Bill S-5 (Historical)

Financial System Review Act

An Act to amend the law governing financial institutions and to provide for related and consequential matters

This enactment amends a number of Acts governing financial institutions. It also amends legislation related to the regulation of financial institutions. Notable among the amendments are the following:
(a) amendments to the Bank Act, the Cooperative Credit Associations Act, the Insurance Companies Act and the Trust and Loan Companies Act aimed at reinforcing stability and fine-tuning the consumer-protection framework; and
(b) technical amendments to the Bank Act, the Cooperative Credit Associations Act, the Insurance Companies Act, the Trust and Loan Companies Act, the Bank of Canada Act, the Canada Deposit Insurance Corporation Act, the Canadian Payments Act, the Winding-up and Restructuring Act, the Office of the Superintendent of Financial Institutions Act, the Payment Clearing and Settlement Act and the Financial Consumer Agency of Canada Act.

[Mark Adler, Conservative, York Centre, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Minister, thank you so much for being here today. We really appreciate your presence.

You mentioned earlier that Prime Minister Cameron, right here in our own Parliament, spoke about how the Canadian financial system is a model for others around the world. I just want to cite a few others who have mentioned the same thing.

President Obama a couple of years ago said that in the midst of the enormous economic crisis Canada has shown itself to be a very good manager of the financial system and the economy in ways that the U.S. hasn't always been.

Ireland's Independent newspaper said recently that Ireland's financial regulatory system is due for a radical overhaul, with the Canadian system being held up as a role model.

Last week I was in Washington and had a number of meetings with various congressmen on both the House side and the Senate side. I guess The Washington Times must have known I was there, because I caught an article whose headline was, “America, home of the free. Canada, home of the future”. The first paragraph is, and I'll quote it: “Canada has strong banks, a stable real estate market and rock-bottom corporate tax rates, and it's about time Americans paid attention....” That was from The Washington Times last week.

I want to also say that throughout my meetings with members of the House and members of the Senate, the Canadian story is well known down in Washington, as you probably know. We are being looked at as a role model of how to craft a secure and stable financial regulatory system. It makes you feel proud, when you're down there and speaking to senior legislative officials of the United States government and they have that to say about our country's financial system.

Being from Toronto and from Ontario, I just want to ask you this. There are 400,000 jobs that are directly linked to the financial system; the job rate has grown 42% over the last ten years in the financial system; and 280,000 additional jobs are ancillary to the financial system. So clearly the financial system plays a key role in the economy of the province of Ontario, particularly in the city of Toronto.

Notwithstanding what we have here in Bill S-5, the government has taken a number of other steps along the way in the last number of years to further secure our financial system, in addition to what we see here in Bill S-5. Could you please talk about those?

[Ted Menzies, Conservative, Minister of State (Finance)]

Thank you, Chair.

This is, as I say, becoming a habit, but I am glad to be back among the financial champions in the House of Commons. Thank you for allowing me the opportunity to appear once again before this committee.

Today we are talking about Bill S-5, the Financial System Review Act.

I have with me Jeremy Rudin, Jane Pearse, Eleanor Ryan, Leah Anderson, and Joe de Pencier from the Department of Finance. If you ask me any technical questions I will probably defer to them, because this is a rather technical bill, but it is nonetheless very important.

From the start I want to underline for the committee that while this legislation is important, it is mandatory, routine, and as I say, primarily technical. But it is important, in that it will ensure that we keep Canada's financial system safe and secure, a system all of our constituents depend on almost every day, be it making a bank deposit or applying for a loan to start a business.

Our financial sector plays an important role in financial stability, safeguarding savings and fuelling the growth that is essential to the success of our Canadian economy. It also represents about 7% of Canada's GDP, employing over 750,000 Canadians in good, well-paying jobs.

Before I start talking about some of the highlights of today's bill, I want to explain the background of why and how it came to be. The committee should know that every five years the government reviews all legislation governing federally regulated financial institutions. This is a long-established practice in Canada, with the last review being completed in 2007 in the 39th Parliament. Such mandatory five-year reviews are a big part of why Canada has a well-regulated financial system that is safe and secure. Indeed, earlier this year the independent Financial Stability Board praised this aspect of our system:

...review of all legislation to ensure that it is current, contributes to stability and growth of the financial sector and, by extension, allows Canada to remain a global leader in financial services.

I'll note that the present five-year review process formally began in September of 2010, when our government launched a broad public consultation process. During that consultation we heard from a wide range of Canadians on ways to help further strengthen Canada's financial system.

What's more, as we know, Bill S-5 has already been reviewed in the Senate and received extensive study by the Senate Standing Committee on Banking, Trade, and Commerce. As we know, the senators know a lot about money, so they would have scrutinized this very closely.

The committee engaged in a timely review of the bill, hearing from groups ranging from Credit Union Central of Canada, the Canadian Life and Health Insurance Association Inc., the Financial Consumer Agency of Canada, the Office of the Superintendent of Financial Institutions, as well as others. While noting Bill S-5's technical nature, the witnesses were very supportive of the bill overall. For instance, the Canadian Life and Health Insurance Association Inc. noted that “Bill S-5 represents a welcome fine tuning of the various financial institution statutes”.

Before highlighting some of the items in today's bill, let me mention that due to the legislated sunset date, it is essential that it be renewed by April 20, 2012 to allow Canada's financial institutions to continue to function. No pressure, Chair, but keep that in mind.

I will now take this opportunity to outline some of the measures contained in Bill S-5. Once more, while the majority of the bill is purely technical, its passage is nevertheless essential to guarantee that Canada's financial system remains stable and secure. That's why broadly, the bill will make changes to, first of all, update existing legislation to promote financial stability and to ensure that Canada's financial institutions continue to operate in a competitive, efficient, and stable environment; fine-tune the consumer protection framework to better protect Canadian consumers; and improve efficiency by reducing red tape and regulatory burden on those financial institutions.

More specifically, key measures contained in this act include reinstating the required approval of the Minister of Finance for select, extremely large foreign acquisitions by Canadian financial institutions; reducing the administrative red-tape burden for federally regulated insurance companies offering adjustable policies in foreign jurisdictions by removing duplicative disclosure requirements; promoting competition and innovation by enabling cooperative credit associations to provide technology services to a broader market; more than doubling the maximum fine that the Financial Consumer Agency of Canada can impose on financial institutions that violate consumer provisions, increasing that from $200,000 to $500,000; and also guaranteeing that all Canadians, especially those who are most vulnerable, have the right to cash any government cheque under $1,500 free of charge at any bank in Canada.

