Bill C-37 (Historical)

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 achieving three key objectives:
(i) enhancing the interests of consumers,
(ii) increasing legislative and regulatory efficiency, and
(iii) adapting those Acts to new developments;
(b) amendments to the Bills of Exchange Act to provide for the introduction of electronic cheque imaging; and
(c) 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 Bills of Exchange Act, the Canada Business Corporations Act, the Canada Deposit Insurance Corporation Act, the Canadian Payments Act, the Financial Consumer Agency of Canada Act, the Green Shield Canada Act, the Investment Canada Act, the National Housing Act, the Payment Clearing and Settlement Act and the Winding-up and Restructuring Act.

Bank Act

[Roy Cullen, Liberal, Etobicoke North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to speak to Bill C-37, An Act to amend the law governing financial institutions and to provide for related and consequential matters.

Last June, the Department of Finance released a policy paper on which much of the bill is based. The policy paper was commissioned by the previous Liberal government in preparation for the statutory five year review of the Bank Act.

The title of that white paper was “2006 Financial Institutions Legislation Review: Proposals for an Effective and Efficient Financial Services Framework”.

Given that it was inspired in large part by the white paper, the government's bill mirrors Liberal policy. The white paper stated that competition and disclosure are the best ways to protect the interests of consumers.

Consequently, we are seeing some positive measures in this area.

Bill C-37 would ensure that financial institutions provide greater and more timely disclosure to consumers in areas such as deposit type investment products and complaint handling procedures.

What these measures would ensure is that when a customer opens something like a savings or chequing account they are provided with all the information they require to make an informed decision. I think that little could be more important for consumers than ensuring that they have the appropriate information specific to the type of product they are purchasing.

The bill also makes some routine changes that need to be addressed every few years. The prime example of this is readjusting the equity thresholds that determine the size of financial institutions. When the Bank Act was last reviewed in 2001, it was determined that large institutions would be considered those that hold over $5 billion in equity.

Times do change, however, and as a result this bill proposes to increase that threshold to $8 billion to reflect growth in the sector and the general cost of living and inflation factors, small as they are.

Additionally, it would set a new threshold for what is considered to be medium sized institutions. These will be those institutions that hold between $2 billion and $8 billion in equity. As I said, these are some routine updates, but they are important nonetheless.

The bill also has a section devoted to electronic cheque imaging, something that we had asked to be addressed in the white paper. It would require banks and financial institutions to exchange electronic images of cheques, rather than physically exchanging them among themselves. Let us try to picture some five million cheques being transported from one financial institution to another every day, some of which must travel clear across the country.

Advances in recent technology means that this drawn out process is no longer required. Electronic images of the cheques can now be scanned, captured and transmitted in a safe and secure manner between banks. This saves time and it reduces the administrative burden. It is already used by several financial institutions and we have seen great results.

This measure will be very advantageous for both consumers and businesses because cheques will clear quickly. Once electronic cheque imaging becomes widespread, cheques will no longer have to be held for more than four days.

Our previous Liberal government was constantly searching for new technologies to make business and government more efficient. For instance, last year the Canada Revenue Agency began a move toward 2D bar coding for corporate tax returns which would allow tax software to generate a bar code that could be affixed to a company's tax return. When it arrives at the Canada Revenue Agency processing facility, all that is required of the CRA is to scan in the bar code and all of the data contained in the return is transferred electronically into the CRA's computers. This not only would allow for faster processing time but would significantly reduce the occurrences of human error that often goes hand in hand with manual data entry.

This was just a small aside, but I think it illustrates the point that we need to be cognizant of new technology and seize the opportunities that they present us with. I am glad that the Conservatives are following our lead on this particular issue.

I am also in favour of the section in the bill that would make it easier for credit unions to establish cooperative credit associations as a means of expanding their business opportunities. Currently, the Cooperative Credit Associations Act requires a minimum of 10 credit union members in order to form a cooperative credit association. This is a fairly high threshold that precludes many credit unions from forming cooperatives. I am happy to see that the minimum number will be reduced.

