Peter Stoffer

[Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999, May 31st, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I wish to honour environment week which we are recognizing this week.

I also mention that the Minister of Canadian Heritage again got it wrong. In a statement on a question earlier today during question period she said “two founding peoples of this nation”. I remind the minister and her Liberal Party that there are actually three founding peoples of this nation with the first one being the aboriginal people of this country. The French and English came afterward. As the Minister of Canadian Heritage we would think she would know that more than anyone else.

We are here to talk about something equally important. It is probably the most important act we could do as parliamentarians, CEPA, the Canadian Environmental Protection Act. I sat in on some of the committee hearings which were long and drawn out but very important. The Liberals with their Reform counterparts have completely watered down the bill and now CEPA stands for “can't ever protect anything”. That is what this bill amounts to and I will give an example.

When the bill came out of committee one part of the preamble was “Whereas the Government of Canada acknowledges the need to phase out the generation and use of the most persistent and bioaccumulative toxic substances”. The part “to phase out” has been removed by the Liberal government. The bill has been severely weakened by that action.

The bill said “achieving virtual elimination” but the word “achieving” is gone when taking steps to achieve the virtual elimination of a substance. The government has completely watered this down to the point where the minister will now prescribe the quantity or concentration of the substance that may be released into the environment. This is not a phase-out of these toxic substances, it is a reduction. It is virtual elimination, not a total phase-out.

When will the government understand that in order to protect Canadians and future generations, we have to totally eliminate these things, not virtually eliminate? There is nothing to tell industry it is mandatory to abide by these rules and legislation.

The Liberal government's and previous governments' actions on the environment are severely weakened to the point that it borders on absolutely terrible.

The MMT decision by this Liberal government cost $13 million U.S. Nobody in this country wanted a manganese additive in their gasoline except the Liberal government. We are required to pay $13 million U.S. to keep it here and nobody else wants it.

At the present time there are also concerns about the bulk transport of water out of this country. Nobody in Canada wants to do that except the Liberal government. If the government wanted to stop it, legislation would have been put forward and passed by now. But no, we are being sued again by the California and U.S. governments to the tune of $220 million. If the MMT decision is anything similar to that, we will end up losing that as well because the government has no teeth and no guts when it comes to the protection of our environment.

Twenty-five years ago one out of every twenty women in this country was diagnosed with breast cancer; now it is one out of every nine. The facts speak for themselves. Those are women. We are not talking about children yet which this particular clause is about. For the government not to take in the rights and the protection of our children at all costs is absolutely criminal.

We heard the parliamentary secretary talk about money spent on research which is very welcome. The question is what is being done with that information? The environmental commissioner said it is being ignored completely. The government whitewashes it, gets rid of it. The government talks and talks and nothing happens.

In April 1998 I asked the deputy minister of the environment if he had the finances or resources to do the job properly. His answer was no, he did not. In April 1998 it is on the record that the deputy minister of the environment said that he did not have the finances, the resources or the personnel to do the job effectively. I have not seen any changes on that.

A lot of people outside of the House are watching this debate today. They need to be congratulated for their tireless efforts in terms of protecting the environment.

I think of Mr. Brian McHattie and Mr. Don McLean of Red Hill Creek down in South Hamilton. They are trying to protect that urban park from expansion of the expressway.

I would like to thank Mr. Dennis Bicknell, Ms. Marilyn Chalice and Walter Reagan of the Sackville River's Association, and I wear their pin proudly today, for the protection of the river and trail systems of Lower Sackville and Bedford and the protection they offer to children in restoring creeks for salmon habitat and everything else.

I would also like to thank two NDP MLAs from Nova Scotia, Mr. John Holm and Mr. Don Chard for their tireless efforts in getting 660 acres of land protected in Lower Sackville. That is for the protection and use of our children for many generations to come.

I would also like to thank Mr. Paul Falvo and Elizabeth May of the Sierra Club, Mr. Dave Campbell, Mr. Paul Muldoon and of course the greatest environmentalist this country has ever had, Mr. David Suzuki.

These people spend their lives trying to protect the environment and get the message across to the government that it is definitely needed and very important.

I wish to thank Mr. Mark Butler and the Ecology Action Centre of Nova Scotia for over 27 years of environmental activism in terms of protecting the environment of Nova Scotia. Without them I do not know where we would be today.

It is not surprising that the government does not understand what is going on. However, there are three Liberal members whom I wish to congratulate for their tireless efforts in protecting the environment. They are the member for Lac-Saint-Louis, the member for York North and the member for Davenport. At least these three people listen. At least these three Liberals understand environmental concerns. At least these three Liberals know what the hell is going on. Unfortunately, the other 150-odd Liberals do not know. I apologize for using that strong word. At least those three Liberals understand the situation. The rest of them do not and that is a crime.