When we saw the failure of some of the world's most well-known banks, the recent global economic turbulence has made clear the importance of keeping Canada's financial systems safe and secure through the passage of the Financial System Review Act. Canadians recognize how much we have benefited from our prudent regulations and sound financial oversight in recent years. In fact, for the fourth year in a row Canada has been ranked number one by the World Economic Forum for having the soundest banks in the world.

Without a doubt, Canada's safe and secure financial system has served as a model for countries and is envied around the world. In fact, U.K. Prime Minister David Cameron recently praised our system when he said:

In the last few years, Canada has got every major decision right. Look at the facts. Not a single Canadian bank fell or faltered during the global banking crisis.... Your economic leadership has helped the Canadian economy to weather the global storms far better than many of your international competitors.

As well, the prominent Economist magazine made this proclamation:

Canada has had an easier time than most during the recent global recession, in part because of a conservative and well-regulated banking system.

Likewise, a recent report from the United States Congressional Research Service underlined how well our financial system is regarded and examined as a model for others to build on. I'm quoting directly from that report:

...Canada’s supervisory system and regulatory structure have proven less susceptible to the bank failures that have loomed in the United States and Europe and may offer insight for U.S. policymakers.

In conclusion, let me say that our government believes that modern and effective regulation is critical for an innovative and prosperous economy. What's more, we recognize that we must keep Canada's financial system secure so that it continues to be a fundamental source of strength for our economy. The measures contained in the Financial System Review Act will provide a framework that will benefit all members of the financial services sector, and also all Canadians.

The well-established practice of regular five-year reviews of the regulatory framework for financial institutions is a unique practice that sets Canada apart. It is a positive practice that has proven vital to the stability of this sector.

All Canadians know the importance of continually examining how we can better ensure the safety and soundness of our financial system for the benefit of all Canadians, and today's legislation does just that.

I encourage all members to support this important legislation.

On that note, I'll wrap up and would welcome any questions.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

A unanimous welcome back from the committee, Minister Menzies. Thank you so much for being with us here to present the position on Bill S-5.

I understand you have some officials at the table, who you will be introducing in your remarks. We'll have questions from all committee members after your remarks, so please begin at any time.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

I call this meeting to order, the 47th meeting of the Standing Committee on Finance.

Pursuant to the order of reference of Tuesday, February 14, 2012, we are considering Bill S-5, an act to amend the law governing financial institutions and to provide for related and consequential matters.

We have two panels with us here today, colleagues. In our first panel we're again very pleased to welcome back the Honourable Ted Menzies, the Minister of State for Finance.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Thank you.

I want to thank all of our witnesses for being here to respond our questions. It was a very lively debate. If you have anything further to submit to the committee, please do so. We will all consider it.

Colleagues, I just wanted to see whether there was agreement to proceed with the proposed operational budgets for Bill C-25, Bill S-5, and Bill C-311. You should all have the numbers in front of you. Is there agreement to these three bills and the witnesses?

Standing Orders and Procedure

[Tom Lukiwski, Conservative, Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, SK]

Madam Speaker, I am not making any accusations; I am just pointing out the obvious. I have given one example of Bill S-5, which was unduly delayed by the NDP opposition. I have many more, but I will just give one because I know we have a limited amount of time here, and that is Bill C-11, the copyright modernization act.

We brought the bill in the same form that it was presented in the last Parliament, which had the bill before committee. When we reintroduced it in this Parliament, after 75 speeches, the NDP opposition still refused to send it to committee. Those members still said that they had more people wanting to speak to it. The ironic thing is they said, at the same time, that they thought the bill needed amendments. Well the committee is the place to make amendments, yet they refused to send it. They forced us into time allocation so then they could turn around and say that the government was being anti-democratic.

The strategy of the NDP is clear. We understand that. I think all Canadians understand it by now as well.

[Tom Lukiwski, Conservative, Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, SK]

One of my Liberal colleagues says he is getting a Twitter feed right now from one of the two individuals I just mentioned.

All kidding aside, these were two very experienced parliamentarians who were very knowledgeable about Standing Orders and chose to share their expertise at every opportunity in the House. I am glad to hear that they are watching this debate.

This is the fourth time we have had the opportunity to debate Standing Orders in this place. In 1982 a special committee on Standing Orders and procedures recommended that in each Parliament in the first session following an election there should be a debate on Standing Orders. In the past there were many suspensions of this debate, sometimes because of an early election, or prorogation or because there had been debates on Standing Orders in other forums.

To stand here today and debate the Standing Orders and to talk about some of the proposed changes that we would like to see is a healthy thing for democracy. It allows all backbenchers as well as frontbenchers to express their views on how we govern ourselves and the rules that we adopt.

I should also point out that many of the Standing Orders that we follow today have been around literally for decades, in some cases for 100 years. There are many Standing Orders that just need to be modernized, that is some of the ones our party will be advocating and some of them will be suggestions that we will bring forward to committee.

I will give the House a few illustrations of what I mean to try and give a sense got the rest of the members in this place of the type of modernization that we think is necessary.

Standing Order 16(4) says “When the House adjourns, members shall keep their seats until the Speaker has left the Chair”. That has not been observed for generations, so why have it at all? We suggest we may want to look at deleting that phrase.

There are also references in the Standing Orders to something called “dinner hour”. In previous Parliaments many years ago, Parliament sat during the afternoon and evening and there was a specified dinner hour. That does not happen anymore, but we still have the reference in the Standing Order. We feel modernizations, deletions of terms like that, which are somewhat archaic, are necessary to ensure we have Standing Orders that actually fit the time.

I want to focus most of my remarks on a couple of issues raised by my friends in opposition, primarily on time allocation. A lot of members in this place, and a lot of members of the general public, confuse the term time allocation with closure. They are completely different elements of the democratic process that we follow in Parliament.

With respect to time allocation, what I hear from members opposite is that our government has used time allocation indiscriminately, that we have used it to try and advance our agenda without consideration to debate or to members comments opposite. In fact, nothing could be further from the truth.