When our government reviewed the financial sector in 2001, there were key initiatives that we pursued when bank mergers were on the radar. We wanted to ensure that if bank mergers were ever proposed and were deemed in the public interest that there would be the opportunity for more competition and more products, services and choices available to Canadians through credit unions and foreign banks.

In questioning the minister earlier, I alluded to the fact that foreign banks, while they have an interest in doing business in Canada as the minister indicated, are doing well in certain areas. Most of their efforts are in the wholesale banking side because of the dominance in terms of retail branches across Canada that are maintained by Canada's chartered banks. However, I would encourage any measures in Bill C-37 that would create more opportunities for foreign banks to more aggressively enter the Canadian marketplace. This would give Canadian consumers more choice and more opportunities to shop around for different options and that is good for consumers and the Canadian economy.

I am glad to see that the minister is trying to deal with the credit unions as well. This is a great opportunity again for giving consumers more choice. I know the minister has indicated that there is no big appetite right now for bank mergers or cross-pillar mergers and I think that is a wise decision at this point in time. It is certainly providing clarity to the financial institutions with something that they were looking for.

However, at some point in time if the banks do come back, it would be important, for example, because certain branches of the credit unions would have to be divested and then perhaps foreign banks and others would be in a position to acquire those branches. In fact, the end result could be that consumers would have more choice, so I think it is important to try to build those institutions up in Canada so that Canadians do have more choice and more access to different products and services.

The minister talked about how the bill proposes to reduce the cost of mortgages for some borrowers by raising to 80% the loan to value threshold above which mortgage insurance is required by statute. The current threshold at which one requires mortgage insurance is 75%. Given changes in risk management practices and regulatory requirements, the white paper, which we commissioned under our government, made this exact recommendation. I am happy to see it included in the bill.

One area I am concerned about that did not receive enough attention in this bill is extending customer protection. Beyond the requirement I mentioned earlier that financial institutions provide greater and more timely disclosure to consumers in areas such as deposit type investment products, there is very little mention of helping other types of customers. The bill does not seem to offer similar types of protection for Canadians who take out a mortgage, for example.

June's white paper recommended that the government amend laws governing financial institutions to require them to give all consumers full access to their complaints process, either in their branches or online.

One of the central pillars of consumer protection is providing them with the information required to make the right initial choice of product and the information required to properly lodge a complaint and seek compensation if that product is defective. Yet, the bill has largely ignored this recommendation from the white paper.

I do not think the majority of Canadians are very familiar with what the complaints process is at their local banks and legislating information in that respect to be readily available would have been a great idea and is still a great idea. My riding and I am sure many of my colleagues' ridings receive calls and complaints about banks, service charges and a range of other things. There is a bank ombudsman and there is actually an ombudsman of all ombudspeople. That is a very useful mechanism.

I would be willing to bet that there are a good number of Canadians who do not even know that there is an ombudsman for banking services should they exhaust all the avenues available to them. The banking services ombudsman and his office do fine work. I have worked with them before on a number of issues. I would have liked to have seen a requirement for information about the services of the ombudsman be made readily available.

The white paper called for the streamlining of the ministerial approval process. Currently, there are numerous ministerial approvals required for a broad range of important financial sector transactions related to market entry, structure and competition, as well as financial institution ownership. There are also many routine transactions that require multiple ministerial signatures. This could be dealt with in a more efficient manner and this bill would ensure that happens.

The bill also contains a few items that go beyond the white paper. For instance, the bill proposes to reduce the number of resident Canadians who are required to sit on the board of directors at a Canadian owned financial institution. Currently, two-thirds of such directors must be residents of Canada. The bill proposes to reduce this requirement to more than half of the directors being Canadian.