Members of the Reform Party of Canada support things like virtual elimination. That shows exactly who is buttering their bread, and that is industry. When will they realize that industry only cares about profits and shareholders? It does not care about the environment. If it did, it would put in long term solutions and programs that would benefit the seven generation principle which our aboriginal people have survived on for thousands and thousands of years.

Unfortunately, these Liberal and Reform members can only see the ends of their noses and that is it, usually in four year electoral terms. The record is quite clear.

Recently we heard an announcement on the Sydney tar ponds. Except for Chernobyl, it is probably the world's worst environmental site. It has been decided to put $62 million in to move some families. Although that is very welcome, what we need from the government is a commitment now. Not tomorrow, now.

The Minister of the Environment and the Prime Minister must stand in the House and say that the tar ponds are going to be cleaned up once and for all. We have not heard them say that. We have heard the government say it is going to put so many millions of dollars into this, it is going to do this, and it is going to consult.

We have been talking about the tar ponds for years and years. My message is quite clear to Liberals: clean it up now. It is simple. I will say it one more time so they will hear it: clear up the Sydney tar ponds now, not tomorrow. People are getting very sick. The rates of cancer in the Sydney area are exponential to that in the rest of the country.

It is unbelievable that the government just sits here and wastes time after time after time. The sad thing is people are now saying—

[Petitions, May 31st, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, it gives me great pleasure, on behalf of Mr. Fred Wornell of Edmonton, Alberta, to present a petition.

The petitioners are from Edmonton, Alberta and Kapuskasing, Ontario. This will be the start of many hundreds of thousands and millions of signatures to come to this parliament concerning this issue.

The petitioners call upon parliament to support Bill C-508, which happens to be my bill, an act to provide for Hepatitis Awareness Month, ensuring that throughout Canada in each and every year the month of May shall be known as Hepatitis Awareness Month.

[Shipbuilding Industry, May 27th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, in regard to the shipbuilding industry the Prime Minister wrote: “The challenge for governments, firms, workers and other interested parties is to exploit all available...opportunities”, which begs the question of why the industry minister does not want to reconvene a meeting of all stakeholders to come up with a comprehensive industrial strategy for shipbuilding in this country.

I wish to give the government the opportunity to speak directly to many of the workers who are with us today. Why does this country not have an industrial strategy for a comprehensive program of shipbuilding?

[Competition Act, May 26th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, that is great co-operation. It is only too bad that the industry minister does not show that type of co-operation to the hon. member for Pickering—Ajax—Uxbridge.

I wish to thank the hon. member from our party for his efforts in helping to protect small industry in this country, especially when it comes to gas retail companies.

I also wish to thank Mr. Dave Collins who is the Director of Eastern Canada for the Independent Retail Gasoline Marketers Association of Canada and the vice-president of Wilson Fuel Co. Limited. I must say that the number of Wilson Fuel stations in my riding do an outstanding job in terms of customer service to the small communities. He is a great example of what small business can do for community services.

I also wish to thank the hon. member for Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre for his efforts in promoting Bill C-235, as well as John Holm, the MLA for Sackville—Cobequid, Nova Scotia, who we call the gas man, for his efforts in telling the Competition Bureau to become a watchdog on competition in gas sales and vertical integration instead of being a lap dog.

It is unfortunate that the government, especially the industry minister, has a tendency to eat its young when it comes to backbenchers. It is just an example of the government not allowing independent, free thinking backbenchers who have terrific ideas which would benefit the majority of Canadians from coast to coast to coast to put forward those ideas in a manner which does not stifle them and attack their integrity. We find that deplorable and wish that the government, the cabinet and the industry minister would start to listen to their backbenchers, especially the member for Pickering—Ajax—Uxbridge, and do the right thing.

It is quite natural for the Reform Party to say what it keeps saying because, as with the banks, the bigger the banks the better everything will be; the bigger the gas companies the better everything will be. That is just not going to benefit Canadians.

The member for Pickering—Ajax—Uxbridge is absolutely correct when he says that the vision of Canada is one in which legislators protect small entrepreneurial businesses and people who have aggressive attitudes in terms of protecting and working in small communities, especially when it comes to small gas stations.

It reminds me of the old days when the small gas station, for example, was the focal point of the community, along with the post office. People would get together and fill up their tanks. I always think of Andy of Mayberry with Goober and Gomer and the sort of camaraderie they had. It reminds me of a small town in Nova Scotia, Goshen, where the guys gather at the gas station around the hot stove to reminisce about the day and what is happening on the weekend. They would not be able to do that if we did not have laws like Bill C-235 to protect them from the gouging practices of the larger companies.