My colleague and my friend, the chief opposition whip, said that time allocation should only be used in cases where the opposition tends to filibuster a bill. That is exactly what has been happening. We have seen time and time again with pieces of legislation that our government has introduced the opposition quite clearly and openly demonstrate to Parliament and to Canadians that it has no interest in simply debating the bill. It simply wants to delay the passage of the bill and if it had the opportunity, it would, with apologies to Quentin Tarantino, kill the bill. That is not democratic. That is simply an opposition trying to run roughshod over Parliament.

We have a democracy in the country that elects governments. We have been fortunate. We have been graced to have been given a majority government by the people of our country. Therefore, we feel very compelled to advance our legislative agenda as quickly as we can after adequate debate. However, the opposition does not believe in normal or adequate debate. It wants to delay, delay, delay and obstruct, obstruct, obstruct.

I will provide just two examples of many which prove my point.

The first example is Bill S-5, a financial institutions bill. This bill, quite frankly, is almost pro forma. The bill comes before Parliament once every five years. Its intent is to merely ratify the rules and regulations of financial institutions in Canada. In the past number of Parliaments that have dealt with Bill S-5, debate has primarily lasted one day. Usually one speaker from each party makes comments, the bill is referred to committee, in which members look at the legislation to ensure that all of the elements of the legislation in the bill are unchanged, and it is passed. Without doing so, the regulations that govern our financial institutions would basically be gone.

This bill is non-controversial and it is one that should be passed quickly. However, when we asked our friends in the opposition, primarily the official opposition, the NDP, they demonstrated absolutely no willingness to accommodate the quick passage of it out of this place and into committee so we could ensure our financial institutions would have the ability to perform as they always have. That is obstruction.

Financial System Review Act

[Dean Allison, Conservative, Niagara West—Glanbrook, ON]

Madam Speaker, the financial system review act, or Bill S-5 , would continue to ensure that our financial system continues to be secure for Canadians and is a fundamental strength for our economy. If we look at some of the things the bill includes, it includes measures to update financial institutions legislation, to promote financial stability and to ensure Canada's financial institutions continue to operate in a competitive, efficient and stable environment.

The bill would also fine-tune the consumer protection framework, including enhancing the supervisory powers of the Financial Consumer Agency of Canada. The bill would also include measures to improve efficiency by reducing the administrative burden on financial institutions and by adding regular flexibility. These are just some of the things that the bill includes.

[Dean Allison, Conservative, Niagara West—Glanbrook, ON]

Madam Speaker, the truth is that the government has had a lot of important legislation come before the House since we were elected. There are a number of priorities that we have been moving forward on.

We appreciate the fact that we have a very sound financial system here in Canada and Bill S-5 would continue to keep Canada's financial system strong and secure. We have a lot to be proud of as Canadians with a great banking system.

[Dean Allison, Conservative, Niagara West—Glanbrook, ON]

Madam Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to speak in strong support of Bill S-5, the financial system review act.

In my time here today, I will focus on what our Conservative government has done to enhance protection for consumers of financial service products. This act builds on an already strong record of our government. From the outset, the government's approach to strengthening consumer protection has been straightforward. Canadians who use financial services are entitled to clear and simple information. They deserve to be treated in a fair and transparent manner.

Since forming government in 2006, our Conservative government has had a proven record of strengthening Canada's financial system. For instance, as part of Canada's economic action plan, we took action to better protect Canadians who use credit cards. We all agree that Canadians should not be forced to deal with hidden surprises on their credit card statements. That is why we took landmark action to force credit card providers to provide easily understandable information on credit card application forms and contracts and timely advance notice of changes in rates and fees. We also limited credit business practices that do not benefit consumers.

Specifically, we required credit card issuers to provide consumers with a minimum 21 day interest-free grace period on all new purchases when consumers pay their balance in full by the due date. We also required a minimum 21 day grace period on all new purchases in a billing period, even if the consumer had an outstanding balance. We moved key information, such as interest rates, grace periods and fees, out of the fine print buried in credit applications and contracts and into a prominent summary box so that consumers signing applications know exactly what kind of financial arrangements they are agreeing to without needing a magnifying glass and a legal dictionary. These pro-consumer measures are ensuring that Canadians have a clear picture of what they are signing up for and fully understand their rights and responsibilities.

It is little wonder that our government's measures have been so warmly received by consumer and other public interest groups. For instance, Casey Cosgrove, director of the Social and Enterprise Development Innovations' Canadian Centre for Financial Literacy praised them saying:

Understanding interest rates, fees and increases to monthly payments are key challenges many Canadians face when managing their credit cards. The measures announced by the government today will contribute to financial literacy by bringing clearer and more transparent information to consumers.

Additionally, Bruce Cran, president of the Consumers' Association of Canada, applauded the measures and said that all of the things in there “are actually just what we asked for”.

Laurie Campbell of Credit Canada also spoke highly of our actions. In particular, she highlighted the importance of the summary box I mentioned earlier. She stated:

The idea is that there will be a box somewhere on your statement, and it's going to show okay, this is how much you have outstanding, and this is your minimum payment on that amount outstanding... Any time we're trying to educate the public on how to manage their money better, on how to understand credit better, and how to minimize the amount of interest they're paying, it's a good thing. So this is a great step.

I am happy that our pro-consumer measures are in effect today. They provide Canadian consumers with precisely the kind of financial information that allows them to make the best choices to suit their needs. The reality is that there are more than 200 credit cards available on the market. While having so many choices ensures competition and varying interest rates, decisions about which card is best can be difficult without knowledge.

All consumers can only benefit by increasing their understanding of interest rates and the dangers of compound credit card interest. I am pleased to remind Canadians and members that important information on this very subject is available through the Financial Consumer Agency of Canada's website. The agency provides free comparison tables outlining the rates and features of numerous credit cards offered in Canada by a variety of issuers.

Our Conservative government has done more for small businesses and retailers who raised concerns about certain credit and debit card practices. Our Conservative government shared these concerns. One concern was the unpredictable costs associated with accepting credit and debit card payments, which prevented merchants from reasonably forecasting the monthly costs associated with accepting those payments.

That is why our Conservative government created the landmark code of conduct for the credit and debit card industry to better protect small businesses and retailers. Under the code, small businesses and retailers will be guaranteed clear information regarding fees and rates, as well as advance notice of any new fees and fee increases. They will be able to cancel contracts without penalty, should fees rise or new fees be introduced. There will be new tools to promote competition and the freedom to accept credit payments from a particular network without the obligation to accept debit payments and vice versa.