I know this issue comes up when financial institutions in Canada look to merge or acquire assets in the United States by way of example. When they try to merge, very often the U.S. enterprise will say it will merge but it would like a stronger representation on the board of directors. Frankly, I would encourage our financial institutions to grow north-south. This would give them options beyond just looking to cross-pillar mergers in Canada. This is a positive step.

The two-thirds requirement worked well in the past, but these days, our financial institutions have added a major international component to their activities. Relaxing these requirements would promote the growth and enhance the competitiveness of Canadian institutions on the world economic stage.

I brought up with the Minister of Finance the question of data processing outside of Canada. The proposal in Bill C-37 says the approval of the Superintendent of Financial Institutions would be eliminated for the processing of information of data outside of Canada. While I appreciated the minister's remarks, I think that is in the domain of the Privacy Commissioner.

If a financial institution in Canada was proposing to outsource some of its data processing outside of Canada, keeping superintendent approval is probably still a wise thing to do because before the superintendent would give his or her approval, he or she would presumably ask whether the Privacy Commissioner had been consulted and whether the transactions would protect the privacy interests of Canadians. I am sure the superintendent and the Minister of Finance do not mean to pass this off to someone else to get out of a sticky situation. I am sure that is not the motivation.

Whatever the motivation, the government and perhaps a committee should look at whether this is a wise thing to do given the recent events where certain data processing activities in the United States came under the purview of the patriot act. The confidential information of Canadians was perhaps compromised.

As I said earlier, our government made changes to the financial sector framework in 2001 to set up the process where any bank merger would be required to pass a parliamentary committee test as to whether or not it was in the public interest. That was a good move.

However, in that period, the finance committee of the House of Commons did not review cross-pillar mergers. A cross-pillar merger would be, for example, when a Canadian bank wishes to merge with a Canadian insurance company. The minister has signalled that he is not interested right now in any sort of cross-pillar merger proposals, but if that day ever comes, the public interest criteria and framework that was set up for potential bank mergers needs to be looked at by the House of Commons Standing Committee on Finance because that work was not done for cross-pillar mergers.

Unfortunately, I am not at the stage where I could have proposed amendments to the Bank Act, but that may come one day. I just have to do more work on this particular issue.

An area of interest to me has to do with Internet betting. The Woodbine Racetrack is in my riding of Etobicoke North, and it is expanding at an incredible rate. It is developing its property to include the concept of Woodbine Live, which will have entertainment, hotels, shopping, et cetera. One of the issues that is of great importance to Woodbine is the growth in Internet betting which is actually taking some of its market share away. The irony is that Internet betting is illegal, but no one seems to want to prosecute. As a racetrack, Woodbine is regulated very carefully by the provincial and federal governments. It would be happy to get into the game of Internet betting if everybody else was doing it, but it is reluctant to do so because of the regulatory regime that oversees its operations. It could lose its licence.

I have looked at this from a number of different angles. I have tried to engage the RCMP and the Ontario Provincial Police. No one seems to really be interested in seeking prosecutions in this area. One way to come at it is to do what has been done in the United States where it is illegal for banks to accept cheques, debit or credit cards for Internet betting activity.

Yesterday we debated a bill sponsored by my colleague from Bourassa with respect to video terminals in bars and restaurants. Young people could become addicted, and not just young people, but many people do become addicted. The reality is there are some people who sit in their homes, go online and play poker on their computers at poker.com, et cetera. I have never done it myself but I am told that in order to do that, people have to use a credit card or a debit card to create some credit authority.

If there were changes made to the Bank Act that the banks would not accept debit cards or credit cards associated with online Internet betting, this might be a way of trying to limit some of these activities. It would make sure that the playing field was level for organizations in my riding such as the Woodbine Racetrack, which has a very proud reputation in Canada. It hosts the Queen's Plate annually. It is a great institution and I am very proud of it.

In conclusion, I think that all parties can agree this bill contains some much needed updates for our financial institution legislation. I personally do not think the bill contains anything particularly contentious. I will be happy to provide it with my support, with the caveat that if it is referred to committee, the committee should look at a couple of the issues that I have raised today.

