bill—
Pensions February 10th, 2012
Mr. Speaker, what the former Liberal government did, with Conservative opposition, was to fix the Canada pension plan to make it sustainable for at least 75 years. That is what we did.
The Prime Minister once said that seniors should ask themselves which party they could trust to look after them. It is sad to see that it took the Prime Minister six years to prove to Canadians that it is not his party.
How can Canadians who are about to retire believe the promises made by this government?
Questions Passed as Orders for Returns January 30th, 2012
With regard to the Recreational Infrastructure Canada Fund: (a) for each fiscal year and as a total, since April 1, 2009, what is the number of applications to the fund; (b) for each fiscal year and as a total, since April 1, 2009, what is the number of projects funded; (c) for each fiscal year and as a total, since April 1, 2009, what is the total funding under the program; (d) for each fiscal year and overall, since April 1, 2009, what has been the average time in days from (i) the date an application was received to the date the application received approval, (ii) the date an application was received to the date the contribution agreement was signed, (iii) the date the application received approval to the date of the public announcement of the project; (e) for each fiscal year and overall, since April 1, 2009, what is the number of projects which required an extension past March 31, 2011; (f) for each fiscal year and as a total, since April 1, 2009, what is the amount spent on public announcements of projects; (g) for each fiscal year and overall, since April 1, 2009, how many times were government aircraft used to transport officials to announcements related to the fund; and (h) for each individual project sponsored under the fund to date, (i) what was the project’s internal file number, (ii) what was the name of the project, (iii) on what date was the application received, (iv) on what date was the application approved, (v) on what date was the project announced publicly, (vi) on what date was the contribution agreement signed, (vii) what was the total federal funding received, (viii) what was the cost of any public announcement related to the project, (ix) did the government pay for any federal official to travel to each announcement in (viii) and, if so, what are the names of these officials and was a government-owned aircraft used to transport them, (x) what was the address of the project, including postal code and federal constituency name, (xi) what was the political party affiliation of the Member of Parliament representing the riding on the date the project was announced?
Questions Passed as Orders for Returns January 30th, 2012
With regard to the Infrastructure Stimulus Fund: (a) for each fiscal year and as a total, since April 1, 2009, what is the number of applications to the fund; (b) for each fiscal year and as a total, since April 1, 2009, what is the number of projects funded; (c) for each fiscal year and as a total, since April 1, 2009, what is the total funding under the program; (d) for each fiscal year and overall, since April 1, 2009, what has been the average time in days from (i) the date an application was received to the date the application received approval, (ii) the date an application was received to the date the contribution agreement was signed, (iii) the date the application received approval to the date of the public announcement of the project; (e) for each fiscal year and overall, since April 1, 2009, what is the number of projects which required an extension past March 31, 2011; (f) for each fiscal year and as a total, since April 1, 2009, what is the amount spent on public announcements of projects; (g) for each fiscal year and overall, since April 1, 2009, how many times were government aircraft used to transport officials to announcements related to the fund; and (h) for each individual project sponsored under the fund to date, (i) what was the project’s internal file number, (ii) what was the name of the project, (iii) on what date was the application received, (iv) on what date was the application approved, (v) on what date was the project announced publicly, (vi) on what date was the contribution agreement signed, (vii) what was the total federal funding received, (viii) what was the cost of any public announcement related to the project, (ix) did the government pay for any federal official to travel to each announcement in (viii) and, if so, what are the names of these officials and was a government-owned aircraft used to transport them, (x) what was the address of the project, including postal code and federal constituency name, (xi) what was the political party affiliation of the Member of Parliament representing the riding on the date the project was announced?
Questions Passed as Orders for Returns January 30th, 2012
With regard to the Green Infrastructure Fund (GIF): (a) what are all projects that have received funding from the GIF to date; (b) what are all projects that are to receive funding from the GIF in the future; and (c) what transfers of funds from the GIF to other government departments or programs have occurred and, for each transfer, (i) what was the date of the transfer, (ii) what was the amount of the transfer, (iii) what department or program received the transfer, (iv) what was the purpose of the transfer, (v) what was the reason for using the GIF funds, (vi) what projects received funding as a result of the transfer of the GIF money?