I am happy to report that small business has welcomed the measures laid out in the code of conduct.

Here is what the Canadian Federation of Independent Business had to say on the first anniversary of the code:

The Code's effectiveness has already been tested several times and CFIB is pleased to report that it has passed on every occasion. CFIB has used the Code to resolve issues on debit cards for e-commerce, disclosure of important merchant fee information, and exit penalties for fee changes in processing agreements. Merchants have new powers under the Code that have helped them achieve tangible results in their dealings with the industry. This simply wouldn't have happened without the Code.

Whether it is a question of saving for retirement, financing a new home or balancing the family cheque book, our government's commitment to improving the financial literacy of Canadians will do even more to ensure the integrity of our financial system. Canada has made the financial literacy of Canadians a priority. It has introduced legislation to create a financial literacy leader to improve financial literacy in Canada.

Bill S-5, the financial system review act, would build on the many pro-consumer measures we have introduced since 2006, including the three that I have already highlighted. The bill would more than double the maximum fine the Financial Consumer Agency of Canada could impose on financial institutions that violate a consumer provision, increasing it from $200,000 to $500,000. The bill would guarantee all Canadians, especially those who are most vulnerable, the right to cash any government cheque under $1,500 free of charge at any bank in Canada.

Informed consumers are the very foundation of a solid financial system. Canada's economic success is ultimately the sum of the financial success of all Canadians. That is why I am proud to support the financial system review act. It would further strengthen our Conservative government's commitment to this crucial objective.

[Mike Sullivan, NDP, York South—Weston, ON]

Madam Speaker, I rise today to speak to Bill S-5, an act to amend the law governing financial institutions and to provide for related and consequential matters, and to express my disappointment about the inadequacies of this bill.

The member opposite suggested that somehow we were against this kind of thing. We are not against it: we are in fact disappointed that it does not go far enough. I think we have heard their mantra over and over again throughout this entire Parliament. We are disappointed that the government does not do enough, that it does not protect seniors and immigrants and does not protect the rights of ordinary Canadians.

Again we are faced with a bill that does not seem to go far enough. It is our hope that these inadequacies can be addressed at committee, as has been suggested. So far we have not had a good track record of changing bills at committee. Unfortunately the government does not like to listen to our advice, does not want to hear debate, and intends through the time allocation motion it introduced yesterday and passed today to have only one further day of debate before going to the standing committee, which will then have about five weeks to go through this very complicated bill.

I say “complicated” because the bill amends the Bank Act, the Cooperative Credit Associations Act, the Insurance Companies Act, the Trust and Loan Companies Act, the Bank of Canada Act, the Canada Deposit Insurance Corporation Act, the Canadian Payments Act, the Winding-up and Restructuring Act, the Office of the Superintendent of Financial Institutions Act, the Payment Clearing and Settlement Act, and the Financial Consumer Agency of Canada Act. Why are we rushing?

This is a pretty important thing. I do not think there is a person in Canada whose relationship with banks and financial institutions is not somehow touched by this bill. There are few in my riding who do not have bank accounts, I will admit, but as the member for Winnipeg Centre reminded us, they are being served by other institutions that are gouging them, the payday loan companies that have sprung up like mushrooms to replace the banks that have left.

It is very unfortunate that we are not going to get enough time to debate this bill, because it is going to deprive Canadians of a really comprehensive and transparent review of our financial system, unlike the cursory and rushed treatment this bill unfortunately received in that other house, the Senate. We are talking about regulating this country's financial service industry, which employs thousands of Canadians and handles trillions of dollars in assets, and the Senate review of this legislation took three weeks from start to finish. The bill was introduced in the Senate on November 23 of last year and adopted at final reading on December 16.

Several questions arise from that. Why did it take so long to get here? We are in the middle of February and are now dealing with this in a rush because we have to meet a time allocation motion. It is almost three months since it was introduced and two months since it was passed in the Senate. Is the banking system therefore less important to Canadians than guns? Is the banking system less important than copyright legislation? Is the banking system less important than the Wheat Board? These are all things that went before it, and the banking system is thus apparently not seen as important, not as important to ordinary Canadians. We disagree.

Why the Senate? Is the government trying to make work over there in the other chamber? Is that really what is going on? To justify its position that the Senate is an effective place of sober second thought, does it have to find ways to introduce actual government bills in the Senate to give that chamber work to do?

If this is so urgent, why did the government wait so long even to introduce it in the Senate? The deadline has been known for years. The deadline was always going to be the middle of April of this year. Why has it taken so long? It baffles us.

We certainly have time to do this correctly, or we should have had the time to do this correctly. However, the government's mismanagement of this file, given that the five-year review was well known, has contributed to this rushed process whereby the government invokes closure for the umpteenth time and limits our job as parliamentarians to do a proper review of this important sector.

It is as if the government were governing on the back of a napkin. Every time we turn around, there is something that it has forgotten, something it has forgotten to do. This is another one. It forgot about this: “Oh, we better do it in a hurry. We have to get it through.”

We owe it to Canadians to address some of the real problems with the financial institutions, such as by protecting consumers from excessive user fees, not only ATM fees but also remittance fees on transfers that many new Canadians in the diaspora send to families they are supporting back home. Those remittance fees are huge and they are charged by banks and other financial corporations alike, and sometimes they amount to as much as 30%, 40% and even 50% of the money they send overseas.

Why do they have to send money overseas? It is because their families cannot be reunified here in Canada. We now have wait times of as long as 106 months between the time an application is made and a parent or a grandparent is permitted to come back to Canada, and it is as long as 33 months for spouses and children. All the while, the people here who have recently immigrated to Canada and are trying to reunite with their families are trying to support their family overseas by working in Canada and sending what little money they can. When the banks, the financial institutions, the payday lenders, whomever, take 30%, 40% or 50% of that money, it is a crime, and it is not something that the government has addressed.

We need to review the treatment of financial derivatives. Nothing in the legislation talks about that. It was speculation, as we saw in the United States, in particular, that provoked the financial crisis from which we are still recovering. These practices do not contribute to the economy but to the financial volatility that threatens to destabilize economies, and yet there is nothing in the bill to deal with that. The housing bubble in the U.S. created by those derivatives has caused ordinary citizens to lose billions of dollars in the value of their properties, in large measure as a result of banks and other institutions trading and speculating. Canadian banks were not immune from this: Canadian banks lost money on these derivatives.