[Roy Cullen, Liberal, Etobicoke North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I want to go back to my earlier question for the minister, which he did not have time to address, dealing with foreign bank entry and competition from foreign banks, which has the opportunity and potential to increase consumer choices and product lines for Canadians. The advantage for some of the Canadian charter banks is that they have retail branches across Canada.

I am wondering what changes he is proposing in Bill C-37, in lay terms, that he thinks will make a difference and allow more foreign bank competition in our financial markets.

[Jim Flaherty, Conservative, Minister of Finance]

moved that Bill C-37, An Act to amend the law governing financial institutions and to provide for related and consequential matters, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to lead off the debate, at second reading, of Bill C-37, which amends the legislative framework governing financial institutions operating in Canada.

This proposed legislation is significant for a number of reasons.

First of all, it will go a long way toward improving our entrepreneurial advantage in Canada, one of the five advantages at the core of our government's new long term economic plan for Canada, called Advantage Canada.

Advantage Canada sets out to create several advantages for our country: a tax advantage, a fiscal advantage, a knowledge advantage, an infrastructure advantage, and, as I mentioned, an entrepreneurial advantage for Canadian families, students, workers and seniors.

To gain an entrepreneurial advantage, we must build a more competitive business environment by reducing unnecessary regulation and red tape and improving services for consumers, so this bill is significant for another reason as well. It will have a positive impact on one of the most important drivers of our economy, and that is the financial services sector. This sector is one of the key foundations on which our economy, indeed any modern industrial economy, rests.

On a broader scale, this important sector plays a unique role in ensuring financial stability, safeguarding savings and fueling the growth that is essential for the success of the Canadian economy.

Moreover, the financial services sector plays a significant part in the daily lives of Canadians. Beyond those of us who use their services, the financial services industry employs about 700,000 Canadians in good, well-paying jobs. It represents about 6% of Canada's GDP and is a leader in the use of information technology.

We can no doubt appreciate the importance of ensuring that the framework governing this important and influential sector is current and effective.

Canada's new government is committed to doing just that with the proposals contained in this bill before the House today.

Before I outline the proposals in the bill, I would like to make a few remarks about the consultation process that led to this review of the financial institutions statutes and the legislation before the House today.

A representative number of stakeholders have shared their comments on the 2006 review of the financial sector legislation.

Overall, stakeholders generally agreed that no major overhaul is needed, but many believe, as we do, that some steps could be taken to refine the legislative framework.

Stakeholders also made specific proposals for technical amendments. Those submissions in the consultations resulted in a white paper issued by the Department of Finance this past June, entitled “2006 Financial Institutions Legislation Review: Proposals for an Effective and Efficient Financial Services Framework”.

For the most part, the white paper is the basis for Bill C-37, which contains the government's proposals to amend the legislative framework for financial institutions. These proposals are aimed at achieving three key objectives: first, improving service for customers; second, increasing legislative and regulatory efficiency; and, third, adapting the framework to new developments.

Together, these objectives will contribute to a modern and competitive financial sector framework in which businesses of all sizes and consumers from every corner of the country will continue to be well served.

I would now like to briefly outline the intent of the three objectives contained in Bill C-37.

The first is improving service for customers.

Consumers are taking greater responsibility for their financial affairs. At the same time, we are seeing an increase in the breadth and complexity of financial products, service providers and delivery channels. Clearly, this means more choice for consumers. At the same time, it makes it more difficult for them to make informed choices in the marketplace.

That is why Canada's new government is acting to ensure that services are improved and customers are adequately protected. The government believes that the best approach to improving services for consumers is through competition and disclosure.

On the one hand, competition provides more choices to consumers and allows them to find financial products and services that best suit their individual goals and needs, at competitive prices. Disclosure, on the other hand, ensures that consumers and businesses alike have the relevant information they need to make the best decisions in light of the choices available to them.