I will end my remarks by saying that it was a pleasure to discuss this very serious and important initiative.

[Competition Act, May 26th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I am going to do something I have not yet done in the House. I propose to share my 10 minutes with a Liberal backbencher, the member for Cambridge, so that he can also have a few moments.

[Bank Act, May 26th, 1999]

Madam Speaker, I heard my colleague from the beautiful area of Prince George—Bulkley Valley talk about bank mergers. I have a letter from the Canadian Vehicle Manufacturers' Association. It is very concerned about the banks entering into auto lease agreements as are insurance companies about banks entering into the insurance industry.

Would the member not agree that if the banks were allowed to merge and there is less competition in Canada domestically, the foreign operators would not set up bricks and mortar branches? There would eventually be virtual banking. Do he and his party not believe that would have a detrimental effect on other industries in Canada, which means a detrimental effect on workers and their families, as well as on the service charges people are now being forced to pay to banking institutions?

[Bank Act, May 26th, 1999]

Madam Speaker, I rise again as a result of the member's statement about the GST being good for Canada.

The auditor general just recently announced that $7 billion of underground economy is resulting in losses to the federal government and $5 billion to the provincial government. That is $12 billion of underground activity.

If the member for Kings—Hants asked me as a contractor to repair his roof and I said I could do it for $2,500 cash or $3,300 with a receipt, what amount do members think the average Canadian would agree to? They would agree to cash under the table because of the dreaded GST.

Where the member and I live we are compounded with the HST. I know the member is very proud of being a Conservative member and I respect him for that, but he cannot honestly say that the GST-HST is a good thing for the average Canadian. Average Canadians get hurt in their pockets every time they purchase something, especially reading materials and electricity. It is a burden on Canadians and results in an underground economy. I would like the member to respond to this.

[Bank Act, May 26th, 1999]

Madam Speaker, it is always a privilege to hear my colleague from the other part of Nova Scotia, Kings—Hants, speak up.

I have to ask the member a question about one thing he said at the very end. Does he honestly believe that his government, the Conservative government of 1984 to 1993, was really forward-thinking when it brought in the GST and its dreaded cousin the HST, and when it ran up the debt and deficit of the country to astronomical limits which put tremendous pressure on a lot of public programs for the average Canadian? I am just wondering if the hon. member really believes that is forward-thinking.

[Bank Act, May 26th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I think the House needs a little livening up of the debate on Bill C-67. I do not know if I am more nervous for the millions of Canadians who will feel the effects of the bill down the road, or for my daughter who has a piano recital tomorrow and my other daughter who has a gymnastics competition on Saturday.

I commend my hon. colleague from Kamloops and my hon. colleague from Regina—Qu'Appelle who have done outstanding work in the finance committee to bring the issue to a forefront, allowing Canadians to know what is going on behind the bill.

The Secretary of State for International Financial Institutions said he was looking for our support for this bill. Unfortunately I have to disappoint him one more time because parts of the legislation came out of the south end of a northbound cow. We certainly find it unacceptable that this is the way the government is doing it.

I will provide a little background on Bill C-67. In December 1997 the federal government signed a financial services agreement, the FSA, under the auspices of the WTO, the World Trade Organization. The FSA aims at relaxing the rules governing the entry of foreign banks into domestic economies of participating countries. More than 100 countries signed the FSA and Canada faces a June 1999 deadline to pass the enabling legislation.

We have heard that the government has consulted the stakeholders on this bill, but we wonder if the government actually consulted Canadians on the bill, the average Canadian from Sointula, B.C., to Alert, Nunavut, to my riding of Sheet Harbour, Nova Scotia. I wonder if people in small rural towns and coastal communities were consulted. I suspect not. I suspect it was the friends of the government and of the official opposition, the Reform Party, who were consulted. We cannot help notice that they are financial contributors to the government and the opposition.

The government has succumbed in its international negotiations again without benefiting Canadians. Bill C-67 will benefit very few, a small percentage of very rich and capital wary investors to the tune of anyone with $150,000 or more. It certainly does not appeal or even go to the average Canadian who does not have $150,000 to invest.

It will also put more pressure on Canadian domestic banks, credit unions and caisses populaires in Canada because it will bring back merger argument. The banks have already been told by the finance minister that merger is not in the cards. That is now. He never said it was permanently off the table.