We need to review mortgage lending practices, particularly in light of the comments made by Bank of Canada Governor Mark Carney, who said that record consumer debts are the greatest domestic threat to the country's financial institutions. Right now, consumer debt is 151% of disposable income, partly as a result of aggressive home equity loan marketing that has placed Canadians in vulnerable situations should interest rates rise. If interest rates rise, we are in for a huge collapse in our credit system in Canada. We do not want to see the disastrous practices witnessed in the United States' housing portfolio come here to Canada.

This is an inadequate measure, a missed opportunity to do better for Canadians. The consultation process has been pathetic, to say the least. Apparently, there were some consultations conducted by the government online. Some 30 people found out about it and submitted recommendations. The government cannot release the results of most of those to anyone because it forgot to get the required disclosures from those people for their information to be released. Therefore, we will never know what the feedback to the government was.

On our side, we will support the bill at second reading because we hope that the deficiencies in the bill can be corrected at committee. Some government members have actually said they want to listen and make amendments to the bill, where necessary, at committee. Thus far I cannot remember any bills coming to this House from committee with amendments. Maybe this will be the first. Who knows. I hope my colleagues on the government side will participate in the committee review of the bill in good faith to improve how our financial sector serves Canadians. This will be a challenge, given the time constraints imposed by the government today.

We owe Canadians this effort. I owe this to Canadians in my riding, as does every single member of Parliament here who represents all Canadians, all of whom will be touched by the measures that the government has put forward today in the bill.

[Devinder Shory, Conservative, Calgary Northeast, AB]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to have this opportunity to address Bill S-5, the financial system review act. I would like to take a moment to say a few words about how this bill came to be before the House.

This bill is the outcome of the mandatory five year review of the framework that governs federally regulated financial institutions, which began in September 2010. Such regular reviews help to ensure that Canada remains a global leader in financial sector stability.

I would also note that this bill needs to be passed and its supporting legislation renewed by April 20, 2012 to allow financial institutions to carry on with their business and provide the services that Canadians depend on.

I was pleased to hear in some previous speeches in the House that members opposite are willing to send the bill to committee for further study. I hope they will support swift passage of the bill.

I want this piece of legislation, as technical as it is, to be understood by ordinary Canadians so they know how it affects them in real terms. Key measures in the bill are aimed at protecting consumers of financial services, building on important consumer protection actions our Conservative government has taken in recent years.

I will briefly explain the rationale for these initiatives while providing a bit of context. Throughout our time in office, our Conservative government has aggressively focused on helping Canadian consumers identify and take advantage of the best possible financial products and services for their needs. For example, in the next phase of Canada's economic action plan, we will further strengthen Canada's financial system by moving forward on the recommendations of the Task Force on Financial Literacy and announcing the government's intention to appoint a financial literacy leader. We will be enhancing consumer protection by banning unsolicited credit card cheques and developing measures related to network branded prepaid cards. In doing so, we are making a strong system even stronger.

Canada has many advantages that have mitigated the impact of ongoing global economic turbulence. For instance, Canada has a prudent and well-regulated banking system, ensuring that our lenders demonstrate responsibility and restraint. The result is Canada did not suffer a single bank failure or need to bail out any of its financial institutions.

As the Toronto Star said, “Unlike in the United States and Europe, no banks collapsed or had to be rescued in Canada during this financial crisis”. On the contrary, Canada's financial system remains strong, based on effective risk management and supported by a very effective regulatory and supervisory framework.

Some of the remarks I have heard in the House in relation to Bill S-5 allege that Canada's fortunate position during the global financial crisis was in spite of our Conservative government's policies, not because of them. What they say is that as Conservatives we tend to shy away from regulations in favour of competitive markets when it comes to the financial sector. Let me be clear on a couple of points.

First, it is true that we tend to favour less government intervention where possible, but we keep a close eye to ensure the system remains strong, thanks to the work of the hard-working, world's best finance minister that we have.

Second, our Conservative government, under the leadership of the Prime Minister, recognized early on that prudent regulations and supervision were necessary in the financial sector. In fact, we witnessed that other nations had to massively intervene in their markets as a result of under-regulation, and effectively nationalized their financial institutions.

Let me be blunt. Canada has emerged from this financial crisis as the only true free market financial system in the world. Indeed, Canada's strong economic and fiscal fundamentals have been recognized internationally. Today our country has the world's soundest banking system, as ranked for the fourth year in a row by the World Economic Forum. In fact, our five Canadian financial institutions were recently named to Bloomberg's list of the world's strongest banks, more than any other country.

Before I focus on our Conservative government's commitment to consumer protection, I want to address another aspect of the bill.

Bill S-5 gives authority to the minister to approve the acquisition of major foreign entities by federally regulated financial institutions where that acquisition would increase that institution's assets by more than 10%. Some in this House during earlier debates have suggested this could politicize the process. In fact, this is a historical oversight provision that was repealed in 2001. We are merely restoring that authority. There is a good reason for that. We understand that a regulatory and oversight balance is necessary to keep our markets healthy.

Let us say, for example, that a Canadian bank or federally regulated institution acquires a foreign company that increases its assets by more than 10% and that foreign company then succumbs to poor conditions in its market, a collapse of that economy or sector of that economy. That would have a negative impact on a significant portion of a Canadian bank's holdings and our Canadian markets would be affected by extension. That is why we feel it is prudent to have these risky acquisitions reviewed before they go ahead, to ensure that they are in the public interest.

Julie Dickson, the Superintendent of Financial Institutions, had this to say about this decision:

It’s now being moved back to the Minister of Finance, and we fully support that decision. It makes sense for the Minister of Finance to ultimately have the ability to approve. It’s just going back to the way it used to be.

Alec Bruce, a noted Times & Transcript columnist, gave the following insight:

When our banks top up their foreign holdings in this environment they do, in fact, chance importing this contagion to these shores, and injecting it into the arteries of the country’s economy....It’s not too much to ask....

Let me reassure all members that this Conservative government has an ongoing commitment to ensure that consumers are protected in their dealings with our financial institutions. That is why our government has an entire agency working to protect and educate consumers of financial services. It is the Financial Consumer Agency of Canada, FCAC. The agency does its part to help inform financial consumers in Canada by developing plain language educational material on a wide range of financial products and services. It has developed innovative approaches, such as a mortgage calculator that quickly determines mortgage payments and the potential savings resulting from pre-payments. It has also introduced online tools that help consumers shop for the most suitable credit card and banking package for their needs.