As we all know from newspaper and TV ads, the range of financial services and products offered to consumers continues to evolve. In order to assist consumers to make choices, the disclosure regime for our financial institutions framework needs to stay current to accommodate the different types of products and services in the marketplace.

The proposed changes to the framework contained in this bill reflect that principle.

One example of consumer protection measures in the bill is with respect to online disclosure. As we know, federally regulated financial institutions must disclose in their branches information on the products and services they provide to their customers and the public. Many Canadians today are opting for the convenience of the Internet to meet their banking needs and current disclosure requirements do not extend to the online world.

To ensure that consumers have sufficient information, the bill proposes, first, to harmonize online and in branch disclosure requirements to allow consumers to compare products more easily and, second, to ensure adequate disclosure is provided to customers conducting transactions online.

The intent of this proposed measure is to provide consumers with the information they need in order to make informed decisions.

The second major objective of the bill is to increase the efficiency of legislation and regulations governing the Canadian financial sector.

The regular review of the financial sector statutes allows this government to amend the framework as necessary so that financial sector legislation and regulations continue to be both effective and efficient.

Bill C-37 addresses a number of key areas identified in the review to achieve increased legislative and regulatory efficiencies.

One such area that is quite relevant to many Canadians is the area of residential mortgages. Mandatory insurance for high ratio mortgages was introduced over 30 years ago as a prudential measure to ensure that lenders are protected against fluctuations in property values and associated defaults by borrowers.

Of course, the marketplace has changed since then. Among other things, the risk management practices of lenders have improved significantly and the supervisory framework for federally regulated financial institutions has been strengthened significantly. This means that some homeowners may be paying more for mortgage insurance than they need to.

The proposed amendments to Bill C-37 reduce the cost of mortgages for some families by raising the loan to value ratio requiring mortgage insurance from 75% to 80%. This will lower the mortgage down payment consumers are required to make before the law requires the purchase of mortgage insurance. This proposal will create an opportunity for mortgage cost savings and ensure that more young families can realize the dream of owning their own home.

Another key area identified in the legislative review called for improvements to the regulatory approval regime. Ministerial approvals are currently required for a broad range of financial sector transactions related to market entry, structure and competition, as well as financial institution ownership.

There are, however, transactions that the minister reviews that are routine and do not raise significant policy issues. Bill C-37 proposes measures to streamline the regime to ensure that these transactions are dealt with more expeditiously.

As we know, the rate of change in the financial services sector has increased dramatically in recent years. Financial institutions must be able to respond to developing trends such as globalization, convergence, consolidation, and technological innovation. This adaptation to market changes often results in the creation of new products and services and innovative ways of doing business.

The government needs to ensure that the framework regulating financial institutions is up to date to allow them to respond to these changes so that they can evolve and grow. At the same time, the government is also committed to protecting consumers and small businesses adequately while maintaining the overall safety and soundness of the financial system.

Bill C-37 does that and more.

One way that this bill will improve our financial system is by allowing for the implementation of electronic cheque imaging. Currently banks process about one billion paper items, mostly cheques, annually valued at over $3 trillion.

The process of clearing a cheque includes the physical delivery of the cheque to the paying or issuing financial institution in order for it to decide whether or not to make the payment. This process is more labour intensive, time consuming and costly than necessary, particularly given today's developments in technology.

The proposal in this bill to allow for the implementation of electronic cheque imaging will result in significant efficiency gains, saving time and resources currently dedicated to the transport of cheques. This will allow banks to keep their costs down, a benefit that needs to be passed on to customers to ensure that the efficiencies derived from electronic cheque imaging will be shared by all users of the payment system.

Another proposal in this bill relates to cheque hold periods. For most large banks, the maximum hold period on cheques deposited with tellers is 10 days. While the government recognizes the importance of cheque hold periods for risk management, a concern remains about the length of time that consumers may be subject to these hold periods. Cheque holds not only affect consumers who need to access funds to pay their bills, but also small and medium sized businesses that need to pay employees and operate their businesses out of the funds they deposit.

