Debates of Sept. 20th, 2000

Motions For Papers

[Derek Lee, Liberal, Scarborough—Rouge River, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am informed as follows. There has never been a prosecution or an extradition case related to the Air India 182 bombing in 1985.

The investigation of criminal acts comes within the mandate of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police and it is not the practice of this House to require disclosure of matters under police investigation.

I would therefore ask the hon. member to withdraw his motion.

[Gurmant Grewal, Reform, Surrey Central, BC]

Mr. Speaker, Notice of Motion No. P-24 pertaining to the production of papers relating to the Air India bombing was introduced in June 1998 and reintroduced as P-11 in the new session.

It has taken a tremendously long time. The parliamentary secretary first denied that there were documents. In the interim the House was informed that the file had been referred to the justice department. Now I am told that the document could not be provided because of the ongoing RCMP investigation.

It shows there is a lack of political will on behalf of the government to provide justice for 329 people. I request that this matter be referred to the House, transferred for debate and a free vote.

[The Deputy Speaker]

Accordingly Motion No. P-11 is transferred for debate.

Motion P-24

That an Order of the House do issue for copies all documents, briefing notes, memos, minutes of meeting, consulting contracts and reports concerning the total taxes paid (including but not limited to: personal income tax, corporate income tax, sales taxes, fuel taxes, user fees, property taxes, royalties. Employment Insurance premiums, Canada Pension Plan premiums, Workers Compensation premiums, etc) to the federal, provincial and municipal governments by farmers in Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Alberta and British Columbia.

[Derek Lee, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, the Canada Customs and Revenue Agency finds the motion unacceptable for the reasons outlined as follows.

With reference to Marleau and Montpetit's House of Commons Procedure and Practice , chapter 10, “Responses to Orders for the Production of Papers—Exemptions” at pages 402 and 403, the documents as requested are:

Papers, the release of which might be detrimental to the future conduct of federal-provincial relations or the relations of provinces inter se (the release of papers received from provinces to be subject to the consent of the originating province).

Second, I refer to item 7 which says:

Papers of a voluminous character or which would require an inordinate cost or length of time to prepare.

Furthermore, the information as requested would likely be exempt from disclosure as the confidentiality provisions of section 241 of the Income Tax Act preclude the customs and revenue agency from disclosing any information concerning the income tax affairs of an individual taxpayer.

I would therefore ask the hon. member to withdraw his motion.

[Garry Breitkreuz, Reform, Yorkton—Melville, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I have listened to the excuses that the government has given with regard to this matter and I find them totally unacceptable. I would like to have this motion transferred for debate immediately.

[The Deputy Speaker]

The motion is transferred for debate.

[Derek Lee, Liberal, Scarborough—Rouge River, ON]

I ask, Mr. Speaker, that all Notices of Motions for the Production of Papers be allowed to stand.

[The Deputy Speaker]

Is that agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

Business Of The House

[Bob Kilger, Liberal, Stormont—Dundas, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Discussions have taken place among all parties and the member for Calgary Southeast concerning the taking of the division of Motion No. 160 scheduled at the conclusion of the second hour of private members' business today. I believe there would be consent for the following motion:

That at the conclusion of today's debate on M-160, all questions necessary to dispose of the said motion be deemed put, a recorded division deemed requested and deferred to Tuesday, September 26, 2000, at the expiry of the time provided for Government Orders.

[The Deputy Speaker]

Is there unanimous consent for the chief government whip to move the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Deputy Speaker]

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

(Motion agreed to)

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-38, an act to establish the Financial Consumer Agency of Canada and to amend certain acts in relation to financial institutions, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Financial Consumer Agency Of Canada Act

[Mark Muise, Progressive Conservative, West Nova, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have been given the opportunity to rise before the House to offer my support for Bill C-38, an act establishing the financial consumer agency of Canada and to amend certain acts in relation to financial institutions.

I believe the bill has been a long time coming. The PC Party of Canada, like most people associated with the banking industry, have been waiting for years for the government to enact such legislation.

I must say it has been a long wait. We have had task forces explore ways in which Canada could assist our banking industry. There has been much consultation and various reports presented to the government which have finally led to the drafting of this important piece of legislation. Bill C-38 is the culmination of a tremendous amount of effort by many people. These individuals should be congratulated.