The agency has created two new tip sheets to help Canadian consumers looking for ways to save money. One is on choosing the right banking accounts and the other is on keeping service fees low. Recently the agency has been instrumental in lending its support to Financial Literacy Month, that being November, which featured 200 events and outreach initiatives across the country.

We have a steadfast commitment to improve the financial knowledge of Canadians and that commitment includes this bill. The proposed legislative package before us includes measures that would strengthen the consumer protection framework, including increasing the maximum fine the FCAC can levy for violations of a consumer provision from $200,000 to $500,000, and would guarantee that any Canadian has the right to cash government cheques up to $1,500 free of charge at any bank in Canada.

Our Conservative government believes that Canadian consumers deserve accessible and effective financial services that meet the needs of consumers and that operate in the public interest. By enacting the financial services review act, we would further ensure that our financial system remains a competitive Canadian advantage and that consumers receive the highest possible standard of service. It is the level of service that Canadians deserve and have come to expect.

I ask all members of the House to support Bill S-5 to ensure that our financial sector remains strong, stable, secure and a model for other countries to follow.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Madam Speaker, thank you for the opportunity to enter this debate on this comprehensive and sweeping piece of legislation regarding our financial institutions, both their well-being and their duty and obligation to provide adequate service to Canadians.

I need to preface my remarks by noting that the bill is entitled Bill S-5, the S meaning that it does not originate in the House of Commons, the chamber of the duly elected representatives of the people. It has its origins in the other place, the Senate of Canada. As democrats, each and every one of us should take note, pause and reflect on the significance and meaning of the bill. More and more, we are finding bills originating in the Senate, when in fact all pieces of legislation should find their origins in the duly elected chamber of the House of Commons, not the unelected, undemocratic Senate. I profoundly resent this chamber being seized with a bill that has originated there. I will state that for the record.

The other thing comment I would say before discussing the substance of this legislation is the fact that once again we are faced with a debate on a bill with a gun to our heads, under pressure, under the time limitation placed on our democratic review, scrutiny, analysis, and due diligence of the bill, the very reason we were sent here as representatives of the people. We are being denied that right systematically once again by a government that introduces a closure motion almost on the same day it tables a piece of legislation. This is the 16th time in a row, in this short session of this 41st Parliament, that we are being denied our democratic right to give full study and examination of the bill and to have our comments within this place recorded in Hansard.

I do not want anyone in the country who has been observing the activities of our Canadian Parliament to think for one minute that these are normal circumstances. These are anything but normal. These are extraordinary. This is the most appalling abuse and undermining of the democratic process that anyone has ever seen.

I have been a member of Parliament for six terms. I have sat in majority and minority Liberal governments. I have sat in majority and minority Conservative governments. No one has ever seen anything like this before. This cannot be allowed to continue without condemning it in the strongest possible terms. I hope the people of Canada take note that the Conservative government of the day, and I do not say this lightly, is undermining the integrity of our parliamentary institutions by systematically denying the right of members of Parliament to study bills, per our constitutional parliamentary democracy. It offends the sensibilities of anyone who calls himself or herself a democrat to see this happening systematically.

While I am on the subject, I would also note that I just came from a committee meeting earlier today, where there has been a systematic denial of the public's right to know what its government is doing with its money, in its bills and policy development, by invoking the shroud of secrecy over the otherwise ordinary activities of parliamentary committees that have traditionally been held in public. The government has moved to put these in camera. For any ordinary Canadian watching, this means that the doors will be shut, everyone will be asked to leave, and there will be no cameras and no one will have any right to ever divulge what happened behind those closed doors. That is the in camera rule.

In times gone by, three or four years ago, it used to be the rare exception if the activities of a parliamentary committee were held in camera. It would be in matters of national security, or of profound commercial sensitivity where someone's right to privacy in a commercial setting would otherwise be violated.

Now in camera meetings are being used willy-nilly for any little issue that may be controversial or potentially embarrassing to the government. The government slams down the in-camera rule and shuts down the cameras, ironically. Everyone is kicked out of the room and no one in that meeting is ever allowed to divulge anything that happened behind those closed doors under the rule and penalty of the Speaker of the House of Commons. It is a very serious violation to contradict the in camera rule. There is no justification for this whatsoever. I cannot even divulge the matter we were discussing at today's in camera meeting, because it was in camera.

This has been a systematic undermining of the democratic procedures and the processes that have evolved over time to make our Westminster model of parliamentary democracy the best in the world. However, I caution the members across and anyone listening that our parliamentary democracy is a fragile construct. It exists only by virtue of both sides stipulating that they agree to abide by a set of rules that includes openness to the greatest possible, and respecting the role of the opposition to test the merits of the proposals put forward by the government before they are implemented into legislation.

Again, I caution the government of day. It may in fact be doing irreparable harm to our democratic institutions. I think that if it allows pendulum to swing too far this way, it will never get it back to the norm. The toothpaste might never go back into the tube; the genie might never go back into the bottle. The government has pushed the limits of the integrity of our system. It is like pulling a thread on a sweater: the whole sweater can unravel if we keep yanking on that thing. That is what the government is doing. It is testing not only our patience but also the integrity of our whole fragile, yet precious, parliamentary democracy.

I resent profoundly that we are facing closure once again on this bill for the 16th time since we returned to work after the parliamentary summer recess. It is an absurd situation that we find ourselves in. We are being systematically denied the ability to do our job as agents of the people who elected us here to provide scrutiny, oversight and due diligence and to hold the government to account. That is the very function of Parliament and it is what is being denied to us.

We are talking about banks. If there were any subject in the country that warranted a greater examination by the elected representatives of the people, it is the way banks are, or are not, serving the best interests of Canadians. It warrants enhanced scrutiny. It warrants not only a thorough examination but also a royal commission. The failure of banks to meet the needs of Canadians, and their gouging us in the process, is almost ridiculous. The biggest PR campaign in the country right now is not to sell cars, not to promote the oil sands, but the PR job of banks trying to peddle themselves to Canadians as warm, fuzzy and benign institutions that have our best interests at heart.