While the proposed legislation would be facilitating the establishment of a limit on the time that banks can hold a cheque, the government is finalizing the agreement with the banking industry. The agreement will reduce the maximum hold period immediately to seven days and reduce it further to four days once electronic cheque imaging is fully implemented.

This change will be a significant improvement over the current maximum hold period of 10 days or more. It is a major step forward for consumers and businesses. It will increase efficiency and free money up more quickly, having a positive impact on the Canadian economy overall.

In summary, the measures proposed in this bill will amend the legislative framework governing financial institutions in order to achieve three key objectives.

First and foremost, the bill proposes steps to improve services for consumers. Second, Bill C-37 would increase legislative and regulatory efficiency and contribute to a framework where financial institutions could grow and prosper in the global marketplace. Third, the proposed amendments in Bill C-37 would allow financial institutions to adapt to new trends in the industry by providing a framework that is up to date and, above all, dynamic.

I urge all members to give Bill C-37 careful consideration.

Opposition Motion—Health Care

[Jean-Claude D'Amours, Liberal, Madawaska—Restigouche, NB]

Mr. Speaker, thank you for giving me a few minutes to debate a very important motion that is before this House today. I have the honour of being the health critic for the Liberal Party of Canada. The motion before us today has a direct bearing on the work I do as a parliamentarian for the people in my riding, Madawaska—Restigouche.

Today, we are debating a very important motion, introduced by my colleague, the hon. member for Brampton—Springdale. I would like to read the motion so that everyone can understand its importance to all Canadians. The motion reads as follows:

That, in the opinion of the House, the Conservative government has broken its promise to reduce medical wait times and to provide the necessary funding and resources to achieve the goals of the First Ministers’ Accord on Health Care Renewal.

This motion says it all. It expresses exactly how the Conservative government has fallen short of the mark, exactly what promise it has broken. It made that promise to Canadians during the last federal election campaign and, today, it has broken that promise.

If we listen more closely to the parliamentarians on the government side, we will certainly notice something: it is always someone else’s fault if the government fails to act. The government’s inaction is always someone else’s fault. This is real cause for concern. People have started to react, for example yesterday in the riding of London North Centre. We saw very clearly how the people of Canada are reacting to the inaction of the Conservative government.

Health care numbers among the treasures that we have acquired here in Canada over the years, and that is certainly not thanks to the Conservative government. It has not contributed anything. The current government is clearly trying to dissociate itself from former Conservative governments. I know, though, that this Conservative government is the most extremist that we have seen in this country for decades, maybe even centuries.

In 1957, we instituted health insurance in Canada. It was certainly not a government like the current one that did that. It was a Liberal government which believed in the supreme importance of giving Canadians what they needed to be treated within a reasonable amount of time.

Let us look further at the history of health insurance in Canada. As I just said, it was first established in 1957. The Parliament of the time passed the Hospital Insurance and Diagnostic Services Act. Therefore, it is not just since yesterday that we have been talking about health care and trying to improve the lives of Canadians. The current government, though, just made promises that it still has not kept.

The 1957 act provided for free short-term hospital care and radiological and laboratory diagnostic services. The word “free” is the key word here. However, there is more to it. Being free does not mean that the services should take an eternity. They are free because Canadians decided to pay for a health care system that would provide treatment, whether for their children, themselves, their parents, their families, or their brothers and sisters. It was Canadian citizens who decided to provide these services. We must also take the development of the system into account. The major step taken in 1957 was a revolution in health care.

However, there was more. In 1966, the Medical Care Act was passed. It provided for free medical services. That too was incredible, and it is good to see that it was a Liberal government that worked for this.

Thus, I know the future will be rosy for the citizens of this country in a short while, when the Liberal Party is able to resume power in Ottawa and bring back the things that are important to Canadians, including health care.