The bill provides an overhaul of federal laws governing banks and other financial institutions. Changes being proposed in the legislation are expected to promote more efficiency and growth within the banking industry. The bill will allow increased share ownership for larger banks and provide financial institutions with an opportunity to do more through holding companies while also giving them a broader range of allowed investments. These changes will help our financial institutions compete in an ever changing global environment.

At present no single shareholder can own more than 10% of a large bank. The bill will raise that limit to 20% yet still prevent the control of a large bank by any single shareholder. The legislation will allow financial institutions an opportunity to create regulated, non-operating holding companies. These changes could allow smaller institutions to come together and compete with other larger institutions. Such competition could only be beneficial to the Canadian consumer.

Financial institutions could expand their investments in the fast growing e-commerce sector. Technology is quickly changing the way consumers conduct their financial affairs. Therefore it is imperative that our financial institutions be at the forefront of this new evolution.

It is very important to recognize that about 220,000 Canadians work in the banking industry in Canada. Even more impressive is the fact that more than 500,000 people work in the Canadian financial industry, a crucial industry in the Canadian economy.

Our financial services sector allows exports of nearly $50 billion worth of services each year. That represents 5% of Canada's GDP.

Over the past number of years our financial institutions have been under increasing pressure coming from our southern neighbours. Changes to our federal laws governing banks and other financial institutions are required if they are to compete in the global economy. I know that our banking institutions in West Nova can benefit from the changes being proposed in the legislation.

If I might digress, with the ever rising, ever higher profits that the banks are receiving, it is only appropriate that I mention small banks being closed in rural Canada, more specifically in my riding of West Nova. We have a small bank in Freeport on the islands off Digby Network. That bank has been there for years and years and is very important to the businesses that operate in that area. Yet we are advised that it is being closed.

Another bank in Caledonia in the riding of my colleague from South Shore is being closed as well. That bank affects individuals who do business in my nearby riding. In these times it is very important that even though we have to look at changes to how banks operate we still have to take into account how important these small banks are to our regional economies and to the areas they serve.

Over the past number of years our financial institutions have been under increasing pressure from our southern neighbours. As I said earlier, we have to enact changes that will permit our Canadian banks to work in the global economy.

Another industry that will be affected, and I am sure the banks in West Nova will appreciate this point, is the trucking industry which is faced with high and ever increasing diesel costs. If the price of diesel fuel is not soon reduced we will see our banks experiencing defaults on loan payments and becoming used truck industries. Their parking lots will be full of used trucks that truckers will not be able to afford to put fuel in and to make the payments on.

I am concerned that the cost of fuel will have a negative impact on our local economy by increasing the cost of goods which will in turn be another hard impact on consumers. I digress, but it is important that we touch on these issues because they play a very important role in our economy.

Let me go back to exploring the substance of the legislation. The bill will allow banks to set up a holding structure that could separately regulate subsidiaries such as retail banks, credit card companies and insurance firms.

Coming from the insurance industry prior to my political career, I know how difficult and how bothered insurance companies are by the potential for banks to market insurance. I am glad, and I am hopeful that the committee will study that. The PC Party in no way supports the sale of insurance by banks. For that matter, we also do not support the leasing of cars. That is one of the recommendations we will be continuing to push forward at committee.

The aim of the bill is to allow banks to evolve to meet competition and, at the same time, protect consumers. I would argue, however, that due to the government's slow reaction to the changes in the financial services sector, Canada has already fallen behind our global competition.

One thing is clear. After years of uncertainty from the current government, it has finally added some clarification and stability to the banking industry. The PC Party will be supporting this bill and we feel that this is the first step in the right direction.

[Pauline Picard, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to participate in the debate on this important bill. We have been talking about this bill for more than seven years, and we are at least two years late in dealing with legislation on financial institutions.

First of all, I would like to congratulate my colleague, the hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, on his hard work in the finance committee, his exceptional contribution, and the amendments he has moved on the legislation of banks and financial institutions.

World competition is increasingly fierce. The six major banks in Canada are small, compared to their international competitors.