I challenge that. I would have welcomed the ability to challenge it in a much more thorough way as we go through the bill to amend the law governing the financial institutions of this country. I say this because in the riding of Winnipeg Centre, which I represent, chartered banks are closing like crazy. They are disappearing. They are going the way of the dodo bird. Whereas we used to have a bank, an accessible institution, on the street corner, they are all shutting down and are being merged into one conglomerate. There were 14 bank closures in my riding alone.

Do members know what is filling the void left behind? It is the fringe banking institutions, the Money Marts and payday loan outfits that are charging not the 60% that the usury laws of this country allow them to charge, but which should have been reviewed in this process, but 1,000% to 1,500%. The Government of Manitoba did an investigation and one example it found was a payday loan charging 10,000% interest.

Do members not think that warrants a bit of debate and analysis and scrutiny by the elected representatives of the people, the fact that people are being gouged because of the unwillingness of our chartered banks to live up to the terms and conditions of their charters to provide reasonable financial services to Canadians no matter where they live?

Because of their failure in that department, they have left a void that is being filled in by these predatory lenders. I do not know what can be done to make a 10,000% profit. Selling cocaine does not even give, I presume, a 10,000% profit. However, they are springing up like mushrooms all over the inner city and preying on poor people and gouging them in the most egregious way. The Parliament of Canada is silent on it because we are being denied the right to even do a thorough analysis of the job that financial institutions are doing to provide basic services.

We need to remind ourselves that we granted the chartered banks their charter and what comes with the charter is the exclusive monopoly for certain very lucrative financial transactions, the credit cards, cheque cashing and all of these things, that are enormously profitable. In exchange for the exclusive monopoly on these lucrative transactions, they were to provide at least the basics that financial consumers might need.

We in the NDP have been trying to rectify this for a decade or more, which is why these rare, once every five years, opportunities are so precious. Myself and the former leader of the NDP actually got some proxy shares and used to crash shareholder meetings of the big chartered banks. We would go to the Royal Bank shareholders meetings, as well as the Bank of Montreal, the Toronto Dominion Bank and the CIBC meetings. We would move motions at those shareholders meetings trying to bring these big institutions to account, to stop the gouging and to make them responsible.

Exactly. I see my colleague gets it. He seems as perturbed as I am about this situation.

I will give an example. This is quite an experience. Everybody here should do this. Members should go to a shareholders meeting of one of the chartered banks, such as the Royal Bank of Canada. My good friend, John Cleghorn, was the CEO of the Royal Bank. I had just enough proxy shares to move some motions. Nine motions were moved that year at the shareholders meeting of 1,500 people and I moved all nine of them. Everybody else just goes there to find out how much money they made. I went there to try to introduce some democratic reform to these appalling undemocratic organizations.

One of the motions I moved even my colleague from Nepean would enjoy. I moved a motion to limit the CEO's salary to 20 times that of the average employee. Now the average employee salary, if anyone did the math, is about $47,000 a year, and 20 times that is almost $1 million year, which is pretty good. Sadly, however, the motion was defeated.

Another motion, however, that we moved was for gender parity on the board of directors. This motion was what scared John Cleghorn. Matthew Barrett was not nearly as amused by all of this but John Cleghorn was a good sport. The motion for gender parity on the board of directors failed by this ratio, the exact same as the last Quebec referendum, 49.4% to 50.6%. We almost got it.

There is a lesson here. The shareholders' democratic movement should be inspired by this. A room of 1,500 people who did not come there to talk about amendments to democratic reform or corporate governance had an appetite for corporate governance. There was an interest.

Again, when we did the same thing with Matthew Barrett, he had a hissy fit and was openly wondering how Alexa McDonough ever got in there with any shares in his bank.

Other people are interested in this and, believe me, on behalf of those people who are being victimized by fringe banking in low income neighbourhoods like mine, we owe it to them to give a far more thorough analysis of our once in five year opportunity to amend the laws governing financial institutions and to provide for related and consequential manners. We should not be having it rammed down our throat by a bunch of unelected senators, hacks, flaks and bagmen in the Senate, many of them recently appointed by the government.

With all due respect for the Senate of Canada, it has no business introducing legislation for the House of Commons to have to deal with. It is supposed to be the other way around.

I have talked briefly about the importance of charter banks. I will talk at length, if given the opportunity, on the importance of charter banks and their obligation to provide basic financial services to ordinary Canadians. They have reneged on that deal systematically over the last many decades, to the point where they are now charging money at an ATM. First, they brought in ATMs, presumably to save money so they could lay off bank tellers. Finally, when they got people used to the idea that they had to use ATMs, they started introducing service fees. So they are not only saving a fortune and posting record profits every quarter, even through the economic downturn, but they are gouging ordinary Canadians for $1.50 each way to take $20 out of their bank account. I would like to see the percentage charge on that, extrapolated over the lending fees associated with the usury provisions. I think in the Criminal Code of Canada, if more than 60% is charged they are guilty of usury.

Therefore, how is it that the Money Marts, the payday lenders and the title loan lenders in my riding are charging 1,000%, 1,500% and, in this one egregious example, 10,000% interest and the government of the day and the enforcement agencies regarding financial institutions are silent on the matter? Clearly something is fundamentally wrong.

I have notes about Bill S-5 but many of the observations and points being made here are so narrow and specific that they miss the big picture. More often than not in this place we do not see the forest for the trees and the fact is that we are not being well served by our financial institutions. We are being gouged by our financial institutions. We should be screaming from the rooftops condemning the treatment of ordinary Canadians by the gouging that is going on.

I have talked about the shareholders' rights efforts that we used to make. We should probably mention that again but I want to talk about one other thing in the global picture of how we view the relationship we have with the financial institutions that seem to have such great influence over this country.

I hear time and time again the government side bragging that we have the best banking regime in the world, that it is due to the wizardry of our Minister of Finance and that somehow everything is rosy in this regard.

I want to remind anyone listening today that were it not for the Herculean efforts of the NDP, not five or seven years ago, the charter banks of Canada would have been allowed to merge into massive institutions, as they wanted to do. They were dying to merge. They were asking permission. They were knocking on the door. The John Manleys and the Paul Martins of the world were eager to receive the message. Do members know why they wanted to merge? It is because they wanted to play in the big leagues in the biggest game in town. The biggest game in town at that time was the sub-prime mortgage industry. Our banks were too small to play a meaningful, realistic role in that industry sector but they were dying to merge so they could dive in there and we would have been in just as much trouble as the big institutions in the United States, crashing and burning in this catastrophic notion of bundling the sub-prime mortgages and marketing them as a financial product.