I would remind the House of the $41.2 billion that the Liberal government—my government, during my first term—handed over in 2004, in the context of the health care accord. The $41.2 billion project was important to ensuring that all the provinces and territories would have the money they needed to provide health care services.

This does not mean passing the buck to the provinces—as the government did in this case—and telling them to do as they are told, without providing the funds they need to do so.

Let us recall what happened in 2004. In September, a few months after my first election, the Liberal government signed a health care accord with the provinces and territories. That accord is better known as the 10 year plan to strengthen health care. Strengthen has many meanings. It means creating a solid foundation and ensuring the future of health care for Canadians. The 10 year plan also set a deadline of December 31, 2005 for establishing a benchmark for medical interventions.

Even though the Conservative Party decided to defeat the government in November 2005, we are proud that the priorities that were supposed to be set by December 31 were set on December 12, 2005. Those priorities are cancer treatment, cardiac treatment, sight restoration, joint replacement and diagnostic imaging.

The first item I mentioned was cancer treatment. Today, cancer affects many citizens. Is there anyone in this House who has not had a family member diagnosed with cancer? Is there anyone in this House who does not know someone, a friend or relative, who has had to endure cancer treatments? This is a common reality that I have experienced several times over. It is certainly not easy, and it is even more difficult to endure when there are long wait times for diagnosis and care.

I remember one personal experience when a friend's doctor said that treatment was one thing but that morale was far more important. When it takes months and months to get the diagnosis and the necessary services, of course morale will suffer.

If we want to help patients keep their morale up, we have to guarantee reasonable wait times for services. Reasonable wait time does not mean six months or a year. Reasonable wait time is soon after diagnosis.

We are spending a lot of time talking about emergency wait times today because in some places in Canada, not far from here or from my riding, even right in my riding sometimes, emergency room wait times are almost unacceptable, if not completely unacceptable.

Sometimes it seems to me that we are playing with Canadians' quality of life. But the reality is even worse: we are playing with their health.

I repeat what I said earlier: Canadians have paid for a health care system with the taxes they pay every year. They paid for it today, yesterday, 10 years ago, even 20 years ago. And Canadians will keep on paying, because they believe that Canada must have proper health care. But is it acceptable to wait eight hours in an emergency room—and that is a real example—before finding out what is wrong? No, it is not. It is not acceptable, because in eight hours, something very bad could happen. Wait times must not be so long that people get sicker or die because they are not diagnosed or do not receive the necessary treatment. In an emergency, wait times must be reasonable.

Here is the best way to handle things. When I was a city councillor and when I was serving my first and second terms as a federal MP, I always believed that it was best to promise things that you think you can deliver. If you do not think you can do something as an MP or a politician, do not promise to do it.

It is always easier to promise something. We can promise the earth, but that is not what Canadians want. They want us to promise them things that we think we can achieve.

If the current government could make good on its promise to provide Canadians with better health care, why has it not done so? Canadians certainly will not have more confidence in this government if it does not keep the promise it made during the last federal election. It is already evident that the public has lost confidence in this Conservative minority government.

Health is one thing, and medical wait times are another. We also have to look at other important related issues if we want to improve people's quality of life and ensure that people who are sick can live decently while they are ill.

Last week, we had the last period of debate on Bill C-278 introduced by my Liberal colleague from Sydney—Victoria. We will soon vote on this. It is a private member's bill on employment insurance, which calls for the benefits period to be increased from 15 weeks to 50. What a nice gesture and what a nice thought from a Liberal member. I am extremely proud, first, to be a Liberal and, also, that it was my colleague who introduced this private member's bill.

What disappoints me a little, a lot even, are the unfavourable comments about this bill by the government members. How can they be against an insurance that offers acceptable and decent income to those who need it the most? It is not easy to be sick, but not having money to get over the illness is certainly even more difficult.