The international financial institutions will come into Canada. Most of them will be virtual reality. They will not even have any bricks or mortar here. It will be through the Internet or through a 1-800 Wells Fargo number or whatever it is they wish to call it. They will take the cream of the deposits out of this country, the 2%, 5%, or 10%.

As the House should know, every bit of capital that leaves the country puts more pressure on the credit unions, the caisses populaires and the chartered banks in Canada today, which puts more pressure on the government to allow domestic banks to reach their ultimate goal of merger. Eventually they will say that in order for them to compete with international financial institutions they will need to merge.

That is one of the elements of Bill C-67. It will allow Canadian banks to have a back door entry to a merger, which is really what they have always wanted.

This bill will put more pressure on our auto leasing and insurance companies because the banks have been putting a lot of pressure on the government to get access to these markets in order to increase their profits for their shareholders.

What will happen is, as their profits erode because of the competition from financial institutions, they will in turn go back to the government requesting access to the insurance and auto leasing markets. That will create a lot of hardship in small rural communities and even larger communities because there will be bank closures, branch closures and insurance companies will be put under a tremendous amount of pressure. In the end that pressure will filter down to Canadians.

Foreign banks operating branches in Canada will be subject to the capital adequacy requirements imposed by the bank's home country. These banks will not be required to comply with the Canadian capital requirements applicable to Canadian banks. That means that the tax measures of Bill C-67 are very complex. The intent is for the FBBs to remain in the same position as the schedule II banks. However, Canadians will not have a full knowledge or understanding of whether foreign banks or institutions are being taxed at the same levels as Canadian banks.

Bill C-67 does not deal with the virtual banks, which I mentioned earlier, such as the U.S. equivalent of the ING Bank from Holland. The Liberal government does not know what to do with these banks, which only have an Internet presence in Canada. So far these banks have been kept out of Interac and the Canadian payment system. However, it is just a matter of time before they gain access to that as well and that will put even more pressure on Canadians.

Bill C-67 may erode the market share of charter banks in lucrative, high end private banking niches. Access of highly sophisticated American and European banks will compel Canadian banks to rely more heavily on their regular Canadian consumer base to extract their profits. Charter banks will likely offset these losses by jacking up the price of bank services on Canadians who have no access to the foreign banks.

One of the biggest complaints of Canadians from coast to coast to coast is the poor service provided by the banks as well as the high service charges. There are service charges on literally everything they do.

A while ago I was at one of the chartered banks because I wanted to open up an account for one of my daughters. I deposited $100. Then, realizing that my wife had already deposited money at another bank, I wanted to close the account, take the money and transfer it to the other bank. I was told by the bank that in order to close the account I would be required to pay $15. I only had $100 in the account and the bank wanted to take $15 for having the money for a day. I found that to be absolutely unacceptable. We can imagine how the banks are ripping off millions of Canadians right across this country.

What we should be doing is concentrating on improving our banks and allowing our credit unions more access to the capital that is available. Do we really need foreign banks to ensure a greater level of domestic competition? The real issue is not whether we should allow more foreign competition; the issue is what needs to be done to increase the accountability of our banking system and to increase the competition between our domestic financial institutions. The key is to provide better services for Canadians; all Canadians, not just a select few.

To increase accountability and ensure better banking services for Canadians the government should force banks to disclose more information on lending activities. This would reveal any unequal lending patterns to lower income neighbourhoods and small businesses. This would be similar to the Community Reinvestment Act in the U.S., where over $650 billion U.S. has been reinvested as a result of these laws. The laws are supported by 200 major cities and over 600 economic development groups in the United States alone.

My colleague for Regina—Qu'Appelle has been asking for community reinvestment legislation for a long time. Basically what that means to the average lay person is that if a bank, for example in the community of Upper Musquodoboit, is making a profit from deposits, investments and loans, then it should be forced to reinvest some of the profit into the community in which it is located. That would create economic growth in the rural communities across the country from coast to coast to coast. It would allow businesses to develop and grow in these small communities.

One of the scourges of Atlantic Canada is that communities such as Halifax are the bread basket of education for the country and yet most of our young people have to leave Atlantic Canada to find work elsewhere within the country or abroad. That is unacceptable. One of the ways the government could stop the exodus of our young people, our greatest asset and resource, would be to institute community reinvestment legislation.

What they have in the United States, which we do not have here, is the ability to write off mortgage insurance on taxes. What a novel idea, allowing young people, or anybody for that matter, to own their own home. It is a wonderful dream for millions of Canadians who cannot buy homes to be able to have pride in being able to say “We own this house”.

One of the ways we could do that is to follow the example of the United States and allow them to write off the interest, or part of the interest, on their mortgages. That would promote economic growth in the country that we would not believe. It is a great idea. I do not see why the government cannot concentrate on sound policies of that nature which would benefit the average Canadian.