When we compare our big banks to the American or the Asian banks, especially those in Japan, we find that what is needed is a legislative environment conducive to increasing the ability of our financial institutions to hold their own against international competition as well as the competition that will inevitably begin to appear within the markets of Quebec and of Canada.

The Bloc Quebecois supports the spirit of the proposed legislation and several of its provisions. However, if the amendments that we will put forward are rejected by the House, we will vote against Bill C-38 for three reasons.

First, Bill C-38 grants many powers to the Minister of Finance to determine all by himself what the future of the banks in Quebec will be.

Second, Bill C-38 provides no guarantee that the minister will take into consideration the specificity of Quebec's financial system.

Third, there is no concrete measure in Bill C-38 to ensure better access to financial services for the poor.

Under Bill C-38, which was introduced on June 13, 2000, the Minister of Finance will have the power to decide on his own the future of banks in Quebec. It is unacceptable for this discretionary power to be as strong as the act itself, if not stronger.

The Bloc Quebecois is concerned about the fact that a single shareholder could, with the approval of the Minister of Finance, hold a 65% interest in the National Bank, the largest Quebec-based bank.

There is no need for the Minister of Finance to allow this kind of excessive control to give the National Bank the flexibility it needs to continue to prosper.

How can a shareholder holding 65% of the shares of a bank give more flexibility than 65 shareholders each holding 1% of the shares? We need legislative guarantees against any negative impact these new ownership rules might have on employment of professionals, consumer services, small businesses, decision centres and the role of Montreal as an international financial centre.

The stakes are just too high to rely on only one man, the federal minister, especially since there are no legislative guarantees in the bill. Bill C-38 does nothing more than list some elements to consider that are under the sole control of the Minister of Finance.

Worse still, Bill C-38 is full of phrases like “The Minister may deem necessary” or “such and such a section of the Act will cease to apply if the minister so decides”.

In other words, this bill can be made to say whatever Ottawa and the Minister of Finance want, in terms of deciding on their own the future of Quebec's banks. It is not obvious that the finance minister's bill will bring about more healthy competition on the national market. But competition is more important for our future economic development than the creation of big banks to compete on the world market. Nonetheless the Minister of Finance has decided to make a law for big banks, even if that means sacrificing Quebec banks like the National Bank, which is the institution for small businesses in Quebec.

As far as consumer protection is concerned, the Minister of Finance remains vague and the bill is more wishful thinking than real political action. The bill establishes the financial consumer agency, which is intended to protect the consumer, according to the minister.

The Bloc Quebecois is a staunch defender of consumer rights. This is evidenced by the debate that we led regarding the privacy legislation, Bill C-54, which became Bill C-6.

We remind the government that Quebec already has legislation dealing with this issue, including the Consumer Protection Act, the Privacy Act and acts relating to insurance, trusts, credit unions and securities.

The establishment of a new agency is likely to create new regulatory overlap with the measures already taken by Quebec in an area which, after all, is a provincial jurisdiction.

The bill includes a provision called “low-fee retail deposit account” which, according to the minister, seeks to ensure access to financial services for low income people. No one except the minister really knows what this “low-fee retail deposit account” is. No one except the minister knows who will be able to open such an account, and no one except the minister knows whether this account will be accessible everywhere. Why? Because all these issues will be dealt with through regulations. For the time being we must be satisfied with the minister's fine rhetoric, but this is not enough of a guarantee to state that consumers will be better protected by the new legislation.

A notice by the bank is the only thing provided in Bill C-38 in the case of the closure of a bank branch or a reduction of services available to consumers. With such an unrestrictive provision, how can the Minister of Finance claim that there will be increased access to financial services? The minister is the only one convinced of that.

There are a number of problems with this bill and we intend to propose amendments at report stage. It is not an easy task, given the countless pages of the bill itself and of its schedules, all 900 pages of it. We realize that the discretionary power given to the Minister of Finance is much too great for a single individual.

It is like this Liberal government and its leader, the Prime Minister, who appoints all the ministers, senators, the Governor General of Canada, the lieutenant governors in all the provinces, the justices on the supreme court, and government officials, including those abroad.