There is another aspect that people often forget. Let us think back to September 25. I know that some members of the government do not want us to talk about it. Many of them, if not the entire government, want us to stop talking about it in the hope that Canadians have forgotten about the major cuts announced on September 25. I will not list them because I would not have enough time today during this period to mention them all. However, I will spend some time on one aspect, which, in my opinion, has a direct link to health care. I am talking about literacy.

The government made $18 million in cuts to literacy. This is unacceptable because these cuts affect the least fortunate. Let us look at a concrete example—such an easy example—of an older person. We know there are large number of illiterate people in this country. We may not like it, but such is the reality. And remember that the President of the Treasury Board said that illiterate adults are a lost cause. On the contrary, adults who have difficulty reading and writing need more help.

Let us take the real example of an individual who goes to the hospital or the doctor and needs medication. The patient will have to purchase the medicine at a pharmacy and read the instructions on the package. That has an effect on wait times. Do you think that a person who cannot read very well will want to go to a hospital knowing that they will have to go and get the medication and read the instructions, but cannot do it? Maybe they will only understand some of the instructions. What will happen? Perhaps this person will not use the medication properly or take it at the wrong time, which may have more serious consequences than the illness itself.

We are examining the aspect of wait times, but the whole issue of literacy is also crucial. I am convinced that my Conservative colleagues opposite do not agree with me on this. However, it is a reality that the functionally illiterate have to live with every day. Even though they receive care, when they get their medication they cannot read the proper dosage, when to take the medication and what are the contraindications. All that information is there for a reason, a very specific reason: to ensure that the individual can progress and heal. Imagine if that person is unable to properly read the information. Imagine if that person is already ill. How can they look after themselves properly if they are unable to read the information provided with the medication?

These are direct links, links that we must respect and understand. We must show compassion for the most disadvantaged in our society, even if the current government has a great deal of difficulty with this.

On the subject of wait times, according to the Canadian Medical Association, 38% of Canadians say that they have already experienced unacceptable delays while waiting to see a specialist. Here I am referring only to seeing a specialist. I spoke earlier about the emergency situation. The fault does not lie with the personnel, the nurses or doctors. They do everything they can to provide proper services, but what is lacking is sufficient funding.

We are told that 38% of Canadians have already encountered problems and wait times that are too long, when they need to see a specialist. Now, imagine how long one has to wait in emergency rooms to see a doctor. I gave an example earlier of an eight-hour wait. We have already seen wait times of 12 hours, and on the news they have talked of waiting 24 hours. That is not something unusual. Those are things that we see and hear of regularly.

If we want to eliminate “regularly” and “usual” from this situation, we must be able to provide funding—and also keep our promises—to provide the tools that will ensure that Canadians have access to health care services within a reasonable period of time.

We have heard that 20% of Canadians say that they have had to wait for access to advanced diagnosis. Behind that statement lies a factor that I referred to previously, namely cancer. More than 20% of Canadians say that they have had to wait for access to advanced diagnosis. What are we waiting for? What are we waiting for to provide Canadians with these services?

I certainly hope that what this government is waiting for will not be an even longer wait, because Canadians need these services. In addition to cancer, we also hear about heart problems. Across the country we are seeing an increase in obesity. I understand that heart problems are not related only to obesity but that it is one of the causal factors.

Why does the government not want to act immediately in a concrete way to provide Canadians with the services that they are paying for and that they deserve?

There is worse still when we examine the situation. Wait time guarantees are one thing, but there are other factors. If someone can not be looked after in one location, he or she can look for care in another hospital. That could be a proper solution. In this House, the government has also made comments that Canadians could also seek treatment in other countries. One of the things that concern me today, now, in 2006, is a situation that could develop, where Canadians are told that we are not going to provide services here in Canada—because we do not want to invest the necessary sums of money—but that we are going to send them elsewhere for treatment.

When they say “elsewhere”, I hope they do not mean in the United States. I hope this government is not going in that direction.

Bank Act

[Jim Flaherty, Conservative, Minister of Finance]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-37, An Act to amend the law governing financial institutions and to provide for related and consequential matters.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)