I know the government has difficulty when we use the term average Canadians, but what average Canadians would like to see is leadership from their government and opposition parties in putting forth policies that actually are of benefit to Canadians, their children, neighbourhoods, communities and small business enterprises. They would then be able to stay in their communities and have a good quality of life.

It would also enhance competition by broadening access to the Canadian payment system and it would allow insurance companies, large mutual fund companies and investment dealers to offer banking services.

It is worth noting that in England the post office has banking services. I understand that there have been conversations between the Canada Post Corporation and the Government of Canada about financial transactions. Although I do not have a firm opinion on that myself, it is one of the aspects the hon. member for Regina—Qu'Appelle is seriously looking into.

This is something that should really be done to benefit small communities and Canadians throughout the country: the power of credit unions should be enhanced. God love those credit unions. Credit unions are a democratic alternative to the big banks. Unlike the banks they have a mandate to plow profits right back into the communities they serve, helping everyone who is a member of those credit unions.

I notice that my colleague from Selkirk, Manitoba is a member of a credit union, as well as myself and another member on the Liberal backbench. Even members of parliament believe in the credit union system and what a credit union does for a town.

We should be promoting financial institutions like the credit unions or the caisse populaires in Quebec. For instance, we could change the Credit Union Central Act to give credit union provincial centrals, the CUPCs, more flexibility and powers. I note that the finance minister had very positive meetings with members and stakeholders of the credit unions a couple of weeks ago. We are very hopeful that the finance minister will take their recommendations to heart and implement some of the programs they have initiated to help average Canadians.

CUPCs could provide services not just for credit unions, they could directly serve individual members. This would allow provincial centrals to enhance the viability of smaller credit unions which cannot afford to provide directly certain services like wealth management and mutual funds because they cannot take advantage of economies of scale. That is the big problem. A lot of small credit unions would like to offer the same services as the bigger ones or other financial institutions, but unfortunately they cannot because they just do not have the size or the capital to do it. What we should be doing is encouraging and enhancing the ability of credit unions in the country to do that.

The banks should also be forced to facilitate to honour their commitment to ensure that the poor have access to banking services. This is something that I am sure all of us have noticed when we go into a bank. When an elderly person goes into a bank with their little bank book in their shaking hand, if they are fortunate and do not have to wait long in line for a teller, they may get one who is quite compassionate who will assist them in filling out forms and so on.

I cannot count the number of times I have gone into a bank to hear a teller say that because of the pressure put on the customer service representatives by management to get the people in and out, to reduce services and the hours that the branches are open, people have to fill out their own deposit forms because the tellers are too busy. These people are generally elderly people. In the year of the older person I would think they could have a little more compassion and sympathy. There should be more services for these individuals.

Bill C-67 will allow international financial institutions to provide services of that nature. They will turn around, take the cream off the top and put more pressure on our individual banks, which in turn will put more pressure on the consumer, the average Canadian.

The government should create an independent financial service ombudsman with teeth. We love the term with teeth. That individual should answer to parliament and not to the government of the day. The independent ombudsman would provide stronger protection to consumers and small businesses than the current banking ombudsman who is paid and controlled by the banks.

The finance minister has said that he is preparing to revamp the financial services sector in response to the MacKay task force. A white paper is expected later this year. These are the kinds of policy measures that the NDP would like to see forthcoming.

I wish to thank my hon. colleagues from Regina—Qu'Appelle and Kamloops, Thompson and Highland Valleys for their intervention on this bill. We would like to say that we could support the bill, but we cannot. Unfortunately it does not go nearly far enough. It does not protect our institutions. It does nothing for the credit unions and it does not do anything to protect average Canadians from coast to coast to coast who use the banking services.

If the government really wanted to spend some time on amending the Bank Act it would have committee hearings from coast to coast to coast in the small towns to ask Canadians what they would like to see in their financial institutions, instead of going to Bay Street to ask what the government could do to appease the people on Bay Street in order to make life easier for the international institutions.

In the end, all of us believe in competition. It is healthy. However, we do not believe in competition which sucks the capital out of our country and invests in other countries.

[Fisheries, May 26th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, we know that the government has much difficulty in dealing with the Americans when it comes to protecting Canadians' interests.

My question is for the fisheries minister. We understand from British Columbia and the coastal communities on the west coast that a Pacific salmon treaty deal is very near. Can he assure the House that that deal will indeed take into consideration the interests of coastal communities on the west coast? Will it protect the interests of northern and southern fishermen in British Columbia?