Fortunately, we managed to prevail and block the urge to merge. I remember the national campaign was purge the urge to merge. It was Lorne Nystrom's campaign, the NDP finance critic of the day, criss-crossing the country. I see he is outside here today. We should recognize and pay tribute to Lorne Nystrom because we owe him a great debt of gratitude. He is a big businessman and he knows something of these things.

It is our job and our obligation to ensure the financial institutions meet the needs of Canadians, not to have it rammed down our throat in a bill put forward by the undemocratic, unelected Senate.

[Ryan Leef, Conservative, Yukon, YT]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased for the opportunity to speak at second reading of Bill S-5, the financial systems review act.

I want to begin by noting that this legislation is vital to the stability of Canada's financial sector, and explain how it came before the House today. Every five years the government reviews the policy framework that governs federally regulated financial institutions. The last review was completed in 2007.

Launched on September 20, 2010, the current five year review began with the Minister of Finance inviting Canadians to share their views on how to improve our financial system through an open consultation process. This process has helped to ensure that Canada remains a global leader in financial services. Making sure that Canadians continue to have a strong and secure financial system, one that has been a model for countries around the world during the recent global turmoil, is a key priority for our Conservative government.

This bill would help ensure that our system continues to be recognized.

For the fourth year in a row, Canada was ranked as having the soundest banks in the world by the World Economic Forum. This strength has been widely recognized by independent observers, both here and abroad. An Ottawa Citizen editorial acknowledged that, and I quote:

Our banking and financial system is the envy of the world. While the great money edifices of countries such as the U.S., Britain and Switzerland cracked at the beginning of the recession, Canada's banks stood firm.

In the Toronto Sun columnist Peter Worthington has said:

Canada's banking system is now widely recognized as arguably the world's best. No Canadians fear for their deposits as many Americans do.

We have also been recognized beyond our borders. Indeed, we have heard from voices around the world.

When it recently renewed Canada's top-tier, AAA credit rating, Fitch, the world renowned credit rating agency, pointed out:

Canada's banks proved more resilient than many peers thanks to a conservative regulation and supervision environment.

The influential Economist magazine recently stated that:

Canada has had an easier time than most during the recent global recession, in part because of a conservative and well-regulated banking system.

The Irish Times commented recently that:

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.

U.K. Prime Minister David Cameron praised our system:

In the last few years, Canada has got every major decision right. Look at the facts. Not a single Canadian bank fell or faltered during the global banking crisis...Your economic leadership has helped the Canadian economy to weather the global storms far better than many of your international competitors.

I echo that high praise.

Moreover, I would like to add that the financial services sector is a constant presence in the daily lives of Canadians. The industry employs over 750,000 people in good, well-paying jobs. It represents about 7% of Canada's GDP. The sector is a key pillar of our economy through its role in fostering financial stability, safeguarding savings and fuelling the growth that is essential to Canada's economic success.

Canada is set apart from almost every country in the world through the implementation and practice of the mandatory five year review that produced the bill we are discussing today. This practice ensures that the laws governing our financial institutions are updated and responsive to a constantly changing global marketplace.

I would also add that the recent financial crisis helped us recognize the importance of a stable and well-functioning housing market to the economy and the financial system. While our banks and financial institutions remained sound, well capitalized and less leveraged than their international counterparts during the crisis, in order to ensure stability in our housing market our government proactively moved three times to adjust our mortgage insurance guarantee framework.

These adjustments included reducing the maximum amortization period to 30 years from 35 years for government-backed insured mortgages with loan-to-value ratios of more than 80%. We also reduced borrowing limits in refinancing and withdrew government insurance from home equity lines of credit.

These adjustments have been applauded by observers and economists alike. TD Economics praised the changes highly, stating that “these policy changes were prudent and act to help limit risk in Canadian real estate”.

Our government is committed to renewing the key elements of our financial system and bolstering it with new tools. We are committed to fine-tuning, clarifying, harmonizing and modernizing the existing framework. We are doing just that through the financial systems review act.

Canadians recognize that the current framework functions well. Canada's financial system continues to be recognized as one of the soundest in the world. From that solid foundation, the proposed legislative package includes measures that would modernize financial institutions' legislation to encourage financial stability and ensure Canada's financial institutions continue to operate in a competitive, efficient and stable environment. Measures would fine-tune the consumer protection framework, including enhancing the supervisory powers of the Financial Consumer Agency of Canada and improve efficiency by reducing the administrative burden on financial institutions and adding regulatory flexibility.

Other measures contained in this bill include: improving the ability of regulators to share information efficiently with international counterparts while respecting privacy laws; guaranteeing that all Canadians have the right to cash government cheques under $1,500 free of charge at any bank in Canada; and promoting competition and innovation by enabling cooperative credit associations to provide technology services to a broader market. The bill would reduce the administrative burden for federally regulated insurance companies offering adjustable policies in foreign jurisdictions by removing duplicative disclosure requirements.

I am happy to report that many public interest groups have shown strong support for today's bill. For example, the Canadian Life and Health Insurance Association proclaimed:

It is important that legislation be periodically reviewed so that it keeps up with the changing environment... The industry welcomes a number of measures outlined in [the financial system review act].

In summary, today's act would reinforce financial sector stability, fine-tune consumer protection provisions and adjust the regulatory framework so it can better adapt to new developments. It would provide for a framework that would benefit stakeholders in the financial services sector, financial institutions, as well as all Canadians who rely on our banking system daily. Our Conservative government recognizes that in order to remain an international leader in the area of financial sector stability, we must continually consider what regulatory changes are needed to foster competitiveness and to ensure the safety and soundness of our system.

Today's bill would maintain the long-standing practice of frequently reviewing the regulatory framework for financial institutions, ensuring that Canada remains the leader in this regard. I therefore urge all members to support the financial system review act, along with the sensible regulation of our banking system that has served us so well.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Madam Speaker, one of the things that Bill S-5 does not address is the patriot act. Canadians' personal information could be accessed in the United States through the patriot act. We need an international treaty to deal with that.

I wonder if the member supports the need for an international treaty. Without it, banking records and information and credit card information could be used by the U.S. government through its patriot act.