Until recently, one man, the Prime Minister, had at his disposal the personal files of 34 million individuals, dead or alive, in Canada in the longitudinal file of Human Resources Development Canada. He also has a file on most journalists, concocted by the Canada Information Office, the official propaganda organ. And now we have the Minister of Finance going a step further and wanting to decide on his own, at his discretion, the future of Quebec's major banks. This sort of thing would make certain dictators drool.

Throughout the bill, whenever there are provisions concerning banks, insurance companies, trusts, anything to do with the financial sector, the minister always reserves the right to determine, based on criteria known to him alone, whether or not an operation is acceptable. He alone defines certain concepts such as low-fee retail deposit accounts.

Generally speaking, we would have liked more clarity regarding the decision making process and also more specifics regarding certain concepts, such as the low-fee retail deposit accounts for the poor.

We do not oppose increased consumer protection. However, we do oppose provisions that duplicate and overlap those that are already included in the Quebec consumer protection act. Consumer protection is an exclusive provincial jurisdiction. The Liberal government has a tendency to want to centralize everything. It is systematic, disgusting and often insidious.

As I said, the bill is important. It was also important that it be introduced in the House, but we oppose certain provisions and if our amendments are not approved at report stage, we will vote against this bill.

[Pierre De Savoye, Bloc, Portneuf, QC]

Mr. Speaker, in this business of the banks, one thing catches my attention. It is not necessarily something that surprises me. There are many things that unfortunately have stopped surprising me in the House since 1993. But this caught my attention.

There are some big banks in Canada. There are a few, not dozens, that are big. The National Bank, not to name names, is one of these big banks.

But when it comes to a bill like the one before us, the minister establishes two categories: the big banks which are bigger and the big bank which is the smallest. It happens that the latter is the National Bank. It is not surprising that it is the smallest, because it operates primarily in Quebec and Quebec represents only one quarter of the Canadian population. It is therefore not surprising that it is the smallest of the big banks, but it is still a big bank.

One might wonder why the Minister of Finance establishes two categories of big banks. This has repercussions because the big banks in the privileged category will not be able to be easily “sold” to foreign interests, while the other big bank, the smaller one, will.

If Quebec were a country, it would not have considered passing legislation that would have allowed its big bank to fall into foreign hands.

I can understand that Canada's Minister of Finance wants to introduce legislation so that these big banks cannot fall into foreign hands. But I wonder why he is prepared to sacrifice the smallest of the big banks, which happens to be a Quebec bank, and allow it to fall into foreign hands.

The legislation in its present form worries me. I am not the only one it worries; many others are concerned. I repeat that with this legislation, the young offenders legislation and other legislation, I am tired of not yet having my own country. That day cannot come soon enough for me.

The member for Drummond could perhaps give us her view of this situation.

[Pauline Picard, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for the information he just gave us to add to this debate.

I totally agree with him. One can wonder why this bill raises from 10% to 20% the percentage of shares of large banks that can be purchased by an individual.

The smallest bank, namely the National Bank, is based in Quebec. It is still a big bank, but, as my colleague explained, it operates in a smaller area since it is based in Quebec. An individual could hold 65% of the shares, which means that there is a greater risk of unfair competition.

A business person who holds a 65% interest in a bank like the National Bank could deny a loan to another business person, because this competitor could probably hurt his or her business. That is why we are saying that it could lead to unfair competition.

We cannot have one set of rules for the other big banks and another one for Quebec-based banks. What was the minister thinking when he decided to include this provision in the bill? Was it just another way of putting Quebec in its place?

Our economy is booming. Things are going well, but Quebec should not benefit from all that.

[Pierre Pettigrew, Liberal, Papineau—Saint-Denis, QC]

Come on.

[Pauline Picard, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

The federal government, this Liberal government, has set itself the additional duty of centralizing everything.

[Pierre Pettigrew, Liberal, Papineau—Saint-Denis, QC]

Things are fine in Quebec.

[Pauline Picard, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

I would point out to the Minister for International Trade things are not as fine as all that. He need only look at his former department, Human Resources Development.

[Pierre Pettigrew, Liberal, Papineau—Saint-Denis, QC]

Things are fine in Quebec.

[Pauline Picard, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

If things are going well in Quebec, it is because there are some Quebecers who have taken charge. His government is, however, still trying through every means possible to create problems for us and to centralize everything, because it wants to have all the power. There is no way we will allow that to happen.